I would just add that the threshold of reasonable grounds to suspect is not unfamiliar to the Criminal Code. In fact existing provisions in the Criminal Code already have that threshold. But other provisions, because they're more intrusive, have “reasonable grounds to believe” threshold.
I think the important aspects in these cases are when it comes to preservation. We're not acquiring any information at the time. What we're asking is: hold that, we're coming back. We think a crime has been committed, but let us go away and gather more evidence so that we can come back with the proper production order, so that the evidence is preserved and is available for us to see at a future point.
But other provisions, such as going to a financial institution to obtain the name and account information of a person, exist at the “reasonable grounds to suspect” threshold. A tracking device today is at a “reasonable grounds to suspect” threshold, as is dial number recorder, which is consistent with the new tools that are being offered here, with the exception.... Actually, in one provision the threshold is actually increasing when it is a device that I would normally carry on myself. Recognizing that potential intrusiveness of that, I think the drafters increased the level to reasonable grounds to believe.