I agree with the intent behind this.
The language in G-3 is in line with how the act reads, generally. The language as it's written in NDP-4, to me, says it in a backwards fashion. “If the minister believes there are reasonable and probable grounds that it's necessary” would be, to me, a proper way to put it. It falls in line with the way the wording is in the act for that type of language.
That's all I'm suggesting. It says the same thing, but one says it one way and one says it in an NDP-backwards sort of way.