Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The confusion that will arise around the language in the bill now also relates to detention, which is why I think this amendment is even more relevant.
As Professors Roach and Forcese have put forward:
If CSIS wishes to detain or interrogate, it will do so for threat disruption purposes, not “law enforcement”. The government’s peculiar language does precisely nothing to dispel concerns about a system of CSIS “security detention” or “detention for security interrogation.” Given the disturbing experience in other jurisdictions after Sept. 11, 2001, the absence of an express, emphatic bar on detention is alarming.
That's their view, as legal experts. This amendment attempts to address that by explicitly prohibiting detention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.