The concept of detention means different things in different contexts. In some cases it may give rise to treatment that would amount to bodily harm, but not necessarily. People are detained at the border for inspection purposes, but they don't necessarily find themselves subjected to bodily harm or treatment that is referred to in the act.
If I might, I would just indicate that the reference to CSIS not having law enforcement powers, as the member indicated, was intended to address the concern that certain powers associated with a law enforcement agency were not being given to CSIS. The important point that was reflected in the drafting is that CSIS as an agency cannot take it upon itself to exercise those powers. It has no power and never has had a power to detain or arrest or imprison. Nothing in this bill changes that.
When the concept of detention is used, for example, again, to repeat myself, the service has never had a power to detain. That is a peace or police officer power that is conferred either by common law or by statute. It doesn't find itself in CSIS.
The point is that in the course of CSIS operations they may, in fact, identify opportunities to take measures to interfere with a person's movement. What the act provides is that if CSIS wishes to do that, and if to do that would contravene the law, they have to obtain judicial authorization. The important point in the legislation that we tried to reflect in the drafting was that it was never up to CSIS to make that decision on its own; it would always fall to a judge to make that determination.