I think there definitely could be things done to tighten up the withdrawal questions.
We would start by saying that, people should simply still be allowed to withdraw and we've noted that in our recommendations. If the person had reasonable grounds to suspect that there had been false or deceptive information given, or that they were committing an offence in relation to their presence in pre-clearance—for example, casing out the joint, as we've heard, and those kinds of concerns—and if there was a genuine suspicion of that, we would be more comfortable with a limitation like that on stopping someone from withdrawing to begin with.
There aren't three states in law: free to go, detained, and “Hold it right there, you have to answer my questions and I won't unreasonably delay you.” That is detention. If you're not free to go, you're detained. We say, at law, that there needs to be a stronger trigger for that than simply, “I want to ask you questions.”
I think if you tightened up why you could ask those questions to start with, then the actual questions and the things you have to do in that situation, perhaps become more palatable. I'm not signing off that it would necessarily be constitutional, but I think that perhaps that gets us closer in that direction.