I think the clearest example here is probably what happens in Australia. In Australia there are quite a lot of irregular arrivals, and in much greater numbers than in Canada because of the structure of the Australian immigration system. There are two primary devices used, even in the context of the Australian system, to ensure that people are detained for the minimal amount of time required.
The first of those devices is that there is a massive system for legal support and representation for people who are detained, and there are extensive government contracts for lawyers to work in Australian migration detention centres—that's a little-known feature of the Australian mandatory detention system.
There's also a priority, for anybody who is detained, for those people to be processed first, before anybody else. One of the problems encountered by the refugee bar in British Columbia, where a number of these boat arrivals have occurred—the most recent boat arrivals have all been out here—is that the refugee bar just doesn't have the resources to give people the proper legal representation to allow these things to move quickly.
So thinking about how to resource that will really ensure that detention is at a minimum, as will also looking at some other alternatives to detention, such as the kinds of conditions on which individuals get bailed into the community in the United States. There's also a significant detention scheme there that's not as blanket as Australia's and involves alternatives to detention, such as having people regularly report into an immigration office, having some monitoring, and accommodating people in designated areas at state expense. Often in a mass arrival situation, people don't have anywhere to live, and they don't know where to live. One way to keep tabs on them is to provide them with a place to live, for example.
So there are a few ideas that will address the same kind of issue that the government is chasing in Bill C-4.