I certainly appreciate that. I'm just stating examples of where our detention legislation in Bill C-31 is actually not as aggressive as it may be in some other countries.
I think you would understand that as we were developing the policy, we did look to what other countries were doing that were not accused of being in contravention of the UN convention on refugees.
I have another example. I just returned from the Netherlands, and in my meetings with officials, I was surprised to learn about one of the aspects of detention they use when individuals destroy their documentation after they arrive at the airport. When individuals walk up to the visa officers, immigration officers, and indicate that they arrived in the Netherlands with absolutely no identification, those individuals are then held and detained at the airport until their information...or at least until information is available to determine who these individuals are.
At the airport, if they are determined, there and then, not to have an issue with respect to asylum, it is the airline that is actually responsible for flying these individuals back to their country of origin.
I'd like to get your thoughts on that. I certainly entertain the recommendation that you made that there are alternatives. I'd also point out that there are other countries that are far more aggressive than Canada in terms of detention, number one.
The second is that we're in a position of not being as aggressive as a number of other countries that we partner with in a lot of other areas. So I would submit that you would have to take a look at that when you're viewing this, because that's exactly what we did, and you're viewing other countries in terms of their detention law versus the one that we're bringing forward here.