We aren't talking here about criminals or known terrorists; we're talking about people who arrived irregularly. This detention is mandatory for national security purposes. I'm now going to address the expert witnesses.
What we're seeing here is the same criterion as in the War Measures Act during the October Crisis in 1970, namely, a presumption of guilt, meaning that people can be incarcerated without benefiting from habeas corpus. So I have a very simple question for you: what reasons in this legislation could make it possible to circumvent the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? With the Singh and Charkaoui decisions, it's clear that we cannot detain someone without a lawful order.
In those conditions, I would like to know how, when you drafted your bill, you were able to make it so the charter would not apply.