Yes. I think as the minister explained at the first meeting of the committee, the government's position is that the bill is defensible under the charter. In taking that position, it's important to keep in mind that charter analysis is contextual, and that if and when a court is asked to look at the constitutionality of the bill, it will look very closely at the context of the problem the bill is trying to deal with.
In that respect, it's going to look at the important objectives the bill is trying to achieve, and that is primarily, as I think you've heard explained on previous occasions, confirming the identity and investigating the admissibility of persons who arrive in Canada in an irregular manner. It will look at the challenging operational context the government and its officials are faced with when that sort of irregular arrival comes to Canada, and it will compare the legislative tools that are available to the government under this bill with those that are used in other countries with similar immigration systems.
It's important to keep in mind that the detention regime will be assessed looking very closely at the conditions that lead to it being triggered, that is the designation criteria, and those designation criteria are tailored to limit or focus the ability to make a designation, which triggers these powers to those situations where they are truly needed. You can look at the wording there, and we've been through that already.
I think it's important to emphasize again that it's the context that matters here, and that context will be foremost in the constitutional analysis. For that reason, it's the government's position that it is defensible under the charter.