In my experience as a lawyer representing individuals, the vast majority of people whom I've represented have been detained for identity purposes. I understand the logic behind that and I wouldn't argue with the logic behind it. However, sometimes I would argue with the way in which it is used by immigration decision-makers, because there are times when people come from situations that are inherently virtually impossible to come with identification documents that are satisfactory for the immigration division.
The only thing I would encourage in this respect is for the committee to urge Parliament and decision-makers to think about creative ways of confirming identity. There are creative ways out there that immigration division members and I have fashioned to allow someone to be released, to recognize it is in no one's interest to detain anyone, to come up with these creative ways, such as several affidavits confirming identity in lieu of formal identity documents, and have the means for letting people out earlier than they are being let out right now.
I'll leave it at that.