That, in spirit, is precisely the direction to be taken. I have some concerns regarding the process. It has been pointed out that the shortcomings of the absence of an appeal is something to be seriously considered as well. Intent to reside is one heck of a slippery phrase. At what point is it measured? What if circumstances change? Who will be making this decision? Will the person concerned have the right to make representations in written form and orally before the decision-maker?
I would just point out the value of having Ms. Jackman present. That's the lawyer who was unsatisfied with the absence of an oral hearing for refugee determination. And we know what happened after that in the Singh decision. So yes, we're on the right path, we have the right spirit, the intention is good, but the purpose of a standing committee is to fine-tune the letter of the law, to meet those objectives, and that's what we're doing now.