Which is normal. Law should be written in a way that it does pass the test of time, but it should also be written in a way that directs the civil service to apply it as the legislator intended, as you are intending, which is very narrow at this point in time. I'm happy that we got that on the record.
Now, we did hear from a number of groups about the PRRA process. In particular, we heard from the UNHCR and CARL, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, and from other groups.
The way the PRRA process functions right now is that it is a process of last resort after other processes have been exhausted, but in this legislation, the way it will be used will be as a process of first resort. In terms of what we've heard in this committee testimony, international pacts and covenants, which we have ratified and which effectively are our laws now—domestic law—require, from my understanding, that there be a hearing, an in-person type of hearing.
As it's written right now, there seems to be a bit of a void in that regard between conformity with our laws and this current piece of legislation. What can we do to close that gap?