Yes, but I guess my point is that when you're putting in negligible additional total resources and when you state clearly that you're giving a high priority to people who meet economic needs, the inference is--in relative terms--that it's a lower priority for family reunification. That is how people are reading it. And I can't see any other way in which to read it. If you have essentially changed resources with a higher priority to one group, it must mean you're fast-tracking one group and you're slow-tracking another group, which is the family class.
So I go back to my question. It seems that if you emphasize the economic side, which is fine, you're putting a high priority on workers. Essentially, you're putting more priority on newcomers as commodities--as workers--rather than newcomers as people. So I ask you again, on the family class, how can you deny the implication that this group is relatively disfavoured when you're putting the maximum favour on the economic class? Why do you insist on new powers in this area?