If I may, Mr. Chair, we've recommended that clearly the weaknesses in IRPA are exactly that. They've gone to something called the human capital model. The human capital model says that the better educated the people are who we bring in, the more likely they are to adjust to Canadian life.
That was a philosophy of the nineties. I know what a decadal philosophy is; I was a child of the sixties. Well, this was a philosophy of the nineties, and it unfortunately didn't take into account the fact that the world is made up of all kinds of people, and when you hit the demographic problem, it applies to all skills and not just high skills.
What we've proposed to both Immigration and the CEC, where we've had extensive consultations, is that they simply take work experience in lieu of either education or language, meaning that if someone comes to Canada with fluent English and a good job, they're a permanent resident right away. If someone comes with no English and a reasonable job, maybe it's three years, maybe it's five years, but they're given points for every year they legally stay in Canada, work in Canada, and contribute to Canada.
The way the current system is.... I have client chefs from southern India who start working at age eight. By age 30 they are the best south Indian cuisine chefs in the world. We bring them into Canada. They've never spoken a word of English. They create jobs for five Canadians for every chef, but it is impossible for those individuals to ever become Canadian permanent residents unless they're lucky enough to find a Canadian girl to marry.