Good morning, gentlemen. I very much appreciated your presentations. Please be assured that the comments you make to us are very instructive. I agree with the vast majority of your arguments.
Personally, I've been a member at this committee for only six months, and I find it very frustrating to see that a potential reform of our immigration system amounts to two pages.
Two pages of the bill, which contains 130, concern immigration. In two pages, all discretion is simply left to the minister. I find it appalling that this kind of treatment is given to the entire immigration system, of which you are good representatives. You have expressed some good ideas which could be used to reform immigration.
Mr. Chan mentioned that the points system had raised false hopes. I would have liked him to develop that idea. What false hopes has the system raised? You also talked about improving our immigrant integration program. You cited the example of Quebec, where my colleague and I are from. Thank you for your good appreciation of Quebec. Quebec puts a lot of emphasis on integration of the communities it wants to welcome, and I think that's appreciated. I wonder how it can be explained why Canada does not succeed as well as Quebec. Is Quebec more aware of its nationhood and does it want the people it welcomes to integrate? Is it a lack of appreciation by the Canadian nation, as manifested by the Canadian government? I note that what you said about Quebec is interesting.
Do you want to react to what I've said?