Okay. That's all I need. I only have a very short time.
I've asked 15 witnesses now to say just yes or no on that. Out of the 15, 13 said to get rid of it, one said to keep it, and one didn't know, so there's a very strong majority. I definitely agree with that majority. If you tell me that in return for this rule you get a smaller number of marriages of convenience but you have to pay a whole lot more in abused women, I'd say that's a terrible deal and to get rid of this two-year rule.
There's a main point that I want to make in my brief time. I don't know how many of you heard the New Zealand testimony, but it dovetails perfectly with the issues that you are raising. Earlier I sent a message to my staff to summarize the New Zealand testimony. I'd like to read that for you. In New Zealand, couples have to live together for one year versus two here, and in the case of alleged abuse, a spouse can get a nine-month open work visa easily. An application for permanent residence of an abused person is decided in less than a year, at a cost of $800, and two-thirds of applicants succeed.
Compare that with Mr. Waldman's first example. It's black and white. I asked how come it was so fast and so cheap, and the New Zealanders said that part of the answer is that they don't use lawyers. It's adjudicated by immigration officials.
I think we only have about three minutes left, but I'd like to use that time to ask this of Mr. Waldman. Having heard the New Zealand thing, to what extent could it be implemented in Canada and how would we do it?
For Ms. Madawa, to what extent would a system like that solve the problems you raise regarding the Afghan community? I think more things would be necessary, but it might go a significant part of the way. I'd like to ask you that.