Okay, thank you.
My vote, then, is fifteen of our witnesses oppose it , two are in favour, and one is agnostic, so that's where our witnesses stand. I totally favour getting rid of it.
I think in response to Professor Macklin—and you were talking about other countries—we had excellent witnesses from New Zealand. If we do have a two-year rule or a one-year rule, as they do in New Zealand, then at least in the case of New Zealand, they have a fast, expeditious, and cheap way for the woman, if she is abused, to get permanent residence. It takes less than a year, it costs $800, she gets an automatic work permit, etc., which is a big improvement over our Canadian system. But it's still suboptimal because you wouldn't need that if you didn't have this conditional rule.
Now, the question I would like to ask each of you, perhaps beginning with Professor Macklin, is this. I'm afraid the Conservatives aren't going to want to get rid of this rule unless you can demonstrate that either it does nothing to reduce marriages of convenience or that there may be other means of dealing with marriage of convenience. Ms. Long mentioned revocation for misrepresentation. Can any of you give us evidence that this either doesn't work or does work? More importantly, can you give us other means than two years of living together, which leads to this violence? What are other means, other than outside the country, which we already do, of minimizing the incidence of marriages of convenience?
Professor Macklin.