Thank you again for the question.
You've raised three potential issues. Issues one and two on constitutional issues are outside our ambit, but on issue three—and I made a reference to this in my opening remarks—I obviously had the opportunity to watch the hearing that took place in this room, I believe, on April 28. To be quite honest, I was left with the same impression that you were left with, unfortunately, which was it's unclear.
In principle, we support the idea that one should have an intention to reside. That's an idea that obviously came originally in 1947, wasn't there in 1977, and is placed back in now in 2014. That is an idea, and I think it sounds as if you would agree with it, and I think many people would. The question, then, of course, becomes the devil's in the details. What does that mean? How do you try to enforce that?
Somebody says they have an intention to reside here, but as Mr. Goldberg pointed out, things can change, whether for business or for family reasons. Perhaps the question then becomes: how long does that stay in place? What happens if you want to retire as a snowbird 40 years after you obtain citizenship? Clearly, I don't think that was the intention of the minister. I think it was set up—I presume—to say they're trying out for this team, they've made the team, we'd like them to be a part of it for a while in the same way that a hockey player signs a minimum contract. Maybe the answer, at least at first review, would be to clarify what that means, and then to get into the logistics of how that's enforced.