—and this law, as it's written right now, says that girl doesn't know Canada, and with her time in Canada, she doesn't understand what it means to be Canadian. That doesn't make sense in my opinion, and I'm asking you for your more expert opinion.
With the residency requirement piece, in the case of international students who are here for usually three to four to five years, paying taxes if they get a job on campus and getting Canadian experience and education, we're saying that they don't really have value and they're potentially Canadian experience class immigrants who want to stay here and then become citizens.
Second is the case of live-in caregivers, who are usually women and women of colour who are coming into this country. These are usually people who want to eventually become Canadians and then bring their families together and reunify their families and grow as a Canadian family.
Third, Mr. Farber or Mr. Goldberg, you mentioned refugees who seek asylum in this country and come here.
Then one more issue that I think, Ms. Go, you raised in your written submission was that for women, usually, who are here as sponsored spouses during their conditional PR time, this law doesn't stipulate whether that two-year conditional PR time counts toward their citizenship.
I'm going to stop with that and ask what this law should actually do with regard to these four classes of people who are spending time in Canada. I want your recommendations. If you like it, great. If you don't, what is your recommendation for change?