Those are two questions. Thank you, Ms. Wong.
First of all, simply giving people admission to Canada as permanent residents doesn't mean they have to be fluent in English. They do need to have some competency if they're economic migrants and they're going to have to go right into the workforce.
The Australians, in fact, make sure in their case that people speak enough English to be able to do the careers that they hope to go into, but they do require the families of the immigrants to learn English, and they have to pay for it. I think it's not just a matter of whether you're admitted initially as a landed immigrant. You have to be fluent.
Many people, quite frankly, including in my wife's community, which is Vietnamese, haven't learned English after 20 years here. They're stuck in ethnic enclaves where they can only work in Vietnamese. It's a real issue. We really do have to make sure that people speak a reasonable amount of English if they're still young enough to be in the workforce, or it's going to cost us an arm and a leg.
You also asked, Ms. Wong, about the need for immigration in general. I referred to that briefly. We have needed high levels of immigration at certain times in our past. We don't today. We're not facing looming labour shortages in spite of constant rumours from employers that we are. That's been shown by bank studies and by the parliamentary budget officer. We have pretty well enough skilled people already here and also the educational infrastructure to provide for our needs, so we need relatively little immigration. It's driven not by our economic needs, but by special interest groups.
I would like to see a total review of these questions and both sides of the issues discussed.