Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a prelude, Mr. Telegdi has indicated that there is lack of progress on this file. There is no doubt that we've gone through many ministers—Elinor Caplan, Madame Robillard, Denis Coderre, Sgro, Volpe—and the program has been in existence for all of those years. In fact, Mr. Telegdi has been chair and vice-chair for many of those years. It's good to wax forth about what should be done, but I guess what you're looking for is some action on this particular file that's practical and not necessarily political posturing or rhetoric, which we often get to hear a lot of.
In looking at the temporary farm worker program—the seasonal worker program, at least—I might ask you about provinces like Saskatchewan that use them during harvest season, a short season, where many of the employers are concerned about the fact that there's a lot of bureaucracy involved and placement doesn't happen as quickly as it should.
I'm wondering whether you could make a comment from the employers' side about some of the problems they see with the program, on both sides.
Also, you raise the issue of provincial labour standards, and of course they vary from province to province—and they're real and they differ from province to province. They're sort of bottom-line measures that need to be met for any employee, it doesn't matter who, who works in the province. Certainly it's somewhat difficult and problematic to deal with various provinces and have those kinds of differences.
What you're suggesting, the way I would see it, is a sort of central national underpinning to each of the programs that would itself put some minimal standards in place. I guess that would also apply for what you're saying about the live-in caregiver section—whether there are certain understandings that should be in place and whether somebody ought to supervise them. You indicate now that there isn't a place for that to easily happen.
You talk about an appeal. My reaction is to ask what kind of appeal, what kind of process. In all of these things you need some expediency. It needs to be quick and it needs to be impartial. You must be thinking of some kind of body or group or person who could expedite things when there's a conflict in the contract or if there's a conflict in what the minimal standards are.
Give me some idea of what your thoughts are as to how we could have an expediting body, and what some of the minimum line standards would be?
Another question would be whether you intend to actually do away with the programs. Is that what you're saying? I've had some favourable response with respect to the live-in caregiver program. In fact, some have gone through the program and have asked some of their family members to come through that program and achieve permanent resident status. So it has worked well in some cases. Are you looking to expand the program or not?
One final point relates to the issue of undocumented workers. We're talking about refugees; we find there's only a certain number we take into the country. It's a similar case with immigrants. Those who come some other way or without documentation are really making for fewer refugees among those out there who could come and could be properly documented.
What do you say about those who have some legitimate right to come into the country? Would you give the ones who are here, undocumented or otherwise, priority or preference over these? What does that do to the integrity of the system, which says you must come through certain channels to get here in the first place? Thank you.
