Thank you.
With all of the questions that have been asked and answered, we certainly hear you.
I think one of the words that was mentioned was “balance”, and maybe that is what we are trying to strive for, in terms of listening to the labour groups and your unions and so on.
Of course, employers tend to tell us a different story. They have certain needs that they want. You've mentioned that at least here there are no occupations under pressure, and certainly that's the way it ought to be. Although immigration doesn't deal with labour market opinions, human resources does, but there still needs to be that communication you're talking about to be sure that it's proceeded with appropriately.
I know that employers indicate that when there aren't occupations under pressure, there is a significant amount of advertising involved to ensure you can attract someone, and I understand the wages need to be at least what's going in the market, and perhaps a little greater.
I think Lana said that if we're going to have temporary workers or skilled workers coming in, as far as the temporary workers are concerned, it should be with an eye to saying that if you're good enough to work here, you're good enough to live here and become part of the community.
My sense is that we looked at some programs like the Canadian experience class and others that perhaps need to be broadened to find a way where the spouse can also have an opportunity to work and the children can have an opportunity to become a part of the community. For skilled trades, if you want to call it that, waiting a year or years is maybe not the best option when you look at what's happening; if we truly have a shortage in a particular area of skilled trades, then perhaps we should move expeditiously in that realm, rather than just throwing them into the numbers game. Getting to be 800,001 or 900,002 is not the answer.
My colleague, Mr. Telegdi, waxes eloquent about what he might have done or was just about to do, but this immigration problem has been around for years or decades, and it's time for us to do an overhaul of the system. Probably the time for talk is coming to an end, and it's time for some real action, but it must be action that takes into account the viewpoints.
I think it's important that there be communication between employers, newcomers, tradespeople, unions, and so on, to see if we can achieve a right balance to build our country. There are certain places in the country, as we've heard, where the economy is taking off; the same is about to happen in this province, so you've got to be realistic and yet preserve and protect the workers' basic benefits and rights.
What I've been hearing from the temporary workers' side is that their rights and benefits, if you want to call them that, are regulated provincially to a significant degree, and they vary to some degree from province to province. Perhaps the federal government needs to set some benchmarks across the country that are met across the line, so that if you're going to have somebody, these are certain basic things that need to happen. We've heard quite a bit of that.
I gather you agree generally with my summary.
I think I will close by talking about Pastor Sutherland. I appreciate there is a lot of compassion in particular cases; I know you're closely tied to yours, and I understand that. Others as well have been mentioned.
Because of the particular cases going on, it is difficult for the government necessarily to do their policy and look at it on a bigger-picture basis. That is not to diminish the situation you're going through.
Many have said to us that we need to look at the system we have presently. There are two sides to that coin. Again, there's a balance. A person has to pick a route to come in to the country, whatever that may be, and that is the way they do it. They need to adhere to the rules that apply to that category.
For example, you can make a refugee application, you can come in as a temporary foreign worker, or you can come in as a skilled worker. Once you've done that--let's say as a refugee--and you haven't been successful in a hearing, you of course can apply on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Presumably people look at the humanitarian side of it and the compassionate side of it. You can make the application more than once if there are some grounds for that.
There is leave to appeal to the Federal Court to look at that. Of course, there can be a Federal Court hearing as well, as you mentioned happened in your case. Then there's a pre-removal risk assessment. Presently we're instituting a refugee appeal division that will allow an appeal from the first hearing body. That's in the Senate. I'm not sure if it has passed or received royal assent, but it's in the process.
I'm thinking of this on a big-picture basis, not as an individual case. I've asked some pastors, who said that churches do provide sanctuary, but even if the refugee appeal division was implemented, which adds another layer to four or five, you would probably reserve the right to still provide sanctuary yourself if you weren't in agreement with all of those processes. That's the first question.
Secondly, if we as a government follow all the processes and get a negative decision at some point, does that not have to be respected?