Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this well intentioned motion.
I appreciate also the desire of my colleague to make the portability of credentials across the country easier for professionals and for those in the trades. There is no question that in our increasingly mobile society many people do experience difficulties and frustrations when trying to start a professional practice or to practise a trade in a different region.
I also appreciate better than most I suspect the frustration many new Canadians have with the credential process that exists across the country. Many individuals in my riding have expressed this concern to me and I understand where my hon. colleague is coming from.
However, I fear that my hon. colleague, the author of this motion does not understand the implication of the proposed measure. Further I believe we can conclude only one of two things about my hon. colleague and his government from this motion. Either he does not have a good understanding of how the business profession and trades work in this country or he does not care and is willing to see the imposition of a profound draconian government control over areas that should not be controlled.
Should this motion become a bill I have no doubt that tens of thousands of people who belong to professions that would be affected by this measure would make the folly of this motion very evident indeed. Allow me to lay out how it is that trades and professions such as the ones that would be affected by this motion are credentialled and what effect this motion if it actually became policy, which it will not, would have. Let us use the examples of doctors, lawyers and engineers.
Doctors, whether inside or outside Canada, must receive degrees in medicine from recognized universities and then they must write exams under the observation of provincial medical associations. Only then will they be allowed to practise in the province and in Canada. Granted, recently some barriers have been placed in the way of doctors who want to practise in a province other than the one they have written an exam in, but those restrictions have happened because of a surplus of doctors in some areas and have reflected the best judgments of the provinces and the provincial medical boards.
Engineers educated in Canada and receiving their degrees must write an exam in each province they wish to practise in. The exam deals with local safety codes and local standards. The province specific exam is necessary since each province has its own safety standards and its own building and engineering codes. These are standards and practices unique in that province.
Should someone come into the country with a degree in engineering from a university that is not recognized and if that graduate has at least two years of experience they are permitted to write an additional examination more strenuous than the first for obvious reasons. It tests not only the knowledge of local codes and standards but also their general ability and knowledge of the field they are intending to practise in. After passing this exam they are able to practise in that province.
It has come to my attention that there are many engineering graduates educated abroad who are not able to pass the second more strenuous exam. While that difficulty is undoubtedly heartbreaking for the exam taker, we cannot avoid the observation that it reflects a lack of knowledge of standards and of techniques and practices in Canada. Those who are not up to the Canadian standard of knowledge and excellence should not, with all due respect, be allowed to practise.
I think my hon. colleague knows how the regulations of legal credentials work in Canada across the provinces. After an individual graduates from an English Canadian law school he or she must write a bar exam regulated by the provincial bar that allows him or her to practise in that province. My hon. colleague from the Bloc just pointed out some of the pitfalls in that region alone.
Is this protectionism? Is it guarding one's own turf? Of course it is and for good reason. I know I am stating the obvious, but this motion is so contrary to common sense when one sits down and really looks at it. A statement of the obvious is necessary to demonstrate that it is not workable.
Each province has its own laws, a wealth of laws, volumes and volumes of laws. Those specific laws require such a degree of specialized knowledge it is imperative that provincial bars
protect the consumers of the province by requiring tested knowledge of those laws.