House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 65% of the vote.
Immigration And Refugee Board November 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister of immigration promised that he would decide what to do with his friend Mr. Schelew no later than yesterday. Yesterday passed and no action was taken apart from the release of the names of the accusers to Mr. Schelew.
This minister has known about the situation since September. Has the minister delayed taking action for so long in order to give Schelew an opportunity to persuade board members to drop their complaints?
Immigration And Refugee Board November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, will this minister admit that he has made a gross and inexcusable violation similar to those ministers in Ontario who had to resign and consider doing the same?
Immigration And Refugee Board November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister has not only violated the Privacy Act but also basic justice. We are talking about an investigation here and witnesses.
As a former police officer if I were to release information to an accused in a crime of those people who were accusing me or an individual before any charges were laid that would cost me my job and probably there would be criminal charges against me.
Recently in Ontario two ministers-
Immigration And Refugee Board November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, this minister clearly thinks he is above the law. The minister has not violated-
Immigration And Refugee Board November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable that an investigation could go on in this fashion and yet there be influence against a witness who may pose as a potential witness in a future investigation or a court hearing.
This weekend Schelew called two of the people and actually went to the home of another person who had filed complaints against them, like an accused calling on the victims for a little chat before a trial.
The minister has repeatedly said that the IRB is at arm's length and that he does not have any influence over it. Will the minister admit that he has exercised influence by improperly releasing confidential information in an attempt to bolster the defence of appointee Michael Schelew?
Immigration And Refugee Board November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister released confidential names and testimony to his embattled appointee to the IRB, Michael Schelew. These were names of people who had accused Schelew of intimidation and wrongdoing but gave testimony under the promise of confidentiality.
My office consulted with the privacy commission and was told that the minister's actions are grounds for a complaint under the Privacy Act. The minister released to someone accused of intimidation the names of his accusers before any discovery was made.
How can the minister of immigration possibly justify this gross contravention of the Privacy Act?
Credentials November 3rd, 1994
Well criminal law is a partial exception but still there are requirements for the particular province. It is imperative to the consumers of the legal profession that local bars protect them from free floaters who would like to practise everywhere or anywhere in the country but would not have a degree of knowledge of the provincial laws that would allow for a proper and responsible practice.
I will admit that things might be easier to manage if the credential process were centralized if the feds took it over, or regulated credentialing. Easier is not necessarily better.
Yes, professionals and those with specialized trade skills are protected to some degree from overseas competition by strict credentialing. Granted, professionals in each province might even be protected to some degree by the control local professional guilds have over credentials but so is the consumer and so are standards of quality. The system is not perfect. Professional guilds can become protective and inward looking and there is no question about that. We have seen several examples of the barriers that are imposed.
However, we must ask the philosophical question: Who can do a better job of looking after quality standards of a profession and the interests of consumers of specialized services, professional guilds or the federal government? Who should be allowed to impose regulations, those who are intimately involved in the delivery of the specialized service or product, or the federal government?
Where should the onus for protection of consumers and the regulations of local standards be located? Locally or in Ottawa? Needless to say the Reform Party believes that things affecting provinces directly must be under the direct purview of the provinces. The more local the better; the more decentralized the better.
There is a fundamental philosophical difference between myself and my party and my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. We believe Ottawa should play as small a role as possible in the affairs of the provinces and in the affairs of business and the professions.
We believe consumers must be protected from abuse not by Ottawa but by the provinces. Where the private sector can do an adequate job of something we believe the government at any level has no business whatsoever getting involved. I know that is not the opinion of my colleague. Obviously not.
The proof is in the pudding. The motion if passed, which I hope it never will be, would establish a bureaucrat monster not unlike so many of the bureaucratic monsters that currently lurk in this town.
In closing I applaud the intentions of my colleague but this will not work and it should not be allowed to happen.
Credentials November 3rd, 1994
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.
Immigration November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a plan and the numbers as the minister has released them to the Canadian people are somewhat deceptive.
This minister has in effect created two separate and new classes of immigrants that did not exist last year. These classes were included in last year's family totals but have been conveniently shuffled off into another column. In fact the percentage of family class immigrants in 1995 is expected to be significantly higher than last year.
Why did the minister obscure and fudge the numbers?
Immigration November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the minister in his 1995 immigration plan told this House and the Canadian people that the levels of family class immigrants would not increase but would remain stable at a level of 51 per cent of all immigrants. Does the minister still maintain that this is an accurate representation of the facts?