Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion.

Immigration Act

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assumed from reading the motion that my hon. colleague wants to stop immigrants from coming into Canada when they test positive for HIV.

Today, the way the laws of the land stand, we have testing for all kinds of viruses and the medical doctors decide who gets in. I do not think we in the House have outlined the facts as to how much it costs in each and every situation. Who can decide who can come in and who cannot? It could be tomorrow that the HIV test or the medication will cost $10,000. Some might argue that is too much. Even a cost of $5,000 some could argue is too much. Where do we draw the line on how much is effective?

For that purpose the government has a law already in place so medical officers can decide who can be and who cannot be admitted to Canada on medical grounds. Also the government is reviewing the extensive information it has on HIV and will announce a decision soon about HIV cases in Canada.

Our policies have to reflect the social structures, health systems and justice system we have in Canada. Otherwise it will be disastrous for us and it will be one sided. We cannot afford to have that. Misinformation and misunderstandings about HIV are very dangerous elements that we face today. I hope in the near future the government completes its investigation and studies and comes up with a policy that will satisfy the concerns of everyone in the House and of the population at large. We take care of our own citizens first and we are compassionate enough to allow others to come into the country.

The best hope we have is to come up with a solution for HIV. I think that would make everyone happy. I suggest we keep things as they are for the time being and allow the system to work. We need medical discoveries, medical approaches and information so that we can make wise decisions on the issue. Otherwise there is nothing stopping us from coming up with a motion next week that says anybody who has cancer should not be allowed in because cancer costs too much to treat. Just about every disease in the world costs money to treat.

Where do we draw the line? Where do we start and where do we end? Since we do not know that, I am unable to make a decision on who should be admitted and who should not. On that basis I oppose the motion and wait for the government to come up with a solution after researching the matter carefully and checking the track record of the last five years so we know the expenses we are talking about for HIV.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion tabled in the House on September 23 by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. This motion, which clearly targets prospective immigrants who are HIV positive, is, by the same token, discriminatory.

To argue that their admission would put an excessive burden on our health care system is very one-sided, since that is certainly not the case. The motion discriminates particularly against people claiming refugee status, since it would make them inadmissible even before their case is heard by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This motion should therefore be interpreted as barring immigrants, certain classes of visitors and persons claiming refugee status from entry into Canada.

Detection of the virus in these people would make them inadmissible and, as a result, prohibit them from proceeding with their visit to Canada, from immigrating to Canada, and from claiming refugee status.

Today, the Canadian government intends to take advantage of its statutory review of immigration policy. In an article published in La Presse on April 26, 1994, the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship was already setting the parameters for this review. He said the government was looking at the list of diseases for which testing is compulsory, to decide whether the list should also include HIV.

Under the current Immigration Act, individuals who wish to immigrate to Canada are subject to admission criteria that do not discriminate in any way that is incompatible with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tests are currently carried out on a routine basis and are compulsory for a number of diseases, including tuberculosis and syphilis.

The minister went on to say that screening for HIV was not on the list. However, Canada could deny entry to individuals who were HIV positive and who had AIDS.

If a physician suspects that an immigrant is HIV positive or has AIDS, a screening test is done. At the present time, if the applicant is HIV positive, the application is automatically rejected.

In a study by the Library of Parliament, Law and Government Division, we read that in a study on admissibility finished in 1992, it was recommended that the whole issue of routine testing for communicable and other diseases that are a burden on the health care system be reviewed.

But, for the time being, there is no indication, as my colleague from Drummond said, that universal HIV screening would save more money than targeting other diseases. Furthermore, according to a study conducted by the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, the economical impact of HIV infection among immigrants is similar to the impact of coronary diseases. Finally, researchers at the McGill Centre believe that mandatory AIDS testing for immigrants would be purely arbitrary.

That is why I endorse the position of our party which asks the government to create a committee that would review phase II of the Canadian strategy on the fight against AIDS. This position differs considerably from an outright fight against the admissibility of immigrants. Let me remind the House of some of the criteria we use to determine medical admissibility; these criteria are given in section 22 of the regulations related to the present legislation.

"For the purpose of determining whether any person is...a danger to public health or to public safety...or might cause excessive demands on health or social services, the following factors shall be considered by a medical officer in relation to the nature, severity or probable duration of any disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment from which the person is suffering, namely: any reports made by a medical practitioner with respect to the person; the degree to which the disease, disorder, disability or other impairment may be communicated to other persons; whether sudden incapacity or unpredictable or unusual behaviour may create a danger to public safety; whether the supply of health...services that the person may require in Canada is limited to such an extent that: the use of such services by the person might reasonably be expected to prevent or delay provision of those services to Canadian citizens or permanent residents, or the use of such services may not be available or accessible to the person; whether medical care or hospitalization is required; whether potential employability or productivity is affected; and whether prompt and effective medical treatment can be provided".

In 1993, 54 persons were refused for that reason. Therefore, as written, the present legislation contains all the provisions required to admit or refuse any applicant for visitor, immigrant or refugee status. I believe that this motion is, for the moment, premature to say the least. Moreover, it opens the door to discrimination towards would-be immigrants by reinforcing insidiously prejudices against them.

This motion would also be in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a legislation which is the basis for several federal and provincial commissions on human rights. Several decisions and judgments confirming discrimination have been passed by these commissions under Canadian legislation on human rights.

That study summarizes the position of the commissions: "Discrimination against HIV or AIDS infected individuals is a proscribed ground of discrimination because it is based on a deficiency or handicap as defined by human rights legislation". However, for refugee claimants who must submit to a medical examination within 60 days of their arrival in Canada, the minister recognizes that the question is sensitive. "On the one hand there are medical considerations and on the other the real fear of persecution".

As my colleague from Calgary Northeast was saying in this House, on September 23: "The risk of admitting immigrants with HIV who likely do not even know that they are infected is one we cannot tolerate". These are alarmist words, although I recognize the seriousness of the situation and the pandemic character of the disease. However, are we going to systematically screen for AIDS all Canadians coming home from a trip abroad on the off chance that they might not know that they have been infected by the virus? Why then specifically target visitors, immigrants and convention refugee status claimants?

Since this terrible disease is a global health problem, how else can we stop anyone, be it healthy Canadians or healthy immigrants, from contracting a HIV-related disease, if not through an efficient national awareness and prevention policy? The solution does not lie in screening only, but mostly in a vigorous awareness and prevention campaign. This disease is not circumscribed to immigrants.

The way this disease is spreading, healthy landed immigrants and permanent residents may get infected by the HIV virus even in Canada.

Compulsory screening for visitors, immigrants and refugee status claimants is neither a cure nor a way to slow down the spread of the disease.

In fact, routine screening is a dubious argument which raises several questions regarding the Reform Party's position on the Immigration Act.

On October 25, the Reform member for Calgary Northeast said in this House, and I quote: "-today the Financial Post reported on a memo from the government's finance department which concluded that this government's immigration policies are worsening the unemployment crisis.

Is the Minister of Immigration going to act on the finance minister's conclusions or on those of the Reform member and drastically reduce immigration levels?"

The real aim of this motion is a drastic reduction in immigration levels.

As my Liberal colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan did before me, I want to say again that the danger of HIV infection does not come from foreigners but rather from specific practices such as sharing drug needles, unprotected sex, transfusions involving tainted blood, and not mere physical contact.

This is why the Canadian Haemophilia Society, the Red Cross, the European Parliament, and the British Medical Association all believe that visitors are not a public health threat.

Therefore, I will vote against this motion.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in this House today and speak in support of Motion No. 285, a motion that the government test all immigrants to Canada for HIV positive status.

Like many of the private members' motions to come before this House, Motion No. 285 is another example of common sense. It is a simple and direct motion designed to change the way the immigration department conducts its business. It should not be necessary for this House to move such common sense procedure but this Liberal government and this minister of immigration have once again refused to put the cares and concerns of ordinary Canadians ahead of political correctness in pandering to special interest groups.

There are health implications for Canadians if we let people into this country with the disease. AIDS is communicable. AIDS is also fatal and there are no proven treatments or cures. Once you have it, unfortunately your days are numbered. We needlessly put at risk other Canadians who may contract the disease.

We know of many ways that can happen. The disease can be passed on sexually or through blood or bodily fluids. When I visit my dentist now, he and all his staff wear latex gloves. They do not do this because some health regulation forces them to; they wear their gloves as a preventive measure. They do not want to take the risk, however small, of coming into contact with a fatal disease. Why would we as a government take the risk, however small, of exposing Canadians to the potential for receiving AIDS from an immigrant?

Why there is refusal to do mandatory testing of all immigrants for AIDS or HIV is beyond me. We have a specific section in our Immigration Act which states: "No person shall be granted entry who is suffering from disease, disorder, or disability which will likely be a danger to public health or which would cause excessive demands on health or social services". This section is there for the protection of Canadian society.

Every member in this House will agree that immigration should be a benefit to Canada and not a threat to public health or indeed the economy. Clearly the potential threat to both health and finances from AIDS carriers entering our country is cause for alarm.

In the debate on this motion so far we have not heard one rational argument about why HIV testing should not be done on all immigrants. The member for St. Denis stated: "Even if they test HIV positive they can continue contributing to Canadian society for many years". It is the refusal of some to admit the obvious that angers so many Canadians. It is totally unacceptable and a contravention of the law to allow HIV positive immigrants into Canada.

The member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan believes that "it would be inappropriate to institute a blanket exclusion of persons with HIV". He quotes the Human Rights Commission and states that "such a practice would be discriminatory".

HIV is not a discriminatory disease. It will kill anyone it comes in contact with. I support the right of Canadian citizens over the right of non-citizens to be free from discrimination.

Saturday's Globe and Mail reported that the immigration minister is going to propose a tightening up of the immigration system including fewer family class immigrants and a move to allowing in those with better language skills and job skills so that the financial burden on our social programs will be reduced. These are moves in the right direction. The immigration minister should be congratulated for this reform, and I emphasize reform.

However, the job is not finished yet. The immigrants to Canada who have more applicable job skills and speak English or French but also have AIDS will not be net contributors at all. They will be a burden on our welfare and health care systems and their presence increases the potential for others to be infected. As a guardian of the public purse I believe it is my duty to examine the costs involved in both the government's stated course of action and the measures proposed by this bill.

The government avoids performing a $12, I will emphasize $12, test for AIDS on every immigrant who comes into Canada, not the proposed $10,000 as was alluded to earlier by a member from the other side but $12. With the current level of 250,000 immigrants a year that is a saving of three million tax dollars. What are the costs of failing to perform such a test? The average health cost of caring for one person with AIDS is $250,000. If there are absolutely no immigrants coming to Canada with AIDS then indeed we have saved ourselves $3 million.

However we have no idea how many immigrants are coming into Canada with AIDS. What if there are a mere 20 a year reaching our land with this fatal disease? The cost of caring for these 20 would be $5 million. If the number is 200, the cost is $50 million. Is it not worth $3 million to conduct this basic test?

The Reform Party promised to be a constructive alternative in Parliament and offer solutions to the overspending problems of government. I do not believe we need to allocate new resources to this important task. We can point out some current expenditures that could be reallocated for the purposes of conducting mandatory testing.

The federal Ministry of Health devotes an incredible amount of its resources toward the goal of AIDS prevention and elimination. The department spends over $40 million a year on such programs. Less than half of this money is spent on actual research to develop treatments or vaccines. Most of this funding goes toward yet another government bureaucracy, the Canadian AIDS Secretariat, and special interest groups.

I would like to give some examples of the kind of nonsense that tax dollars have recently been frittered away on. There was the $35,000 spent on a centrefold in a homosexual magazine on the impact of AIDS. There was another $35,000 for a six month project called "The Puppets Against AIDS Tour". A group in New Brunswick received $128,000 to work for the empowerment of people with AIDS.

What is the net benefit to Canadians of this type of funding? What did the empowering do for the health problem? Does it bring us closer to a cure? Who does it really educate? Would this money not be better spent on AIDS testing for immigrants?

The goal of any public health campaign is clear: prevention of disease. One way to prevent the spread of disease in Canada is to eliminate new sources of the disease.

We have a dilemma on our hands. On the one hand the Liberal government has a policy in the department of health to prevent the transmission of AIDS and it spends big dollars doing it. On the other hand the immigration department has a policy which allows into Canada an unknown number of AIDS carriers. This is not the only area of Liberal government policy where we can see a contradiction.

The ministry of agriculture has looked at this type of issue already. We have all read about mad cow disease in Britain, a fatal disorder that attacks the nervous system of cattle. Our Agriculture Canada people have put down all the cattle imported into Canada from Britain since the time of the outbreak in 1986. The reason for this is simple. The disease can be passed on to other animals. We decided the risk of this happening, however small, was not worth the few cattle that were put down. It would seem that when it comes to the potential to contact fatal disease this Liberal government places the value of Canadian farm animals higher than it does that of Canadian citizens.

I want to point out one final example of contradiction in public health policy. We recently witnessed Health Canada officials at airports across Canada examining flights arriving from India, a country recently experiencing an outbreak of pneumonic plague. Much care and attention was focused on prevention by screening our borders. Pneumonic plague is easily treatable and poses no serious health threat to Canada. Yet much was done to deal with the situation. Why the same attention is not paid to detecting AIDS, a far more deadly disease, at our borders is just ridiculous.

The time for action is now. We must deal with this problem before more lives are put at risk or taxpayers' dollars are thrown away. AIDS testing of immigrants is just plain common sense. Let us do it by supporting Motion No. 285.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time I have available to talk about something which has been causing me increasing concern as I have listened to the debates that have been proffered by members of the Reform Party.

We heard Reform Party members talk over and over again about the need to represent the interests of what they call real Canadians or ordinary Canadians, how they as members of Parliament have a duty and a responsibility to assess opinion from their constituents and to bring that forward to public view and discuss those issues that are important to the people they

represent. I agree with that. That is a fundamental role each and every one of us has when we get elected and come to this House.

We have a second role. We sit in a very privileged position. We sit in the middle of an information flow and have access to resources, information and knowledge that few Canadians have. That imposes a burden upon us, a responsibility to educate and not to simply pander to those things that are of momentary or immediate concern. We must evaluate issues. We must examine them. We must research them. We must come forward to this Chamber with debates and arguments that are based on fact and some sort of presentation of a solution that will improve the lives of people.

To simply victimize groups for cheap short term headlines is irresponsible. Unfortunately that is what I see in this. It is very easy. There are many people in the community who are scared to death of AIDS. It is a terrifying prospect. Surely we who have access to the experts and access to the information can take the time to learn about the issue, can take the time to learn about the work that is being done and bring forward responsible decisions not to inflame that fear.

We have heard it over and over again: youth crime is out of control; immigrants are a drain on society; aboriginals are lazy. That is what we are getting day after day.

The member for Simcoe Centre made a comment about pandering. If there is pandering going on, it is the Reform Party pandering to every nasty instinct that people have and doing nothing to try to advance a different view of this country.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Doing nothing, look in the mirror.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind members that I sat and listened very carefully to the member for Simcoe Centre. I would simply ask that they allow me to do the same. I realize they might be a little afraid to have this kind of talk. They certainly do not appear to understand it.

The fact is that daily we in this Chamber confront a great many very difficult issues. Listening to the members opposite one would think that every adolescent was committing crimes when we know that many of our programs for young people have been very effective. In fact, we know that the majority of young people are living responsible lives, but we do not hear that from across the floor.

We do not hear about the successes in aboriginal communities. We hear about the failures. We do not hear about the successes in immigration, or the successes in multiculturalism, or the successes and the strengths that are given to this country through diversity. We hear about the problems.

Those members do a great disservice to their own constituencies. They do a great disservice to the people of this country when they simply pander to the feeling that somehow we have become better by hating or rejecting or excluding people.

I had an experience some years ago. I was talking with a woman, a professional colleague who is a psychologist. In the middle of the conversation she broke down. She shared with me that she had AIDS. She did not have AIDS, but was actually HIV positive. Her husband was a hemophiliac. He got AIDS through a tainted blood supply and transmitted it to her. She now has full blown AIDS and will no doubt not be with us soon.

That is a terrifying prospect, but when we look at that we know that AIDS is not as virulent or as rampant or as contagious a disease as some people believe. Yes, it is transmittable. There are significant health risks. We should examine those risks. That is a fact and yes, we do. Yet people are so sensitive to this disease, so concerned about it, that they wave it as a banner in front of everybody who wants to be terrified by it or every homophobic individual in the country. All they do is victimize the people who are dealing with a tragedy in their lives.

I urge members to think about that when they bring forward resolutions to the House. There is a a screening process. There is medical examination of immigrants. The government reviews those regularly. We acted in this House some years ago to stop putting categorical lists in place because it categorically discriminated against people. There are policies in place that call for qualified medical personnel to examine people and make decisions about their medical admissibility. It is passing strange to me that the members opposite choose HIV as the one to mount their fight on. They need to examine very carefully their motives for entering into this debate.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it must be nice to be part of a government of responsible people who simply take the attitude: "Let us all be happy; things are fine".

That seems to be the attitude that often comes across. I really object to that because as my colleague from the Reform Party said a few minutes ago, if we applied common sense to a lot of things we are talking about, just straight, old common sense, it should ring a few bells. Apparently there are no bells to ring on that side of the House.

Many will say that any member rising in this House to support mandatory HIV testing of immigrants and refugees entering Canada is doing so because of moral judgment. Let me first say that no moral judgment is behind my supporting this member's bill. My support for this bill is based solely on one concern and one concern only. That is public safety. Before anyone can discuss whether all immigrants and refugees must pass a

mandatory HIV test to live in Canada, it is necessary to research the history and the transmission of HIV.

The unknowns are what we should be concerned about. The unknowns surrounding the infection of Canadians by HIV and the transmission of this virus to other Canadians must be addressed. As most Canadians know, those engaging in homosexual or bisexual activity and those engaging in heterosexual contact with persons of high risk are dealing with the two largest sectors of our society that test positively for HIV. What is seldom talked about is the third largest sector of HIV positive Canadians, those who are HIV positive with no identifiable risk factor.

How can someone who is not homosexual, bisexual, an injection drug user, or who does not associate with these high risk individuals become HIV positive? Science cannot answer that question. Science can say that human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, is offering one of the most difficult challenges to those actively engaged in understanding how this virus works.

What is understood is that there are two known types of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2. The predominant virus in Canada is HIV-1 which is considered by scientists as the most serious viral form.

Scientists also say HIV is the most studied virus in history but much remains to be learned about it. It is known HIV is retro-virus. It consists of RNA and must invade the DNA of living cells to replicate. It is believed that HIV may require one or more co-factors that act together to cause full blown AIDS. What those co-factors are have not been identified.

It is also believed by scientists that HIV is the most genetically variable virus yet discovered and that worldwide there are at least five subgroups of HIV-1, the most dangerous form of the virus. This virus is known to mutate rapidly and is known to recombine with other HIV strains. This mutation can change the manner HIV infects the host and may change the manner in which the virus can be transmitted.

Of Canadians known to be HIV positive and have developed AIDS, 4.5 per cent have no known identified risk factor that would explain why they became HIV positive. That particular stat worries me and it should worry every member of this House.

There is currently no known cure or preventable measure that will end the worldwide threat to humanity posed by this virus. To be infected by this virus is considered a slow death penalty of great suffering.

We have Canadians who have practised every known method to reduce the risk of HIV infection and yet they are known to be HIV positive. Can we allow those outside of Canada to bring different strains of HIV into this country to readily mutate with the strains already here? Can the rapid mutation of HIV and possible unknown variations of HIV cause the infection of those known not to engage in risk behaviours? Could introducing a new strain of HIV to Canadians develop a mutated version of the virus that we presently have that would allow far easier infection of Canadians?

I do not know the answers to these questions and it appears the scientists who are studying this do not know either.

Under current immigration regulations anyone presumed to be a drain on Canada's health care system can be refused authority to immigrate to Canada and HIV positive status is now a legitimate reason to prevent immigration to Canada.

I understand this may change if this government accepts a proposal to allow anyone into Canada who would not be a drain on the medical system for five years. It is known to take seven to ten years from infection by HIV to require enormous medical need. Those not showing symptoms nor admitting to HIV positive status or are unaware they are HIV positive who are now entering Canada will require either large medical expenses in the future or maybe a threat to spread the HIV virus.

Public safety also means no one has the right to spread a health threatening virus. It is a legitimate purpose of law in this nation to protect individuals and communities from health threatening possibilities and the cost of HIV infection.

Public safety also dictates this government maintain a public health system that will be available for our citizens. In 1992 the average demand on our health care system per citizen was $2,247. An individual with progressive HIV infection after seven to ten years will require an expenditure of $70,000 to $100,000 per year. Every HIV positive person who requires known medication will use up to 40 times the medical expense used for every Canadian.

The unknowns of how HIV mutations will affect positive individuals and transmission of the virus from positive individuals to others are still being investigated. The total potential cost to the health care system by HIV positive individuals is not known.

Whether we can afford this total cost when we all know cuts will be necessary to health care financing if Canada is to keep our health care system accessible to all is not known. All these issues concern public health and safety and must be stated to Canadians. I believe that Canadians have no argument with allowing immigrants and refugees to live in Canada if they will not be an unnecessary and extravagant drain on their tax dollars or a threat to their health. I believe allowing individuals into Canada without knowing who may spread the virus or whether their cost to the health care system may be so large that the majority of Canadians will be denied adequate health care assistance in the future is too great a risk for the majority of Canadians to accept.

Since exposure to HIV infection may lead to AIDS which is plainly life threatening, it is a legitimate purpose of law to protect individuals, communities and this nation from the spread of the virus. That is why I support the member's bill requesting mandatory HIV testing for all immigrants and refugees entering Canada. I believe the majority of Canadians would agree with me.

In 1968 my wife and I and my small child arrived in Canada. When we were at the immigration office it was explained that we had to have certain things in terms of money available and a few other things.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Were you tested?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

If the member will be quiet for a minute I will tell him about the medical requirements.

I was required to go the doctor as were my wife and baby. We were given probably one of the most thorough medical examinations we have every gone through with the clear understanding that if there was anything wrong, any medical reason from tuberculosis on down or any kind of heart disease problem, whatever it may be, it would be cause for grounds not to be able to enter this country.

We accepted that as being wise. Had we not passed we would not have come.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

They should have given you an attitude test.

[An hon. member]

Little boy, what are you going to be when you grow up?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Once again, it is just common sense that it was done. We accepted it and we are very grateful that we passed the test.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent of the House that we go to Statements by Ministers, interrupting whatever business may be in progress at one o'clock this day, as arranged.

The proposal is that at one o'clock whatever business is before the House be then interrupted so that we can go Statements by Ministers for the purpose of allowing the Prime Minister to make a statement.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the terms of the motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter the debate on this motion by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. I congratulate the hon. member for bringing this matter to the House. I am certain that HIV testing is a major concern of most people in Canada.

There is a great deal of concern about this disease. I believe the whole medical profession is evolving in its attitude toward the disease and in trying to find a cure for it.

I can speak from personal knowledge because I watched the son of a friend die from this very debilitating disease. I watched that young man lose weight, go into trauma. It was a very traumatic experience for us all. The effect it has on families and friends cannot be measured by anyone who has not experienced that.

In addition, I have also had the advantage of travelling around the world a bit. One country I was able to visit was Kenya. Kenya as some may know has a major problem with this disease, much more than we do. In some ways it has reached epidemic proportions in that country. In spite of my own experiences with the disease and watching people suffer from it, I have to reject the motion of my friend. I reject it not from an uncaring point of view but rather the importance of getting this thing right.

In other words it is very important that we start monitoring our immigrant population coming into our country. However, we must get the system correct. By getting it right, I mean the minister is now conducting a review of this whole area. In that process he is consulting medical practitioners. He is basically trying to get the system correct from day one.

Most Canadians recognize this is a very serious disease. However, authorities are somewhat split on how important a disease it is and how it affects the host population. For instance, this disease cannot be spread by personal contact; most medical practitioners do not believe it has reached crisis proportions in our population and do not regard it as a serious public health or safety threat.

Why is it important to get things right? This is the whole essence of this debate. It is not so much in monitoring our immigrant population, those coming into our country, but rather the effect we can have on the current population in recognizing this important disease.

In looking at the Immigration Act, I note in 1952 that our country disallowed the admission of immigrant populations that were disabled for medical reasons. That was not that long ago. How would our resident population of disabled people feel when their own country denied access to this nation because people were disabled? I suggest that it would make them feel like second class citizens. Many in our population do have AIDS. We

must use every resource we have to try to do away with this important disease.

It is also crucial we do not give the opinion, from the government point of view, that there is something inordinately wrong with these people, that if they want to come into the country they would be denied, that they are second class citizens.

I know that the disease itself, even in testing positive for HIV, does not mean that you have the disease. As a consequence, today as we talk, there is no clear way to effect the admissibility of immigrants coming into this population; there is no real way to measure whether they have the disease.

I note that currently the practice is that where there is a suspicion of the disease, the authorities do require testing, and they do deny admissibility. However, it is done on a selective basis, it is not done on a comprehensive basis which maybe the hon. member had anticipated.

In conclusion, it is very important that we get it right. I do not think we are really disagreeing with the importance of the monitoring process; what we are talking about is how to get it right. We have to get it right not only so that we monitor people coming into our country but we get it right in our attitude as to how to deal properly with this very important disease in our own country.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on the right of reply. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for a two-minute conclusion to this debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Let me be helpful to you. The member for Durham had concluded his remarks. I assured myself that he has closed debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast who is the mover of this motion is asking the consent of the House, and I think in the spirit of this 35th session of Parliament that people agree-

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House understands fully that the member is closing off debate. No one else will speak to this motion and the question will be put forthwith in two minutes.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of the House to support this motion. It is time that we sent a strong, non-partisan, non-political message to the immigration minister and to the government. It is time to put Canadians first. It is time to enforce the preamble to the Immigration Act that charges us with responsibility for the protection and safety of Canadians.

HIV-AIDS has been politicized. It has become a partisan issue and that is a crying shame. We tend to forget that the politics of this disease has prevented Canada from taking action to eliminate it. It has cost us untold numbers of lives.

This motion does nothing more than extend Canada's regulations regarding the entry of people with serious transmittable diseases to the most serious transmittable disease of all. That is not intolerance. That is not special interest pandering. It is not regressive. It is common sense.

If we in the House have a duty to exercise leadership in the interests of doing right for Canadians we have a duty to do more than just pander to our respective blocks of voters. We have a duty to do more than gauge the winds of special interest opinion.

This is what my colleague, the minister of immigration, has done for the past year. It has lead to a year of non-action, a year in which the legitimacy of our immigration program has been severely undermined. For immigration to continue in Canada it must have the support of the Canadian people. It must command respect. In order for it to command respect in the eyes of the public, the program must be seen to be protecting and furthering the needs and interests of Canadians.

Protecting HIV-AIDS, giving it special status simply because of its politics is the very opposite to protecting the needs of Canadians. It must stop.

The House should be in the business of creating and maintaining an immigration program that works for everyone. We can do nothing less.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 11.51 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has expired.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.