Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the spokesperson and sponsor of the bill. I know that he is acting in good faith. I know how much he cares about this issue because this is the third time he has introduced a bill such as the one before us today.
I also want to say that today is a special day in that several members of parliament met with police officers on this national day of lobbying for police officers. I personally met three of them, including a very dedicated police officer who has been in the public life for a number of years and who is himself a brilliant spokesperson for his union. I am referring of course to Mr. Prud'homme.
This is not an easy topic for me as a parliamentarian. My oldest brother has been a police officer for eight years and I would not like to see him risk being contaminated by the AIDS virus or any other harmful substance. Moreover, I shared my life with a person who died of AIDS.
The hon. member's bill raises the question of how to protect the confidentiality of those who do not readily want to disclose their serologic status. How are we going to comply with the state of law? I will get back to this later on.
How are we going to guarantee to police officers that, as parliamentarians, we will give them the most modern and useful tools for their work? For police officers who come onto a scene, there is a risk factor that does not exist for other professionals.
Of course, the bill does not concern only police officers but also medical practitioners and firefighters.
I am going to tell members right now that I hope—and I discussed this earlier with the parliamentary secretary—the bill will be referred to committee, where we may responsibly analyze it and hear again from the Canadian Police Association, the Association of Chiefs of Police, representatives from the field of health care and representatives of those affected.
That said, since we must be clear, I must say that in its current form, I would not recommend the bill to the Bloc Quebecois caucus for its support, although—and I say this for those watching—we have a tradition in the Bloc Quebecois that when private members' bills are involved of giving free voice to members to vote either way.
I want to make the following three comments.
First, there is a risk in using search warrants issued by a justice of the peace in situations in which—and I think the member for Fraser Valley will recognize this—it is possible to be objective in a situation where a justice is asked to issue a search warrant where there has been no offence.
That is very troubling because it is recognized under our system of law, rightly or wrongly—but this is the law in force at the moment—that a search warrant is closely linked to the finding of an offence and gives considerable powers to those who wish to use them, although these powers are not described as extraordinary.
Second, we know that since the early 1990s—and this is what I told the police officers I met with earlier—there has been a national AIDS strategy with an annual budget of $45 million. The entire strategy is based on respect for the confidentiality of serologic status.
A few months ago, when we listened to the witnesses who appeared before us to talk about the member's previous bill, there were two distinctly different camps. The police officers will see that their fellow officers were among those who supported the bill. Of course we can understand why. As I said, I have an older brother, aged 39, who is a policeman. I would certainly not want to learn that in the course of his duties he had been exposed to contamination factors such as hepatitis B or C or to the AIDS virus.
However, those appearing before the committee fell into two camps. One consisted of police officers who were in favour; the other consisted of Health Canada, which was opposed; the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which was also opposed; the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, which was opposed; and the Canadian coalition of organizations representing persons with AIDS, which was also opposed.
The problem with the bill is that once it is passed it will change a fundamental approach in the criminal code. A situation could arise where someone who did not wish to reveal his serologic status would be required to do so. Not only would it be possible to oblige someone to allow a sample of their blood to be taken but, in addition, the bill would provide that the person must be told the result of this blood test.
This is where some caution is in order. What is the solution? I make no claim to have found it. Reflection in a parliamentary committee is needed and it is important for the bill to go before a committee.
What I want to tell the police, those who are infected, and our colleague is that we are going to work very seriously in committee. I wish to remind him, however, that Health Canada has indicated to us that, when a health professional, police officer or firefighter has reason to think that he or she has been infected, it is urgent to seek prophylaxis.
People must not believe that the blood tests that are available are the be-all and end-all. What the Health Canada professionals have reminded us of is that in two-thirds of cases, because of the serologic window—that twenty or so days before an infected person develops antibodies even if infected—blood tests cannot necessarily give a proper indication.
For this reason, Health Canada told us that the most up-to-date solution, reflecting the progress made by the medical profession and what was available for those who wish to avoid developing the disease, was for people to seek prophylaxis right away. We must keep this possibility in mind.
Also, I do not share the analysis made by the sponsor of the bill because the supreme court clearly indicated that we cannot force a person to disclose his serologic status since this would contravene section 7 of the charter. I would like to quote from that ruling. The supreme court ruled that:
The use of a person's body without his consent to obtain information on that person is a violation of a part of his private life that is essential to the preservation of his human dignity, and the Canadian charter prevents a police officer or an agent of government from collecting a substance as intimately personal as a blood sample.
I will conclude by saying three things. Let us support the hon. member's initiative and let us work seriously in committee. However, it is not obvious that in its present form the bill should get the consent of our colleagues and of all House members because it opens a breach in the provisions of the charter that could lead to abuse.
Again, the Bloc Quebecois is determined to work seriously in parliamentary committees because we owe it to police officers, health professionals and firefighters.