Mr. Speaker, a number of issues came up during debate in committee on this that caused some of us concern and I will give the House a couple of examples.
In clause 22(1), with respect to medical examination, it states:
If a quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the officer may require the traveller to undergo a[n] [investigation].
What concerned many of us were the “or”s. It is not that an individual has a disease but that the person may have been near somebody who might have had something.
Clause 28.1 states that beyond examination an individual could be detained if:
(d) the quarantine officer has reasonable grounds to believe
(i) has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors,
Something that is of more concern is clause 26 which states:
If a quarantine officer, after the medical examination of a traveller, has reasonable grounds to believe that the traveller has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, or has recently been in close proximity to a person who has or might have a communicable disease or is infested with vectors, the quarantine officer may order the traveller to comply with treatment or any other measure for preventing the introduction and spread of the communicable disease.
I do not think anyone is overly concerned about someone having to be examined in order to contain the disease. However, after having been examined and no evidence is found that someone is sick, the person can still be compelled to be quarantined for up to a week. What troubles me is that after a week, if in the officer's opinion the individual still might be a threat, the individual can be detained further even if there is no sign of the disease. The person can also be compelled to have treatment or some other preventative measure just because they were near someone who had a disease.
Does the member agree with forcing an individual to have treatment just because an officer thinks the individual has been near someone who might have a disease but the individual shows no symptoms of the disease?