Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today says that the Immigration Act should require all prospective immigrants to be tested for HIV and include a positive result as grounds for inadmissibility.
The motion seems quite straightforward, but it raises a multitude of questions, and as we analyze these questions, the subject becomes very complex indeed. The first question is why in some cases, as you know, we already screen prospective immigrants for HIV, in accordance with existing guidelines. Applicants who test positive may be considered inadmissible on medical grounds. We must therefore ask ourselves why our current practice is not acceptable, if such is the case.
At the very least, we should take a good look at the current policy on inadmissibility on medical grounds. By law, all immigrants and certain visitors shall produce their medical records and undergo a medical examination. The legislation does not list diseases that justify inadmissibility on medical grounds. The simple fact of having a disease does not in itself constitute grounds for refusal under the Act.
Grounds for refusal tend to be based on the consequences, that admitting an individual would have on Canada, whatever the nature of his medical problems.
The act requires medical officers to determine inadmissible those applicants who would likely pose a threat to public health or safety or create excessive demands on Canada's health or social services.
While there is much that we do not know or understand about HIV, expert medical opinion does agree on one thing: A person with HIV does not represent a threat to public health or safety merely because of the infection. I would hope that most Canadians understand by now that one does not get HIV or AIDS just by being around someone who tests HIV positive.
Refusing admission to applicants with HIV would have to be based on any excessive demand they might place on health or social services. This requires a judgment to be made in each individual case. It seems to me that the question of whether or not a person with any specific illness could create an excessive demand depends on many factors: the severity of the illness, how far it has advanced, prognosis for recovery or deterioration, the standard treatment, and so on. Making that kind of assessment requires a great deal of expertise applied on a case by case basis.
Members of this House should recognize that the motion we are looking at today calls for a significant departure from current policy and practice. It singles out a specific disease. It asks that we name that disease in the act and it suggests that the act should automatically exclude people with that disease without any reference to an expert medical assessment of consequences.
For the time being, I will not ask whether we know enough about HIV to adopt such measures. I merely want to point out that it would be unprecedented in the recent history of Canadian immigration. This measure should not be adopted without serious study and it should not be adopted until its potential benefits, if any, can be properly evaluated.
The physician is not obliged to test for HIV, either by the Act or the regulations, but he may do so if he has reason to believe that the virus may be present.
If an applicant's medical records or a medical examination point to the possibility of HIV infection or even a health condition that causes the physician some concern, the latter may order further testing to make a better assessment of the individual's condition.
As things stand now, testing for HIV does take place when there is reason to do so. Under current guidelines immigrant applicants found to be HIV positive are usually considered to represent an excessive demand on our health and social services. They are deemed inadmissible.
The point I want to make is not to denigrate the motion. The point is we do have an ability now to look at this and we should examine whether our current legislation is satisfactory. If it is not, we should examine this further.
