Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the Chamber in support of the hon. member and his Bill C-244 with respect to the taking of blood samples. The bill reads:
An act to provide for the taking of samples of blood for the benefit of persons administering and enforcing the law and good Samaritans and to amend the Criminal Code.
This is a very important and very timely piece of legislation that has been brought forward. The hon. member deserves a great deal of credit for taking the initiative.
Currently police officers, firefighters, ambulance attendants, nurses and many others involved in similar professions can accidentally or deliberately be contaminated by another person's bodily fluids while performing their professional duties, emergency first aid or other lifesaving procedures; that is to say, what is expected of them. The very nature of their jobs puts them very much potentially in harm's way.
It could also happen to a good Samaritan, an example being in the performance of CPR or in the performance of attending to an individual who has been injured and where blood and bodily fluids might be transferred accidentally. This is about encouraging the humanitarian aid of both those in the profession where they do so in the normal course of business and those who, as good Samaritans, might choose to lend assistance or help to a person in need.
We do not have to imagine in any great detail how commonplace this has become across the country. We can all envision an accident scene where individuals, sadly, because of the fear of contact with disease or the fear of somehow putting their own health at risk, might be reluctant to become involved and be reluctant to aid an individual who is in dire straits.
This bill is a very practical approach that would, at the very least, protect individuals who, by virtue of their good and humanitarian acts of assistance, may have made contact with a victim. The bill would give them the ability to find out whether the individual who is harmed, the victim, has contracted or is suffering from an illness that could be spread.
This is a piece of legislation that is worthy of support in the House. It was brought forward, I am sure, with the very best intentions and it is one that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada will support.
I mentioned the timeliness of this motion based on the fact that members of the Canadian Police Association were on the Hill today meeting with members of parliament. Their lobby efforts on behalf of the police and community have become very fruitful and positive. They met individually with members of parliament to raise awareness of issues that affect them. By virtue of affecting them, it has widespread implications right across the country.
This motion, therefore, is timely in the sense that members of the police association are very much in support of this because of how it affects their operations and their day to day interactions with the general public. They are in favour of this and other very important motions that affect not only their profession but Canadians in general.
In the performance of their duty, police officers and people in other professions could, either accidentally or deliberately, become infected as a result of the actions of an unintended victim. Sadly, there are instances where individuals, who have knowledge of their infection, deliberately try to spread it by biting a police officer or by using a syringe that might have been contaminated with HIV or another such illness.
Obviously, police officers, firefighters and those in the medical profession, such as practitioners and nurses, are particularly susceptible to exposure and are in high risk positions by virtue of their day to day practise.
With that said, it is incumbent on us, as members of parliament, particularly in areas of justice where we can draft legislation and change the existing provisions of the criminal code and other statutes, to protect and support those brave souls who are putting themselves in harm's way on behalf of the public. Legislation such as this would do just that and would help to achieve that end.
As well, a high risk person is well within his or her right to refuse, for example, to supply a sample of blood. However, this legislation would prevent that refusal. Obviously, there are considerations as to privacy which certainly warrants protection under the law.
Let us draw a similar analogy. As it currently stands with respect to the need to protect the public, there is the ability to take a breath sample because of the carnage that results from impaired driving. There is the ability to get a warrant, for example, to take a blood sample in the pursuit of a criminal investigation. Similarly, there is the ability to demand a blood sample with respect to impaired driving. There are provisions that override an individual's right to protection for refusing to give a sample.
Blood analysis or a similar type of sample has to be given where there is a risk to an individual who has, by virtue of his or her profession or by virtue of simple humanitarian altruistic efforts, potentially been exposed. Why should we not do everything in our power to ensure that person is encouraged and supported in the effort that he or she has made?
Without the consent, the victim must undergo a series of chemical cocktails within the first six hours of the incident in an attempt to stop the spread of an undisclosed disease by a person who may have transferred this either intentionally or unintentionally. Again, it puts a much higher and onerous burden on the person who has put himself or herself on the line in an attempt to do his or her job or to help a struggling person.
So that everyone understands, these types of chemical cocktails are very powerful drugs that often have serious side effects. If it can be known at the earliest possible instance whether there is a need to undergo this process or no need at all and that could be determined quite quickly through a blood a sample, this would assist in the protection of the person who has rendered that assistance and undertaken that task.
There is also the timeliness. There are six hours in which to make the decision of whether or not it is necessary to provide the chemical cocktail. It is not necessarily an antidote or it is not necessarily going to do the job, but at the very least it provides hope that it might somehow stave off the side effects and the long term effects of contracting one of the serious communicable diseases.
This has caused concern not only in the professional world but obviously it is something that subconsciously now is very much in the public's mind when it comes to acting in good faith and rendering assistance to those in need who have been injured, particularly where there has been bloodshed. The most telling and obvious example is in performing mouth to mouth resuscitation, when CPR is administered. There is the potential to contract a communicable disease just by virtue of rendering that breath of life. The altruistic effort to safe a person might result in potential long term suffering or loss of life for the good Samaritan.
Bill C-244 would at least allow the protection and give that person the knowledge as to whether they have paid that terrible price. It would allow them to react appropriately and try to prevent or to minimize the effects of what disease they may have contracted.
This has caused concern across the country. We have received numerous letters in support of the legislation. For example, the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires Nova Scotia division has spoken in favour of the bill. The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime has written in support, as have the Canadian ski patrol system and paramedics. The list goes on and on. There is very broad support for the bill brought forward by the hon. member. We in the Conservative Party are in complete support of it. I mentioned previously the support of the Canadian Police Association and others.
No qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician is guilty of an offence only by reason of a refusal to take a blood sample from a person for the purpose of the act. There is no criminal or civil liability for anything necessarily done with reasonable care and skill in the taking of blood samples. There are protections.
Individuals should have confidence that the system is there to support them. Integrity and safeguards are in place. Bill C-244 is not an infringement of a person's human rights. I have already referred to current sections of the criminal code that compel a person to submit blood samples. For those reasons, and I am sure more that will be sussed out in the course of this debate, we will be in support of the bill.
