Thank you, Minister. I will now open the floor to any general comments on Bill 30. First, we have Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am hoping the Minister can provide some detail on something that occurred during the course of our review of the bill. The committee, as announced in its report, received a letter from the Minister from the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association to the Department of Justice's assistant deputy minister outlining the insurance industry's views on prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics. The committee understood at that time that this letter was, in fact, solicited by the Department of Justice. Can the Minister confirm if that is true? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister Sebert.
Yes. That is true.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Did the government, at any time, reach out to advocacy groups for those suffering from genetic disabilities to solicit their thoughts on this issue as it relates to Bill 30? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that the department's Mr. Aitken actually spoke to the Coalition for Genetic Fairness. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Why was that information not provided to committee? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. I understand that it was after the standing committee review.
Thank you. Minister, when you are done speaking, just say, "Thank you," or something just to let the tech people know that we can change the mic. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was a point in time where this letter, in fact, was tabled in this Assembly after committee research materials were tabled. Can the Minister commit to tabling whatever correspondence he has received from the Coalition for Genetic Fairness? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that there was no correspondence. There as some indication that they might be sending some or were going to send some, but nothing was received. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. Given that, can the Minister relay what their feedback was on this issue? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder, since that conversation or that exchange was with Mr. Aitken, whether he might respond to that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Aitken.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On April 4th, I had a phone call along with a policy officer for the Department of Justice with Bev Heim-Myers, and she is the chair of the Canadian Coalition for Genetic Fairness. I outlined the fact that Bill 30 was before the Assembly, that there was a proposal to bring forward motions that would add genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground. The coalition is in support of adding genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground to the Human Rights Act. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing further at this point. Thank you.
Thank you. General comments on the bill. Anything from committee? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The Minister tabled this letter from the CLHIA in the House on March 8th. Can the Minster or his staff tell us whether there has been any representation to this government from either insurance brokers or individual insurance companies that there might be consequences if genetic diversity was added to the bill, such as things like withdrawing potential coverage from the Northwest Territories? Have they received anything like that? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand that we did not approach any individual insurance companies or brokers. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That wasn't really my question, but I am glad to get that information. Has our government received any correspondence, communications from individual brokers, individual insurance companies, that they would withdraw coverage for residents of the Northwest Territories if genetic diversity was added into this bill? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
I understand that we have not received, Mr. Chair, any communications from insurance brokers or companies, but they may not be aware of this legislation or this amendment. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that this government has not received any communications from individual companies or brokers that anybody is going to withdraw coverage from our residents. The federal government has already done this. It was a private member's bill, but it was passed in the parliament. What has been the experience? Have insurance companies withdrawn coverage from any areas of federal jurisdiction as a result of the passage of the bill at the federal level? What has been the general experience? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that, generally speaking, this area is an area of provincial and territorial legislation. I think that the federal government has some role in the insurance industry, but I am told not for personal insurance. I doubt if there has been any effect at that level, if that is the question. I am sorry. I may have lost myself a bit here. I also understand that the federal legislation is before the courts. Perhaps Mr. Aitken can speak to this, Mr. Chair. Thanks.
It has been a while since that constitutional law course, Minister. Mr. Aitken.
Thank you. The private member's bill that Mr. O'Reilly is referring to is Bill S-201, and it was federal legislation. It had several components, but the two that are of most concern here are: the first relied upon the criminal law power to add a prohibition for using genetic tests without the express permission of the person and for asking for genetic tests in any capacity with very serious fines, I believe in the order of $1 million.
The second component of the bill was to add genetic characteristics to a number of federal statutes as a prohibited ground to the Canadian Human Rights Code, and also to deal in the Canadian Labour Code.
The first part of the bill that created the criminal law prohibitions relating to genetic testing was taken before a court in Quebec, and several months ago, the Quebec Court of Appeal actually ruled that it's unconstitutional because it is using the criminal law power to intrude into an area of provincial jurisdiction which has authority over insurance. I understand that that decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and I believe that the hearing is scheduled for either October 10th or 11th of this year. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that explanation of what was in the federal legislation and what it covered in status, and so on, but is there any evidence that, as a result of this, in the federal legislation, any insurance companies have vacated the marketplace or refused coverage in any areas of federal jurisdiction as a result of the passage of that bill? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Aitken.
Thank you. Companies have not withdrawn from the jurisdiction. They are complying with the prohibitions related to genetic testing. In our discussions with the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, they pointed out that genetic testing is actually a very small component of insurance. Most insurance policies do not have a genetic testing component at all. Their concern was with medical histories and family medical histories and personal medical histories, and every life, health, and disability insurance policy deals with those aspects. In most cases, there's no reference to genetic testing at all. Their concern is much more with family medical history, the questions that relate to family medical history, and how those questions can be evaluated and used by the industry, than they are with the genetic testing component. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the deputy minister telling me about the concerns of the insurance industry, but there's no evidence, then, that this has caused any market disruption by including genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground in the federal legislation. I just wanted to establish that.
My next question is about, and I did read one of the documents that my honourable colleague from Kam Lake tabled from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. It's called the Potential Economic Impact of a Ban on the Use of Genetic Information for Life and Health Insurance. It's a very helpful document, because it helped me understand this a little bit better. There's this concept of adverse selection, where the insurance industry has this concern that, if somebody finds out they have a genetic disorder, they become more likely to buy insurance if they can afford it, I guess, in the first place, which just seems rather bizarre to me. The paper from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada does say that, in their view, this is not an issue, at least now, because a lot of people have not had genetic testing. This may be something that might require a change or review in the future, once people understand, if they have genetic characteristics, that might lead them to have medical disorders in the future. Has the department reviewed this paper by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and do they agree with its findings? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Aitken.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I have reviewed the paper. In fact, I asked the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association about the paper when we had our first call. They indicated first that they didn't agree with the conclusions about adverse selection. The second thing they said is that their concern is not so much with genetic testing, but is with the much broader area of family medical history. They feel that adverse selection would, in fact, be a factor, though, for both genetic testing and family medical history. They didn't agree with the paper. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The conclusion, as I read it in the report, is we conclude that, for the present or near future, near-term future, a ban on such information would likely have no significant negative implications for insurers or for the efficient operation of markets such as life insurance. That says it all to me, Mr. Chair.
I just have one other sort of general question. This notion of adverse selection, how does something like no-fault insurance work for auto insurance in BC in terms of people's driving records and so on? I know it's a state-run system, but they seem to have overcome that through no-fault insurance, and it hasn't collapsed. Why is this adverse selection something that our government, the department, seems to have adopted and is driving the position that Cabinet is going to take on whether genetic diversity should be included as a prohibited ground in the first place? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Yes. Of course, the insurance situation in British Columbia is a state-run insurance. As I say, the concern of the industry is that someone might find out this genetic component, and then decide to load up on insurance. It's quite different than insurance involving automobiles, I would say, because you don't have your crash first, and then go and get insurance. I think it's a different situation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
