Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Minister's answer on that one, and I don't think I have anything further other than to say I haven't heard any clear evidence that the insurance industry is going to vacate the market here in the Northwest Territories, so I don't know why the Cabinet is so worked up about this and does not want it included in the bill. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Further to general comments? Seeing none, does committee agree that we move into a clause-by-clause review of the bill?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. I will call out each clause, and if committee agrees, please respond accordingly. If any Members wish to move motions, please raise your hands high. I'm not a mind reader, so I don't want to miss any motions if any are to be made. Please turn to page 1 of the bill, and I will begin calling clause. Clause 1.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Clause 2. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 2 of Bill 30 be renumbered as subclause 2(1), and the following be added after that renumbered subclause: (2) the second recital of the preamble is amended by adding "genetic characteristics" after "disability". Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor and it is being distributed. Is there an extra copy of the motion? The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment amends the preamble to the act to address genetic characteristics as a prohibited grounds. It is not a substantive clause, as it is a perambulatory clause. However, any subsequent amendments to address this issue are going to require it. I will speak to just the general principles of why banning genetic discrimination is a fundamental concern that has been raised over the course of standing committee's review of the bill and has been discussed and debated closely by Members.
As the Minister noted in his opening comments, the Human Rights Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the NWT's Human Rights Act in 2014 on the 10th anniversary of the act's coming into force. That review, concluded in 2015, recommended that the act be amended to include a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics.
With the commercialization and sale of home DNA test kits by companies such as 23andme, more and more people are undertaking genetic testing to learn more about their genetic heritage. The Human Rights Commission noted in its 2013-2014 annual report that genetic discrimination is an emerging area of concern regarding the treatment of individuals based on genetic characteristics. They noted that there is a concern that many people may be at risk of having their genetic information used against them. This is causing people to refuse to undertake genetic testing when recommended by their doctors for fear that they may face discrimination from a prospective employer or insurance company.
The Human Rights Commission stated that the NWT was once seen as the forefront of human rights protections, and they would like to see it continue to play a leading role. This was communicated to the honourable Minister of Justice in a letter by the NWT Human Rights Chair, Mr. Charles Dent, dated June 24, 2016. The GNWT opted not to conclude genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground of discrimination in Bill 30.
Since the Human Rights Commission's comprehensive review was completed, Canada became the last G7 nation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics. Federally, Bill S-201, the Genetic Non-discrimination Act, creates criminal offences, as we have heard, for requiring a person to undergo or disclose the results of a genetic test in order to obtain goods or services or to enter an agreement. It also added genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground in the Human Rights Act.
GINA, the United States' Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act of 2008, is a United States Act of Congress designed to prohibit genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment. It prohibits group health plans and health insurers from denying coverage to a healthy individual or charging that person higher premiums based solely on a genetic predisposition to developing a disease in the future, and it bars employers from using individuals' genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. Senator Ted Kennedy called it the first major new civil rights bill of the new century.
As the committee's review of the bill was drawing to a close, as we learned at the top of this committee hearing, the Minister shared a letter with standing committee expressing the concerns of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. What we have gotten through questions with the Minister is that this letter was solicited and perhaps driven by concerns raised by the Supreme Court challenge through the Quebec Court of Appeal.
However, it is concerning to me that the genetic advocacy groups were seen as somewhat of an afterthought in consultation on this bill. Again, this section was not added to the bill that was brought before committee, and this letter that was brought forward was after the bill had already been through the committee review process.
I acknowledge that there is a concern, and when you are treading new ground, there are often people who will have to adapt to those circumstances. However, there has been substantial study done on this issue by both the Senate of Canada, the federal Information and Privacy Commissioner, and other industry and advocacy groups, who have presented no compelling evidence that it will adversely affect the provision of insurance in a jurisdiction, the rates of premiums, or any other substantive matter that would impact the ability for Northerners to obtain health insurance or other forms of insurance.
The hypothetical that was posited by the Minister just recently about an individual who was diagnosed with, let's say, Huntington's Disease, and then decided to buy 30 insurance policies and not be allowed to be knocked of that because of a genetic condition, I think, is a long shot. I think that people who are diagnosed with chronic medical diseases have a lot more to worry about than exploiting the insurance system for personal gain, and I think that that should not be the basis for this concern. I think that the basis for this concern should be relying on what we heard from the public, and when standing committee went on the road and consulted with Northerners directly, the question was put to all of those who attended, whether this bill should ban genetic discrimination, and it was universally thought that that should take place, in a small community like Fort McPherson to our hearings in Yellowknife.
This is something that I believe is strongly supported by the public. This is much talk about pre-existing conditions and how they adversely impact health and wellness and put unnecessary financial strain on citizens, not just American citizens, where it is a much larger concern, but also Canadian citizens and Northerners, as well. I think that, if we can do anything to alleviate those concerns, to ensure that people are not discriminated against for genetics, especially after we have come so far with technology in making genetic testing and genetic information easily discernible and available, this is going to be an increasing resource. Companies are going to use it to understand their consumers; individuals are going to use it to understand their own health and wellness; and governments are going to use it to understand their citizens. The Chinese government is already undertaking a massive genetic cataloguing of its citizens, and of course, they do not have the same kind of human rights protections that we have in this country.
I think that we should, again, return to our leadership role in this country and show that we are progressive, we are ready to lead on this issue, and we will stand up for what our citizens deserve, which is to have their genetic characteristics prohibited from discrimination.
When you look at the fact that the rest of the G7 world has ensured these protections are in place; United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France. These are leading nations, and the fact that Canada is only now just getting on board, and we have provincial governments concerned around it encroaching on constitutional freedoms, well, we don't have to make those arguments, because we are not encroaching on our own freedoms. We can do this, and we can show Canada and the world that the North, again, is leading on public policy and making a difference in the lives of their citizens.
I encourage everyone to support this motion, so that we can get this started and ensure that genetic characteristics are a banned grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Code. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I support much of what my colleague, the MLA for Kam Lake, said. He served as chair of the committee. Not a lot of us actually have a copy of the report in front of us. I just want to quote from one paragraph, Mr. Chair. This was to try to capture the views of NWT citizens on this issue.
"In each of the smaller communities to which the committee travelled, committee heard support for the inclusion of genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the act. Mr. Mike Keizer, a Parks Canada employee from Fort Smith, expressed his support for prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics. So did Ms. Lauraine Armstrong, also of Fort Smith, who noted that the fear of being discriminated against might serve as a deterrent to some people getting genetic testing that could help improve their lives. Mr. Richard Nerysoo, of Fort McPherson, told the committee that prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics 'is a good thing to pursue,' but offered the view that prohibiting discrimination on the basis of an unrelated criminal charge or conviction could be more challenging to implement."
That is the paragraph, Mr. Chair, that I wanted to read. This is not the committee making this stuff up. This is what they heard from our citizens. I think that people have a choice here. Do we want to side with our citizens, or do we want to side with the insurance industry? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We completely understand the rationale for adding this new ground. While I will talk about insurance, our main concerns are not related to the interests of the insurance industry, but rather to the interests of our residents.
I have to say that, because this very major decision is being raised by a motion here in Committee of the Whole, there has been no opportunity to engage in meaningful consultation. What this motion proposes affects the interests of our residents and of the small insurance brokers and agents based in several of our communities. They likely know little or nothing about it.
It is an important point, because this is a very significant change to our human rights legislation and is, in no way, routine. You heard from the ADM about the jurisdiction that provinces and territories exercise in the area of insurance, and we note that none of them have enacted genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground.
It is not that there has been any lack of opportunity at the provincial or territorial level. Since 2016, every province and territory in Canada, except Newfoundland and Labrador, has amended their Human Rights Act or Code, and eight of them have dealt with their prohibited grounds. None of them have taken the leap proposed in this motion. There has to be a reason. If we proceed in the absence of others, it makes us vulnerable.
Since we have become aware of the issue, we have been doing what research we can, and we have consulted with both the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and with the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, an NGO advocating for the rights of Canadians who face genetic illnesses and conditions. What we have learned leaves us very concerned that adding genetic characteristics as a prohibited ground could dramatically affect the future ability of NWT residents to purchase life, health, or disability insurance. Again, our concern is related to the ability of our residents to obtain the insurance that they need.
Our research has shown that questions about personal health and family history are critical to the process by which insurance companies evaluate the premiums for a policy or decide whether to issue a policy at all. This risk evaluation process is called underwriting. The Northwest Territories is a very small market for insurance providers. We are not Ontario. Given that the questions asked of applicants for life, health, or disability insurance, or the information obtained from their doctors, are intended to ascertain genetic characteristics for the purpose of determining risk, it seems likely to place the insurance provider squarely in violation of the NWT Human Rights Act if it is amended as proposed in this motion. Given that individual insurance companies would either have to develop an entirely new process for underwriting insurance in the NWT market or they could often no longer offer their life, health, or disability insurance products in this jurisdiction.
Insurance companies are, by their nature, risk-adverse. Balancing the value of the business resulting from this very small market against the risks and costs, we fear that insurance companies would make an obvious business decision and perhaps walk away from this market. In the last sitting, I tabled a letter from the president of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association dated March 5th, and in carefully guarded language, it suggests this very prospect. The letter states that "if the Northwest Territories were to adopt such an approach, it could put the territory very much offside the prevailing market rules across Canada and could negatively affect accessibility to affordable insurance products to the residents of the Northwest Territories going forward."
If insurance companies do withdraw from the NWT market, it is not open to our residents to purchase life, health, or disability insurance in another jurisdiction. Insurance can only be issued by a company licensed in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction of the applicant's residence, in this case, the NWT Insurance Act. Our residents would have no option to look elsewhere to buy insurance.
It is worth noting that this concern stretches beyond individual applicants seeking life, health, or disability insurance, but to those participating in group plans, such as employees in our public service. Our research has shown that some of the benefits now made available as supplemental options are based on the provision of individual information that might also be offside the amended Human Rights Act. For that reason, Cabinet will be opposing this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Next on the list, we have Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that Members from this side have spoken quite eloquently about this already, but one of the points that I have raised with the committee in the past in deliberations or discussions on this is that we are already very aware that early detection of genetic defects or propensity to illness is a benefit to an individual. Genetic testing, obviously, will enhance one's ability to gather and organize information that may predict a person's future potential or disabilities.
We struggle here in the territory with very challenging and difficult health situations. We have some of the poorest health stats in the country, especially as it relates to our Indigenous population. It is arguable that the Indigenous population in the North has a very limited genetic record versus, say, western or European societies or peoples, and the ability to access insurance, to me, is secondary to one knowing how one might direct their life choices in order to avoid the need to even have insurance in the first place if they are able to make better sound decisions in their life. It would sound better to me that advancing the health of our individuals and, therefore, our society is something that we would want to support. It seems clear to me, as well, Mr. Chair, that, when one knows their genetic makeup and their propensities to potential illnesses or defects, then they can build also a much stronger relationship with their doctor or doctors, therefore leading to better health outcomes. For those reasons, I will be in support. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Next on the list, we have Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This recommendation came from the Human Rights Commission. The Minister stated that there was no time for consultation, because we are just seeing this now on the floor of the House. It was in the report. It has been years since that report. This committee, which undertook the review of this bill, read the report. When the committee went on the road, they asked explicitly, in every community that they went to, how people felt about this clause. It is a little disingenuous to say that there no consultation. There was consultation; it's in black and white in the report.
The Minister and the department knew about this recommendation. They read the report. They chose not to engage. The Minister stated that the small, local insurance providers probably don't even know about this. That is because the department never went to talk to them about it. There has been no meaningful alternative presented by the department. With other bills, there is a lot of back-and-forth between the committees and the departments, and in the end, we come to something that we can all agree on. We have seen nothing from the department to address this issue of prohibiting discrimination based on genetic characteristics.
The only reason that I see that this is being opposed is because of fear, fear of a lobbyist group. I have never before seen a document tabled in the House from a lobbyist group, and then an entire Cabinet position based on that document. This is the sort of thing that people think about when they think about politics. That is why a lot of us got into this, because of practices like that. We want to stop practices like that.
This might not be a perfect solution. This motion might not be the perfect motion, but it is better than anything that the department has brought forward. Because of those reasons, I am going to be supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I am going to support the motion. I took offence by the Minister saying there was no consultation process. I sit here and I have looked at it. If there needs to be changes and there needs to be some work done, there are some conversations and there are some changes and there are some recommendations. I didn't see any of this. What I saw was the report. The committee did a really good job, and here we go. It is about the people of the Northwest Territories. It is not about the industry.
It concerns me that we are listening to a lobbyist group. We had a lobbyist group attend a public meeting on Tuesday. Am I supposed to sit there and go, "Well, there is a lobbying group. I should be sitting there and supporting them"? No. You are supposed to be making decisions for the people of the Northwest Territories, and that is what it is about. It concerns me that we are being scared of the insurance company. I think my colleagues on this side here have spoken well about this, and I can't add anything further except I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. To the motion. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am in support of this motion because I am in support of evidence-based decision-making. I have talked about it consistently through the life of this Assembly. What I have heard and seen from the evidence that the committee has collected, this amendment that they are proposing is a reasonable amendment. I haven't heard any reason that it should not be adopted on the evidence.
I have heard a lot of speculation instead from the government side of the House. What they have done is set up a series of straw men to knock down that shows that somehow this is going to be the end of insurance as we know it. I don't for one moment think that insurance companies are going to forfeit their profits in the Northwest Territories because we will legislate that genetic characteristics are a prohibited grounds of discrimination. I realize that they are not going to reconsider their decision. I regret very much that they are not evidence-based decision-makers, but that is the reality of this place at this time. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. To the motion.
Question.
The Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Yellowknife North.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Sahtu.
All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote: seven in favour, nine opposed. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clauses 3 and 4.
---Clauses 3 through 5 inclusive, approved
Clauses 6 and 10. Is committee agreed?
---Clauses 6 through 27 inclusive, approved
Clause 28. Minister Sebert.
Mr. Chair, I move that Clause 28 of Bill 30 be amended (a) by deleting subclause (1) and substituting the following:
28.(1) Complaints accepted under Section 29 of the Human Rights Act before August 1, 2019, shall proceed in accordance with the Act as it reads on July 31, 2019.
(b) in subclause (2), by striking out "March 31, 2019," and substituting "July 31, 2019." Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. To Clause 28 as amended. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Clause 29. Minister Sebert.
Mr. Chair, I move that subclause 29(1) of Bill 30 be amended by striking out "April 1, 2019" and substituting "August 1, 2019." Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. There is a motion on the floor. It is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. I will put the question to committee. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Clause 29, as amended. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. That was the last clause. We will return to the bill number and title. Bill 30: An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, as amended. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill 30: An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act be ordered read for a third time as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart. There is a motion on the floor. To the motion.
Question.
