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.