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.