Canadian Parliament approves bill barring forced genetic testing for insurance(thestar.com)
thestar.com
Canadian Parliament approves bill barring forced genetic testing for insurance
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/08/genetic-testing-bill-up-for-vote-is-constitutional-trudeau-says.html
13 comments
The concept is more or less universally supported. Those who voted against it did so on the basis that it was not federal jurisdiction, and it was likely/probably to be challenged in the court system.
As I understand, the 60 weren't against the spirit of the bill, but voted against for potential constitutional challenges.
Liberal backbenchers have defied Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, voting in favour of a bill that would bar health and life insurance companies from forcing clients to disclose the results of genetic testing.
My understanding is that only forced genetic testing is barred, so a Canadian insurance company could let people disclose good genetics for a discount, I presume?
Everyone should have equal access to healthcare. As far as life insurance is concerned, why can't life insurance providers discriminate on the basis of genetics? They already discriminate on the basis of family medical history.
My understanding is that only forced genetic testing is barred, so a Canadian insurance company could let people disclose good genetics for a discount, I presume?
Everyone should have equal access to healthcare. As far as life insurance is concerned, why can't life insurance providers discriminate on the basis of genetics? They already discriminate on the basis of family medical history.
> so a Canadian insurance company could let people disclose good genetics for a discount, I presume?
I don't know whether insurance is regulated federally or provincially in Canada. But for all federally-regulated matters, the fact that the bill "...amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the ground of genetic characteristics" should mean that they would not be allowed to do that. It would be similar to having straight discount or a protestant discount, i.e. super illegal.
If insurance is provincially-regulated, I hope that the provinces follow suit to add genetic characteristics to their prohibited grounds for discrimination.
I don't know whether insurance is regulated federally or provincially in Canada. But for all federally-regulated matters, the fact that the bill "...amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the ground of genetic characteristics" should mean that they would not be allowed to do that. It would be similar to having straight discount or a protestant discount, i.e. super illegal.
If insurance is provincially-regulated, I hope that the provinces follow suit to add genetic characteristics to their prohibited grounds for discrimination.
It is complicated, but most health related matters are regulated by the provinces. Everything has to be in compliance with the Canada Health Act though.
I'm not an expert but I'm not sure why it would matter. The federal law cannot be overridden or ignored by provincially regulated industries.
Canadian law is not a choose-your-own buffet for the provinces.
Am I wrong?
Canadian law is not a choose-your-own buffet for the provinces.
Am I wrong?
To put it simply, yes, you're wrong. (Please note that that's the simple answer, not the fully-played-out-in-the-courts answer.) Although we aren't quite in the same position as the USA and their federal/state splits, there are things that are specifically under provincial control and jurisdiction. As one might suppose, this is largely because of Quebec and its legal history before pre-Confederation Canadian unification, but that's not the full answer either. A lot of federal policy is applied through transfer payments since while the federal government can base those payments on provincial compliance, it has no direct control over things that are under strict provincial jurisdiction. In this case, the Supreme Court will have the final word if there is provincial objection; the law as it stands is equivalent to a constitutional change without going through the constitutional change process.
I appreciate your answer on this. No offense, but I don't believe you. Would you mind supplying more information beyond simply a statement? Do you have expertise in this area? (Are you a lawyer?) I know this is a big ask because we are all busy people, but you did answer this in a rather authoritative response...
I'm not trying to be adversarial, it's just that this answer doesn't provide anything but a "proof by anonymous internet authority" vague kind of answer.
I'm not trying to be adversarial, it's just that this answer doesn't provide anything but a "proof by anonymous internet authority" vague kind of answer.
Provinces were allowed to override federal criminal law with respect to safe injection sites (federal police in canada were standing outside and arresting addicts as they came in/out)
Note, most local police in canada are federal.
The supreme court ruled that the provincial health concerns overrode federal criminal ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(AG)_v_PHS_Community_Se...
This sort of thing has a long history in Canada. Although in theory the federal government is much stronger than the USA federal government with respect to Provinces/States, the reality has played out significantly differently. Likely because of the influence of Quebec on canadian regional politics, and the fact there are fewer provinces than there are American states.
Note, most local police in canada are federal.
The supreme court ruled that the provincial health concerns overrode federal criminal ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(AG)_v_PHS_Community_Se...
This sort of thing has a long history in Canada. Although in theory the federal government is much stronger than the USA federal government with respect to Provinces/States, the reality has played out significantly differently. Likely because of the influence of Quebec on canadian regional politics, and the fact there are fewer provinces than there are American states.
Thanks for the response and example.
Yes, actually re-reading OP and your comments made me realize that I actually agree with the parent post. Don't know what I was thinking at the time I originally read it.
Yes, actually re-reading OP and your comments made me realize that I actually agree with the parent post. Don't know what I was thinking at the time I originally read it.
And this would be why they studied if this law would be constitutional? Ie. To avoid the embarassment of a province challenging it.
So it's not that a province can just turn off or ignore federal law, it's that it might have a case to challenge it in court?
I think I understand a little better now. Thank you for responding.
So it's not that a province can just turn off or ignore federal law, it's that it might have a case to challenge it in court?
I think I understand a little better now. Thank you for responding.
Think of it as similar to minimum wage laws. The federal government can set a federal minimum wage, but it will only affect federally-regulated industries. [0]
Similarly, according to the original article, "The government had proposed an amendment that would have stripped the bill of everything except the power to make genetic characteristics a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act... It would have meant the bill would apply only to federally regulated employees, who account for just five to seven per cent of the population."
> Canadian law is not a choose-your-own buffet for the provinces
Due to the notwithstanding clause [1], it kinda is for a subset of the laws. But that is not what's happening here. The insurance case is a matter of jurisdiction.
[0] http://globalnews.ca/news/2151323/reality-check-does-the-ndp...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
Similarly, according to the original article, "The government had proposed an amendment that would have stripped the bill of everything except the power to make genetic characteristics a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act... It would have meant the bill would apply only to federally regulated employees, who account for just five to seven per cent of the population."
> Canadian law is not a choose-your-own buffet for the provinces
Due to the notwithstanding clause [1], it kinda is for a subset of the laws. But that is not what's happening here. The insurance case is a matter of jurisdiction.
[0] http://globalnews.ca/news/2151323/reality-check-does-the-ndp...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_33_of_the_Canadian_Cha...
Well, at least the majority of people bringing laws to this country are sane.
It would be interesting to see how it plays out in USA were bribing (lobby money) is legal. Insurance groups have the money to throw at this. It seems they want it really bad lately.