
Canadian Parliament approves bill barring forced genetic testing for insurance - eigenvector
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/03/08/genetic-testing-bill-up-for-vote-is-constitutional-trudeau-says.html
======
df3
_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.

~~~
smnrchrds
> 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.

~~~
Waterluvian
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?

~~~
stan_rogers
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.

~~~
jgmjgm
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.

~~~
throwaway2048
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_\(AG\)_v_PHS_Community_Services_Society)

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.

~~~
jgmjgm
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.

------
quickben
222-60

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.

~~~
pesfandiar
As I understand, the 60 weren't against the spirit of the bill, but voted
against for potential constitutional challenges.

