Evidence of meeting #34 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was senate.
A video is available from Parliament.
Senator, Lib., Senate
Oh, he's handing it off to the long-in-the-tooth colleague.
Senator, Lib., Senate
I think, Rob, that to come to the justice committee and say that you're glad you're not a lawyer is not a very goodwill way to state your case.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I just want to say that age is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Senator, Lib., Senate
Exactly. I'm proud to be a lawyer, and I'm proud to be before the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Absolutely. Obviously we need to add lawyers as a ground of discrimination, too, at some point.
Senator, Lib., Senate
Seriously, I first was aware of this issue in 2011, when Barbara Kagedan, who's with me now and is really the godmother of this—if he's the adoptive father, Barbara is the godmother of this case—drew it to my attention. I was astounded. I couldn't believe that we wouldn't have protection in Canada for this kind of thing.
As I looked into it and began to talk to folks, I had the same experience Rob had. The more you talk about it, the more you hear. Every time I speak about this, somebody will call me and say, let me tell you my story. I'm sure you'll find, as you are identified with this issue over the next few weeks, that people will start to call you and tell you their stories as well.
It was those personal stories, I think, that really motivated me, that drove me to do what we've done over the last few years.
November 15th, 2016 / 12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
You mentioned that you heard from the provinces. In their responses, did they highlight their own current or anticipated regulation of insurance contracts?
Senator, Lib., Senate
I would say that generally what they were saying is they appreciated it. They were aware of it in many cases, and they appreciated being advised. If they were not aware, they were talking to their human rights commissions. They were talking to their labour folks to see what changed. The sense seemed to be that we're looking at it to see what changes we need to make at the provincial level to complement what's being done at the federal level.
As you know, there was a bill presented in the Ontario legislature within the last month, and it was made very clear at that time by the sponsor of the bill that the purpose of the bill was to bring the Ontario Human Rights Code in line with the anticipated changes to the federal act.
I would think that the underlying tone of the correspondence that we received—both I received and the committee received—and the conversations that I've had and others have had with provincial authorities is that they're looking to tweak their provincial legislation to complement what I hope we will be doing at the federal level.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We're going to now go to a second round of questions.
We're going to start with Mr. Fraser.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to echo the comments from all sides.
Senator Cowan, thank you for all of your work on this important bill and for bringing it forward to this stage.
Mr. Oliphant, thank you very much for bringing it forward to the House and getting it to this stage so that we can study it. I appreciate that.
My first question is for you, Madam Landry, with regard to a point made earlier by Senator Cowan about only changing the Canadian Human Rights Act with regards to genetic discrimination. If we only change that element, it may give some Canadians false confidence that their rights would be protected. I know you mentioned that. It's only one act that could be changed, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and there are other elements that we would need to look at.
Would you worry as well that there could be ramifications of false confidence that Canadians may have in genetic testing if only that part was changed?
Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
It could be, for sure. I would say that, and I said that before the Senate committee. Canada is actually far behind in terms of protecting the discrimination about genetic discrimination. We should not think that it's just about discrimination. It's about health and security for persons. We need to have, as I mentioned in my speech before, a robust bill to make sure that protection will be there.
When I mentioned that Canada could be a leader, we actually have the chance to have a big transformation in this country and have a bill that will address what we call multiples facettes of this situation, and have a comprehensive bill about genetic discrimination and protecting genetic discrimination.
Marcella, do you want to add something?
Marcella Daye Senior Policy Advisor, Human Rights Promotion Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Was there a follow-up question?
Senior Policy Advisor, Human Rights Promotion Branch, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I could just add that human rights law in Canada is shared jurisdiction. Therefore, whatever change is made to our act cannot affect those elements that are regulated provincially. It cannot have that reach, whereas the other powers that are envisioned in the first part of this act, this bill before you, can indeed have that reach across the country.
We certainly encourage, regardless of what act is changed, an examination of human rights codes across the country and the addition of genetic characteristics to all human rights codes, and we believe that will flow as part of the normal course of action, as we're already seeing in Ontario.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Thank you very much. That's a helpful answer.
Senator Cowan, I'd like to drill down a little bit more into the elements of the bill that deal with the criminal law power, in particular, the proposed offences and punishment.
It mentions that it's a hybrid offence, that an indictable offence would have a maximum, and you correctly identified that it only outlines, of course, maximums, the worst offenders and the worst circumstances: a $1-million fine and/or five years' imprisonment on summary conviction and a $300,000 fine maximum and/or 12 months' imprisonment. Of course one of the key fundamental principles of criminal law is deterrence, both specific and general, in order to deter people from committing offences.
I'm wondering if these are similar punishments to other countries that have this sort of prohibition and how those punishments were arrived at. What thought was given in arriving at those offences for indictable or summary?
Senator, Lib., Senate
I would say, first of all, that it is a question of deterrence, as Rob said earlier. That's what we're trying to do. It's not so much collecting the fines, or putting people in jail, as it is deterring people from what I think we all agree is unacceptable behaviour.
I think we did look more at Canadian comparables in what was happening here. We could certainly provide you with the comparables, but take, for instance—I think I mentioned this in my opening part—in 2010, we passed Bill C-28, which was the anti-spam legislation. It imposed penalties of $1 million for an individual or $10 million for a corporation, and here the maximum is $1 million. We felt that it has to be large enough so it's significant, but yet comparable.
For the imprisonment, there is a whole range of sections in the Criminal Code that provide for sentences up to five years. I'll just give you a smattering of them. Section 338 is defacing a brand or a mark on cattle, section 394 is unlawfully buying or selling valuable minerals, and section 397 is falsifying a book or document. There are eight or nine of them there. Then there are a number that are higher. For instance, you can get 14 years if you counterfeit or mutilate a postage stamp, 10 years for insider trading, 10 years for the fraudulent manipulation of stock exchange transactions, and 10 years for stealing or forging a credit card.
We looked at it and said, this is serious. We think it's very serious, so we wanted to make the maximum terms of imprisonment and the maximum fines significant, but we did have regard to what is already in those kinds of communications
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I suppose, with regard to specific deterrents, having a maximum of that nature would allow repeat offenders, in order to punish them and make sure that they don't keep doing it, to have an adequate deterrent for that specific offence.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.
Thank you very much, Senator Cowan, for being the first to mention cattle at one of our meetings. It's very much appreciated. I know many of our western colleagues will be very happy about that.
Mr. Falk.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you to all of the witnesses here at committee today. I found your testimony and your comments very interesting and enlightening.
Of course, on the Conservative side, we voted in favour of the legislation not only just to bring it to committee and study it, but in principle we're in favour of it, as well.
As technology advances, and as there's progress made on lots of different fronts, different people want to use the benefit of that technology for different purposes, and I think when that happens, we have to also create the proper safeguards that prevent its abuse. We want to be able to use that technology for good purposes, and I think this piece of legislation seeks to address the potential abuses.
I am a bit intrigued with something Mr. Fraser brought up, which is that the punishment seems to be a little industry specific. You mentioned anti-spam legislation and the monetary penalties there, specifically targeting Internet companies and companies that would use that medium as a source of advertising, and that seems to be drawn there, too.
I'm wondering, from an industry perspective, though, do you see any benefit at all for genetic testing that could be an advantage to people?