Thanks very much. I think it's an excellent point, and it brings up one of the dominant principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation, the idea that the Constitution needs to be interpreted as a “living tree” capable of evolving over time and capable of addressing new social problems and challenges.
With all due respect for my colleague, Professor Cyr's quote from the Attorney General for Ontario v. Reciprocal Insurers decision from 1924 is a little dangerous from that point of view, because it predates the articulation of the living tree principle in 1930 in the Persons Case by the Privy Council, and also predates the evolution of a modern understanding of the criminal law power that started with the margarine reference in 1949. It was a time when there was a much more restrictive interpretation of the criminal law. In any case, the Reciprocal Insurers case from 1924 dealt with an attempt by the federal Parliament to assert jurisdiction over the insurance industry, writ large, and the comments from that case have to be thought of in their historical context and the legal context of the time. I'm not sure they're very helpful in thinking through this issue.
I agree with you, however, that this is a fast-moving area of science with huge implications for our health and for our health care system. I think there's a growing consensus, which we see reflected in the debates throughout the parliamentary process, that we need to take steps to protect people's genetic information and to give them a firm basis for believing that their genetic information will be within their control.