Evidence of meeting #37 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 patients.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Past-President, Canadian Medical Association
I would agree with that. I think that's what gives it the teeth. We may be talking about large corporations that have deep pockets, and if it's not considered a serious offence with serious consequences, that may not be a deterrent.
12:10 p.m.
Director, Ethics, Canadian Medical Association
I completely agree as well. I would say that amendments to the Human Rights Act to include genetic characteristics lay the foundation for understanding that discriminating against someone based on genetic characteristics constitutes discrimination.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Colleagues, would you be okay with my following up on Mr. Falk's question? I would like to follow up on what Mr. Falk and Mr. McKinnon were asking about, because I'm not sure that it came out as clearly as I would like.
In essence, as Mr. Falk pointed out—there are things that get pointed out that you suddenly recognize when a colleague brings it up—clause 6 gives a wide latitude of protection to medical practitioners and researchers to be exempt from clauses 3 through 5 of the bill.
Dr. Forbes correctly stated that medical practitioners have ethical obligations within their profession that also regulate them, but the same could be argued of lawyers and accountants and many other professions, yet they are not exempt. Clause 3 of the bill—and I want to read it clearly because I want to understand, and maybe there's a really clear reason why—states:
It is prohibited for any person to require an individual to undergo a genetic test as a condition of
Let me ask you this. Would there be any reason why a physician would say to someone, “I will not treat you if you will not undergo a genetic test”?
November 24th, 2016 / 12:10 p.m.
Past-President, Canadian Medical Association
I can't imagine that myself right at this moment, but I also would suggest that if a physician were to do that they would possibly be in violation of their ethical code, so they would be subject to discipline.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
So would an attorney. I understand that. There are other professions that are regulated in the same way. I was just asking because there may have been something that wasn't apparent to me on the face of it where you might tell me that a doctor may require a genetic test and would say “ I will not treat you unless you undergo it”. You can't see that.
12:10 p.m.
Past-President, Canadian College of Medical Geneticists
I'm sorry, but I can't think of a single example where that could happen.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Okay. That's what I wanted to understand, because I think the exemptions may be, as Mr. Falk said, perhaps overly broad. They may cover certain clauses and may be meant to cover the confidentiality clauses and the ability of the patient-doctor relationship to exchange information about the tests, but may not have been meant for the general prohibition related to a failure to provide services if somebody didn't undergo a genetic test.
12:10 p.m.
Past-President, Canadian College of Medical Geneticists
Yes, I think the idea itself was so foreign to us that we couldn't imagine it.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you. I think that clarifies that issue for me much better.
Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I think the point for me is that it's a reasonable exclusion if the requiring of the test is essential or important for the treatment that is going to be rendered, or in order to decide on a course of treatment, but beyond that, it seems to be unnecessary. It seems to be, as was observed, a little bit broad.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
[Inaudible—Editor] part of the bill. It was just a question since you are physicians, and this goes to the physicians especially.
Did anybody else have any short questions?
Ms. Bensimon.
12:10 p.m.
Director, Ethics, Canadian Medical Association
Yes, thank you.
If I may return to the point that two of you made. I'd like to return to the point about the Torys's legal analysis that this is not a “public health evil”. I'd like to make the point that whether or not this is a public health evil—and I think there are many compelling reasons why there would be implications for public health that transcend a legal analysis—the question is that genetic discrimination gets to the heart of patient care and the implications for patient care. I think that's really where we need to focus our analysis.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
For all of those watching at home, “Torys” in this case means the Torys law firm, not the Conservative Party.
12:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I want to thank all of you. Your testimony has been enormously helpful to the members of the committee.
We're going to go in camera, so we'll have a short break for everybody to clear the room.
Again, thank you so much, ladies.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
