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”?