Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today on part 2 amendments to Bill C-6 which was formerly Bill C-54.
This is a fairly new area for me. I just became the industry critic for the official opposition about a week ago. The former critic, my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, has done some excellent work in this area. I know he has the support of a lot of advocacy groups that would like to see some changes made to the bill. I will talk about them in a few moments.
When I was following the bill in my capacity as a trade critic for our party, I thought it would deal essentially with the e-commerce aspect. If there was to be a privacy bill, I thought that it would be a stand alone bill. I would have preferred if that had been the case. We know there is a need to update Canada's law with regard to electronic commerce. Technology has passed a lot of things by. There is product moving around the world on aircraft these days, such as UPS which wants to have electronic signatures which will speed up the whole area of getting paid faster and so on.
The bill is essentially divided into two areas, privacy and electronic commerce. I will deal specifically with the part 2 amendments. We will be supporting the government amendments because they will clarify the bill, make it easier to understand and make sure the privacy aspect is respected.
We will not be supporting the Bloc on its amendments because we see them as a delaying tactic. However, I do have some sympathy for the Bloc members' concerns about the federal government again muscling its way into provincial jurisdiction and not using a co-operative approach. It is deplorable that it would rather use the stick than the carrot to achieve its goals. I suggest the government should learn that we can get a lot further with the carrot approach.
I have concerns regarding what I would see as provincial jurisdictions in a few areas that the federal government is moving into. The federal government has moved, with its jurisdictional levers in using the hammer approach on the trade and commerce aspect, by saying that if it cannot get co-operation it will do it on its own and if they do not put in legislation within a three year timeframe, federal legislation will to apply. That is a pretty crude instrument to use.
I am concerned that the provinces will need to introduce privacy information and legislation in the area of health care and all the social areas that the public is so concerned about. We need privacy surrounding medical records and records in terms of who is on social welfare. Those kind of things need to be introduced quickly by the provinces to protect that area.
We know the federal government has moved in the area of health care that is within its jurisdiction. It is nibbling at the edges, but if the provinces do not put in their own legislation, it is not clear what will happen in the area of health care privacy as introduced in the bill.
Quite frankly, a lot of people have good reason to not trust the government as to what its intentions are. We saw it muscle into provincial jurisdiction over the years. The Liberal Party has been in power for 70 years this century. We have seen the amount of workload and the number of bureaucrats increase. It is partly because it has muscled into provincial areas of jurisdiction.
The old BNA of 1867 was pretty clear on what that jurisdiction was and that needs to be respected. I think we would have a lot stronger country for it. However, because it is not clear, it is important that the provinces act on their own to protect those interests.
I am concerned about the use of time allocation again. I know there is a bit of a filibuster going on by the Bloc members. I think they have some reason to do that because of this idea of getting into the area of provincial jurisdiction. However, we have to remind the Liberal government that it is soon going to be approaching the Brian Mulroney record of 65 time allocations. I think this is the 55th time in six years that this Liberal government has restricted parliament by the use of time allocation. Mulroney took nine years to get to 65. The Liberals are going to beat him to it. They sat on this side of the House when they were in opposition and deplored it, as well they should, but they are now using the same blunt tactics again.
I want to get to the point about the amendments that my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona has introduced which will help clarify some of the social areas regarding health and health information. They are Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. I will take a moment to outline the general thrust of those motions.
Those proposed amendments would require organizations to obtain an individual's fully informed and expressed consent before using personal health information for a new purpose that is substantially different from the purpose which the information which was originally collected. The Liberals may argue that this protection already exists in the legislation, but our goal is to make sure that it exists. We think these amendments move to strengthen that, in particular with respect to health information.
The proposed amendments will also require that any non-consensual of disclosure of personal health information for research and scholarly purposes be approved in advance by the privacy commissioner. This would provide the necessary balance between the need for available research data and the right to privacy. The Liberals may again argue that they do not want to give the privacy commissioner binding powers.
The proposed amendments would prohibit the outright disclosure of personal health information to financial institutions. This is a very strong proposal that would ensure that banks do not attempt to collect health information that could be used to refuse mortgages and other financial services. We think that those amendments will strengthen the legislation.
In principle, we support Bill C-6 and we are going to be supporting those portions of it that we think are helpful.
There is a fine balance as we move to the new technologies. Information technology is advancing very quickly, for example the Internet. I know that it is a fine balance to try to strike that there should be open and free discussion, free speech. We do believe that the government has an obligation to protect the privacy of our citizens and therefore support the broad thrust of Bill C-6.
I want to just point out in the time I have left that my colleague for Edmonton—Strathcona has had pretty broad support for his amendments. I would urge the government to take that into account and vote for them this afternoon.
I want to read two endorsements I picked out of several. They are still referring to the previous title of the bill, Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6. Philipa Lawson, a consumer advocate with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, who has been closely following the progress of Bill C-54, which is now Bill C-6, writes to me saying that the Reform Party deserves to be congratulated for its important new amendments. He states that our personal health information is among the most sensitive and private information about us. It is highly vulnerable to abuse and therefore deserves special legal protection.
I have another endorsement from Thomas B. Riley, the chair of the Canada's Coalition for Public Information. He states, “I am writing to express our support for the amendments to Bill C-54 that Rahim Jaffer, the member of parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona, is proposing to table in the House of Commons. We believe in the importance of Bill C-54 and the importance of adding amendments related to health information”.
I would suggest that there is a number of groups that believe it is important to strengthen the legislation to make absolutely sure that health care, health information and the social area information is not being abused. I believe these amendments would strengthen it. I would therefore ask that the government put its support behind these important amendments to strengthen the legislation.