Mr. Speaker, when it comes to discussing time, let me point out that plenty of time was allocated to discuss the bill in the last session.
With respect to discussing the second group of motions, I am puzzled about how the Bloc can deny all Canadians the opportunity to provide this privacy protection which they need, have been asking for and of course deserve. That is why Motion No. 3 must be rejected.
Motion No. 4 clarifies that even non-profit and charitable sectors of our economy, when engaged in commercial activities such as the barter and sale of membership and donor lists, are covered by the bill. This is a very good motion and one which we should support. I congratulate my colleague the member for Wentworth—Burlington for his creativity and insight in bringing forward this motion.
With Motion No. 6 the Bloc again would have us deny Canadians the personal information protection they have been calling for. Therefore we must reject this motion.
Motions Nos. 7 and 46 will undermine the protection that is given to Canadians by Bill C-6. We will not ignore the needs and expectations of all Canadians to have their information and privacy protected with an effective law.
Motion No. 8 will clarify that part 1 of the bill will prevail over subsequent legislation only unless the subsequent legislation specifically provides otherwise. It also clarifies that part 1 prevails over amendments to existing legislation unless the amending act provides otherwise. I urge members to support this motion also.
Motions Nos. 11, 14, 18 and 19 introduce a subclass of personal information. Bill C-6 affords the same level of protection to all personal information and we must therefore reject these motions.
Motion No. 12 is clearly a delaying tactic on behalf of the Bloc and cannot be accepted.
There are five motions to amend clause 7 of Bill C-6 which are closely related, Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20. These amendments make changes to three existing provisions and introduce two new provisions in order to ensure that Canadian law enforcement and other investigatory bodies continue to carry out their mandate in the manner they currently do.
Motion No. 13 to amend clause 7(2)(a) broadens the type of offences that organizations can investigate using personal information without consent where they believe there has been a contravention of the law.
Motion No. 15 will add new paragraph (c.1) to clause 7(3) to allow disclosure of personal information without consent to government institutions which require the information in order to undertake investigations or enforce or administer laws at the discretion of organizations. This new paragraph clarifies for organizations the circumstances under which they may accede at their discretion to the legitimate requests of government institutions for personal information, for national security, law enforcement and administrative purposes where they have lawful authority. This amendment allows the status quo to continue.
The intent of the bill is to regulate the commercial use of personal information. For instance, in the case of the publicly funded health care system, the bill is not intended to impede the flow of information necessary for the protection of patients' health and the improvement of the administration of health care. To clarify this, the minister tabled this amendment on October 15 which specifically addresses the need to share information without consent when it is necessary for the administration of a law or a program.
The information highway offers opportunities to improve the efficiency and accountability of our health care system. Organizations like the Canadian Institute for Health Information assists in this endeavour.
Bill C-6 is intended to facilitate these initiatives as it provides a basic set of fair information practices around which all stakeholders can harmonize. In the pursuit of a harmonized privacy protection regime for Canada, we encourage all the provinces and territories to move swiftly to legislate broadly in their own jurisdictions.
Motion No. 16 to amend clause 7(3)(d) reflects the previous two amendments in Motions Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of consistency. It will continue to allow disclosures by organizations on their own initiative to national security and law enforcement agencies where the organization has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a contravention of a law or a breach of an agreement. This amendment requires a consequential amendment to clause 7(5) which is contained in Motion No. 20.
I urge members to support Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20 which merely codify the status quo and allow businesses to continue to co-operate with law enforcement agencies where appropriate. These amendments do not grant new powers to government institutions nor do they create additional burdens on businesses. I urge members to vote in support of Motion Nos. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 20.
Motion No. 21 must be rejected because Bill C-6 gives all personal information the same protection. We will not treat one class differently from another. Motion No. 22 attempts the same thing and must also be rejected.
With Motions Nos. 23 and 25 the Bloc is continuing with its delay tactics. Therefore I recommend that these motions be rejected. Motion No. 24 must also be rejected because Bill C-6 already deals with this specific issue.
Motion No. 26 would amend the bill by detailing the particular circumstances in which a company would not reveal information to an individual, following his or her request for access to his or her personal information, the fact that a national security or law enforcement agency had contacted the company and the procedures that must be followed in such instances.
Where a government institution objects to disclosure because an investigation or national security would be compromised and the organization denies access of this information to an individual because an investigation or national security could be compromised, the organization must notify the privacy commissioner in writing and without delay of refusal.
These amendments do not provide law enforcement with additional powers. Moreover, the amendments do not restrict the individual's access to his or her personal information collected by the company. These amendments simply safeguard investigations. For these reasons, these amendments must be supported by all members.
We must reject Motion No. 34. As I have said before, the Bloc does not want to give all Canadians the privacy protection they have called for.
Motion No. 35 will amend clause 17 and will provide that federal court hearings under part 1 of Bill C-6 be conducted with every reasonable precaution to avoid disclosure of any information that an organization could refuse to disclose to an individual. It clarifies that the court can receive representation ex parte and conduct hearings in camera in these circumstances. We must support the motion.
The Bloc is using delay tactics with Motion No. 44 and I recommend that we reject the motion.
Motion No. 45 to amend clause 26 allows the governor in council to make regulations specifying, by name or by class, what is a government institution or part of a government institution for the purpose of part 1. It also clarifies that the specification of an investigative body for the purpose of part 1 can also be done by name or by class.