Yes. Unfortunately over the last several years the national post has shown its right wing bias to an increasing extent. It's not usually as obvious about it as a Fox News, but the intent of pieces like this is clear.
I'm not claiming that has anything to do with this specific article - I don't know enough to - just hoping to provide some color around parents comment.
With that in mind, I think this is a completely reasonable use of anonymized data by PHAC and the article does feel heavily sensationalized. I assume all the major insurers in the US are doing this - and far worse - but being private entities we have zero insight into it whatsoever. I would much rather PHAC have this data than a federated Kaiser-type entity that has my financial and physical health by the short-and-curlies so to speak.
There's a lot of interesting things for HN to talk about, but for the general public this should be a non-story.
You should never trust government. If your democracy is working, you can sometimes trust that government actions were good and competent after the fact. Trusting up front is abdication of your responsibility to guard against abuses as a citizen. Every tiny step towards surveillance and acquisition of data that can be abused should be resisted and assumed to be motivated by the worst possible incentive.
It's up to the agency or bureau to prove, up front, to the satisfaction of representatives and citizenry that a tool or power is necessary.
"But it's not illegal" is a weasel move, and heads should roll.