Evidence of meeting #29 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pipeda.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I was interested in your question on notification. Maybe not all your members are, but some of your bigger members are in the storage business also, which means you actually have records of people, some of it very private, for storage. You are telling me now that none of these breaches that you mentioned earlier happened from a storage company?
Executive Director, National Association for Information Destruction - Canada
We're not saying that. There have been incidents. We are asking for some consideration and credibility here, because we are representing our interests to some extent in being here, asking for this. I can't believe it's too often that an industry comes to you asking for more regulation that is actually going to affect it, and it will affect our members. But we have had members who store records that have had breaches and would be covered and even penalized under more stringent legislation.
Conservative
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I would like to thank you for appearing here this morning and I apologize for being late, that was unintentional.
I have a question for IMS representatives regarding work product.
In your presentation, I believe it was Ms. Fineberg who mentioned that you had supplied the committee with a number of terms for such an amendment. I have just received a copy of your brief and was unable to find those definitions.
Vice-President, Public Affairs and Corporate Relations, IMS Health Canada
In the English version, they are on page 34, I believe. In the French version, you can find them on page 42.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Your recommendation reads as follows:
IMS's recommendation for a technical amendment to PIPEDA consists of two parts: (1) THAT the definition of “personal information” as found in section 2 paragraph 1 of the act be amended to read as follows: “personal information” means information about an identifiable individual, but does not include the name, title or business address or telephone number of an employee of an organization, or work- product information. AND (2) THAT a definition of “work-product information” to read as follows be added to section 2(1): “work-product information” means information prepared, compiled or disclosed by an individual or group as part of the individual or group's responsibilities related to their profession, employment or business. It does not include: (i) personal information about an identifiable individual who did not prepare, compile or disclose the information; or (ii) information collected, used or disclosed for the purposes of workplace surveillance.
Those are your two suggestions. Is that correct?
Vice-President, Public Affairs and Corporate Relations, IMS Health Canada
Yes.
Bloc
Corporate Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer, Canada and Latin America, IMS Health Canada
It is not a choice with respect to the way in which we are proposing an amendment. The two parts must work together. The first part is that the definition of personal information, as it is in PIPEDA right now, would have another exclusion, which is for work product information. Then in order to accomplish that, there must be another amendment to the act, a definition of what work product information is. That is what you see in the second part.
In the work product definition itself, you have the opening phrase, and then you have: “It does not include—personal information about an identifiable individual who did not prepare, compile or disclose the information”—that is adapted from the B.C. one—“or information collected, used or disclosed for the purposes of workplace surveillance.” We proposed that in the amendment to address the concerns that were expressed by a couple of witnesses who appeared before you, in particular, the federal commissioner.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I have a naive question for you. Who could oppose such a definition and why?
Conservative
Vice-President, Public Affairs and Corporate Relations, IMS Health Canada
In my view, people might believe that their personal information could be compromised. There might be—and these are things that have occurred in the past—patients who believe that, because we gather prescription information it could be compromised, but that is not the case.
It is therefore possible that some patients see things that way. But otherwise...
Vice-President, Public Affairs and Corporate Relations, IMS Health Canada
Physicians could as well.
Bloc
Vice-President, Public Affairs and Corporate Relations, IMS Health Canada
Specifically speaking about Canada or given sectors, I'd say that some physicians are not necessarily pleased about the fact that we gather that information.
Member, Medical Advisory Board, IMS Health Canada
It is quite simple to answer that, Mr. Chair. Based on our experience, physicians who are opposed do not know the company and its products. We have had the opportunity to sit down with physicians who had questions or who had research needs. From the moment they understood what it was we did, they were in complete agreement. Besides, that is the trend at present, and more and more physicians want to have their personal profiles.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for coming.
Just for clarification, we've heard an awful lot of witnesses, and basically the only thing you're suggesting is an amendment between private information and product information. So you're quite satisfied with the act as it stands. You'd just like to see a little clarification in that area.
Corporate Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer, Canada and Latin America, IMS Health Canada
Our position is that generally PIPEDA is working well as far as it impacts our company, but on this particular issue, on this point, we believe PIPEDA does require some clarification.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
We've heard a tremendous amount of information and such, and aside from all the Chicken Little evidence, I think I can narrow it down to this. At least, that's what I'm finding.
The only other thing I find interesting, gentlemen, is your presentation—A simple law applied to the act, stating that all information is to be stored, and if it's moved, it should then be moved in a certain way or shredded—could something like that just be added to the act?
