I've been IMS's chief privacy officer since 2000. We were one of the first companies in Canada to have such a position. I joined the company from the Ontario Ministry of Health, where I provided legal advice to the ministry on all privacy-related issues under the provincial public sector privacy and access law. I previously worked at the Information and Privacy Commissioner's office in Ontario for a number of years. So my experience in privacy and access issues spans the government, the regulator, and now the private sector.
You'll recall that Gary referred to one of IMS's key databases, information we receive from pharmacies that identifies drugs that have been prescribed by identified physicians. I again emphasize that we receive no patient identifiable information. We do not have access to the actual prescription record. Information that we receive about physician prescribing practices is disclosed in groups of at least 30 physicians. Generally, the groups are much larger. So that the actual prescribing pattern of an individual physician is never disclosed, rather a client sees a report that indicates one number for all the named physicians in the group.
Physicians may have access to their individual prescribing information upon request to IMS. It's free. IMS only discloses the information on an individual basis to the physician or as required by law.
Why are we here today? We're here to request that the committee consider a narrow technical amendment to PIPEDA to clarify, codify, and provide certainty that work product information be excluded from the definition of personal information and therefore from the scope of the act.
As the committee knows, the definition of personal information in PIPEDA is information about an identifiable individual. The definition then goes on to exclude the name, title, or business address, or telephone number of an employee of an organization. The question is whether the information IMS receives from pharmacies related to a physician's prescribing is subject to PIPEDA.
When the legislation was being drafted and debated, we had questions as to whether the apparently very broad scope of the definition would capture the prescribing information, which did not appear to be intended. Even before the act came into force, our data suppliers and our clients expressed concerns about the information because of the lack of clarity in PIPEDA. As soon as the act came into effect in 2001, we were advised by the commissioner's office that they had received two complaints about our practices, alleging that we were contravening PIPEDA, as we were collecting personal information without the consent of physicians.
In the fall of 2001, the commissioner issued his findings on both complaints together, concluding that the prescribing information is not personal information, but rather work product information, and thus not subject to PIPEDA.
One of the complainants, a former business competitor, took the matter to the Federal Court, where it was dismissed, on consent of all parties, in the spring of 2004.
Working with Industry Canada, we proposed that a clarifying regulation be promulgated under PIPEDA to ensure the legislative intent that such information was not subject to the act was clear. However, the Department of Justice provided the opinion that such clarity had to be provided through a legislative amendment as opposed to a regulation. We followed their advice, so we're here today asking for such an amendment.
Why is it necessary? We, and others that you've heard from, still operate under a cloud of business uncertainty. Despite the commissioner's finding, another complaint against IMS on the same question could be filed with the commissioner's office tomorrow. As you've heard, the commissioner could make a different finding. She has no obligation to follow the previous one. As you can appreciate, this is a very difficult and uncertain environment in which to conduct business and to make decisions about ongoing investments in technology, infrastructure, and human resources in our Canadian operation in Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta.
Just as importantly, in the Canadian privacy environment, we've seen over the years an explicit recognition of the commissioner's finding on work product. You've heard from Department of Industry representatives that B.C. has substantially similar provincial private sector legislation, PIPA. This came into effect in January 2004 and, in effect, codifies the commissioner's finding. It has a definition of work product information that's explicitly excluded from the definition of personal information.