Thank you very much. I’m glad he spoke about some of the processes, but is the Minister prepared to get it started? After this June meeting, what will be the process for getting the planning study into the books and into our budget? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we are engaged with the community and the DEAs. The planning study is proposed for 2014-15, so that is earmarked that we are proposing as a department and then moving forward towards the capital projects based on that. A decision will be made from there. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister has mentioned 2014-15, a planning study and, of course, it was on the books for construction in 2018. In my Member’s statement I was speaking on behalf of the people of Trout Lake. That is too far away. I would like to have the Minister perhaps have the ability going to Trout Lake on June 24th with some positive answers to the community to advance this project. Is the Minister prepared to do that? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, that is 2014-15 we have earmarked for the funding for a planning study. If there are any changes, we will definitely let the Member know in advance. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back in November 2012, I had asked the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources about identifying quotas for herds. When I say quotas, I mean, I am referring to numbers that herds rise up to a particular identifying number that we can then say once they reach this level, we can open up outfitting whether it is for resident hunters or, of course, open it up to the outfitters themselves. What work has been done on that particular issue since October?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is work being done by the government. There are discussions among the co-management boards. There is a recognition that those types of thresholds, as the Member has pointed out, have value as we have seen from the successful application of the Porcupine caribou herd management approach where they have those thresholds and triggers.
As we have the discussions, we make sure we have the baseline information that gives us some common comfort that we have a clear number for a particular herd and herd size that work is being done. We expect to come forward here in the next few months with an update on exact specific progress herd by herd. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Minister can be a little more specific regarding the actual thresholds that help to determine what is considered a quality size of a herd before we can start implementing hunting once again. Will he be willing to publicize that information as to what these determining numbers are so everyone can understand what we are working towards? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, there is a wide variety of herd sizes. Some are literally in the few thousands to some that are over 100,000. The numbers are not all going to be the same.
We are going to look herd by herd. We are going to work with the co-management boards and all of the appropriate stakeholders. When we have any specific information, we will bring that forward. Thank you.
The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to follow up on the questions asked by my colleague from Hay River North with regard to what seems to be a problem with graduating students who are born, raised and educated in the North and then seek post-secondary education under our Student Financial Assistance Program. We back them all the way, but when they get back here, it seems that whatever policies we have in place, they are fantastic on paper and even some of the statistics that the Minister quoted today sound very good, but there must be something lost in translation, just by the sheer number of students that we know of that come back to the North who have a very difficult time successfully applying for jobs within the public service of the GNWT.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister who oversees, to ensure that the policies of this government, with respect to hiring young Northerners coming back to the North for a position, to make sure that at the local and regional level, these policies are adhered to. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the one program that I think the Member may be referring to is the Graduate Intern Program, which is a program that is administered by the Department of Human Resources. Our problem is not that we aren’t administering the program correctly; the problem is that there are limited funds. This year, by way of example, we had 65 applications for 33 positions. So given that there is a huge number of students who want support from the program and a limited number of seats and/or funding, we are not able to hire every student into an internship program every year.
When it comes to selecting the students, Human Resources facilitates that program and the departments are ultimately the individuals who are doing the final hires. Thank you.
Thank you. I would like to ask the Minister, is there not an opportunity for something to be lost in translation between what the department decides they want to do, the hiring department decides they want to do, and what the policy of this government is. Is there not an opportunity that there is a disconnect there? It would appear to be that way, from what I see.
Another question is: Are there any professions for which this government will guarantee a placement for when the student returns with a post-secondary degree or certificate? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose a disconnect could exist, but I think one of the big challenges that we face is the fact that we had 65 applications and 33 seats. That means at least 50 percent of the people are going to be disappointed or upset.
As of today, there is still a Graduate Placement Program for nurses and social workers. Were graduate nurses, graduate social workers, as well as teachers are guaranteed an offer of employment. The problem with these guarantees, in some peoples’ perception, is that they don’t offer you a job in the location you are from. They don’t offer you a job in the place you happen to live because we can’t guarantee that a job exists there at that particular time, but it is an offer of employment somewhere in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke of 33 positions, 65 applicants. Where are the 33 positions? Are they distributed throughout the Northwest Territories at regional centres and other locations, or are they all in Yellowknife? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it varies from year to year, based on which departments submit applications for internship positions. Not all of them are in Yellowknife, but they vary from year to year so it could be different next year from this year, depending on where the departments decide or are interested in actually setting them up. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker, this introduces a new element in this. So this is optional for departments to subscribe, I guess, to this program. If they have positions open within their department, it is up to them if they want to hire students or if they want to basically circumvent this student hiring program altogether. So the onus is on the departments to apply for these positions, and if that is the case, if they want someone with more experience, then they wouldn’t have to bother with this. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Internship Program that we are talking about is actually an opportunity for a department to have a secondary or supernumerary-type position. It is not one of our indeterminate or full-time positions, but it is an opportunity for a student who has no experience but a great education to come into the public service, to develop some skills, consolidate their learning with a one-year placement in the Internship Program. From there they have the criteria to then apply on jobs as they become vacant. So this is an opportunity for people to learn, develop, get some experience, help build a resume and apply for work accordingly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, report of standing and special committees. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its report on the 2011-2012 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and commends it to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Proceed.
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Government Operations has reviewed the 2011-2012 Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. Members would like to thank Ms. Elaine Keenan-Bengts for her report and for her appearance before the committee at the public review on April 15, 2013.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. Her primary role is to review and make recommendations on public bodies and decisions related to the Northwest Territories Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, or the ATIPP Act. The ATIPP Act requires that public bodies demonstrate their accountability by making information accessible to the public, while at the same time protecting the privacy of individuals.
In 2011-12 the Commissioner opened 27 files, up 35 percent from the previous year. She completed 10 review recommendations, up three from 2010-2011. Six review recommendations were accepted, mainly or completely, by the public body concerned. Four recommendations were rejected in whole or in part. The Department of Justice, the Beaufort-Delta Health and Social Services Authority and the Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority all had three or more matters requiring the Commissioner’s consideration during the year.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is also authorized to make recommendations for legislative change. This year the Commissioner highlighted three legislative issues, all of which were raised in her past reports and forwarded to this House for the standing committee: new health policy and privacy legislation, access and privacy legislation for municipalities and the need for a general review of the ATIPP Act. The committee concurs that these matters have become even more pressing with the passage of time.
I will now turn the floor over to deputy chair Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In June of 2011 an employee of the Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority made a complaint to the Information and Privacy Commissioner about inadequate protection of medical information in Yellowknife’s two primary care clinics. The investigation resulted in what the standing committee agrees is one of the most significant review reports completed during this Commissioner’s term of office.
The implementation of an electronic medical records system began in June 2010 at the Yellowknife Primary Care Centre. This is, for the most part, excellent news as electronic records make it much easier and quicker for doctors and nurses to review patients’ medical histories and provide swift and appropriate treatment. Members also recognize the key role electronic medical records will play in the integration of services and effective case management.
The complaint alleged that adequate privacy protections were not built into the new system. Numerous staff, ranging from senior managers to receptionists, had access to patient information in the system, including such sensitive matters as the reason for patients’ visits. There were no safeguards to prevent inappropriate access to patient information, no warning system which would identify when information had been inappropriately accessed, and no routine privacy auditing. All of these factors raised the risk of inappropriate use and disclosure of personal health information.
As the Commissioner observed during the public review, the privacy of health records has a serious impact on patient comfort and safety and, ultimately, on public health. Patients who are concerned about the privacy of their records may not give their doctors important but potentially embarrassing information. They may even decide not to go to the clinic for medical attention.
In the complaint under review, the Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority responded to the Commissioner’s request for detailed information on its new electronic medical records system. The authority also had its legal counsel conduct a privacy impact assessment, shared the report with the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and committed to make improvements in line with the internal assessment.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner noted, however, that there is a disconnect between her view of what constitutes adequate protection of personal health information and the authority’s view. The differences turn on two issues, both of which have legislative implications: the extent to which information can be shared without the patient’s explicit consent, and the purposes for which it can be legitimately shared.
First, the Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority takes the position that all the information they collect is shared within a circle of care. That circle of care includes all employees who assist with client care as necessary to perform job-related duties. What this means, in practice, is that sharing of some types of patient information is broadly permitted without explicit patient consent within the Yellowknife Health and Social Services system.
I would now turn the reading of the report over to my colleague Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Ms. Bisaro.
The “circle of care” concept is used in health-specific privacy legislation in some other Canadian jurisdictions to define the group within which personal health information can be shared for the purpose of providing medical help. Northwest Territories legislation does not refer or define a “circle of care.”
Further, the Commissioner warns that even where jurisdictions have defined the concept, its scope is interpreted very differently by health care providers and the general public. The standing committee agrees that most people would expect that their circle of care be limited to a relatively small number of employees directly concerned with their treatment rather than the approximately 150 people employed in the system.
Secondly, the ATIPP Act provides that personal information can be used or disclosed only in narrowly defined circumstances, namely for the purpose for which the information was collected or for a use consistent with that purpose. The Commissioner’s view is that the current legislation should be understood to require the patient’s express consent for the sharing of personal health information beyond the purpose for which it was originally provided. The Yellowknife Health and Social Services system, on the other hand, permits the sharing of patient information across practitioners for almost any health-related purpose unless there is an explicit request from the patient to limit the sharing.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner found, in short, that the Yellowknife Health and Social Services was not in compliance with the current NWT privacy legislation. The issues identified go beyond the specific privacy complaint. The electronic medical records system at the Yellowknife clinics is being considered as the model for the territory-wide system. Health-specific privacy legislation is urgently required to provide clear rules for the health and social service authorities and practitioners as these systems are implemented.
Work on Northwest Territories health privacy legislation has been underway for approximately five years. The new Health Information Act will establish a framework for the collection, use and disclosure of, and access to, personal health information. The Information and Privacy Commissioner recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services do whatever is necessary to make completion of this legislation a priority.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations concurs. The committee recognizes that the Health Information Act is a large and complex piece of legislation, requiring significant public consultation. In view of the risks of electronic medical records systems to the privacy rights of individuals and the speed with which these systems are being implemented, however, this legislation must be expedited.
In last year’s response to the standing committee’s recommendations tabled October 17, 2012, the government said it anticipated the bill for the proposed Health Information Act would be introduced in 2013-2014. However, the government also said the introduction of the bill would depend on ensuring adequate time for further consultations with key stakeholders in the winter of 2012-13. The committee trusts that this schedule is being maintained and that the Members can expect the introduction of a bill before the end of the fiscal year.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories expedite work on the new Health Information Act, with a view to introducing a bill as soon as possible.
If the government is not able to introduce this bill in the fall sitting, the standing committee further recommends that the government table a detailed progress report in that sitting, identifying a timeline and any additional resources required so that a bill may be introduced within the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass the floor over to Mr. Moses. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The three northern territories are the only Canadian jurisdictions which do not have information and privacy legislation for municipalities. Municipalities collect and retain significant amounts of personal information about citizens and employees. There is no recourse in the NWT for citizens when this information is improperly used, nor are there any rules governing citizens’ access to municipal information.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner says she is receiving an increasing number of letters from people who are concerned about municipal access and privacy issues. In 2011-2012 the Commissioner received two formal complaints concerning a municipality’s use and/or disclosure of an employee’s personal information. In the absence of legislation, the Commissioner tried to engage with the municipality in a discussion about policies, guidelines and best practices, but received no reply.
Previous standing committees have supported the Commissioner’s recommendation to make municipalities subject to access and privacy legislation. The NWT Association of Communities has a standing policy on access to information and protection of privacy which supports the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s recommendation to the extent of urging the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs to prepare a discussion paper and commence consultation with stakeholders.
Last year the standing committee recommended the implementation of access and privacy legislation for municipalities, with a bill to be brought forward within the first two years of the 17th Legislative Assembly. The committee understands that small communities might not have the resources needed to implement access and privacy measures immediately. Members concurred with the Commissioner’s suggestion that legislation be developed, at the very least, for tax-based municipalities.
The government’s response, tabled October 17, 2012, recognized that this recommendation was still outstanding and, once again, acknowledged the importance of this issue. The response noted that officials from the departments of Justice and Municipal and Community Affairs met with representatives of community governments and their administrators last fall. A working group was established to review how all NWT municipalities may be brought under existing access and privacy legislation and develop a discussion paper for stakeholders. The government does not wish to distinguish between tax-based communities and others for access and privacy purposes, as smaller communities that are incorporated as charter communities or hamlets now have the option to become tax-based.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased that the government has finally started working towards the inclusion of municipalities in access and privacy legislation. The government promised to provide findings to the standing committee when the review is concluded. Members appreciate the offer. It is not clear, however, when this report may be expected and the committee remains concerned about the slow pace of this initiative.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories expedite work on bringing municipalities under the access to information and protection of privacy legislation, and that a phased approach to implementation be considered in order to take into account the needs and resources of smaller communities, while improving access to information and protection of privacy in larger population centres, and that the government table its review report and discussion paper in the fall sitting.
If these are not available, the government should table a detailed progress report on the municipal access and privacy initiative, identifying a timeline for completion and any additional resources required to complete the review report within the life of the 17th Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn the floor over to my colleague Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, thank you to Mr. Moses.
In her 2011-12 annual report, as in her three previous reports, the Information and Privacy Commissioner recommended the general review of the ATIPP Act. The Northwest Territories ATIPP Act has now been in force for more than 15 years. Access and privacy laws in other jurisdictions provide for regular reviews at five- or 10-year intervals. The Standing Committee on Government Operations forwarded this recommendation, along with others, to the Assembly last May.
The government indicated its response to last year’s standing committee report that it supports the committee’s recommendations to undertake a comprehensive review of the act, including an examination of the role and the powers of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The review was identified in the Department of Justice 2013-2014 Business Plan, but completion is dependent on resources and timing.
The Standing Committee is pleased that this is on the government’s agenda. The committee appreciates the efforts and commitments of the Minister of Justice and the Government of the Northwest Territories access and privacy office to advance this work during the 17th Assembly.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories provides a detailed progress report to this Assembly on work done towards a comprehensive review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, identifying the timeline and any additional resources required to complete the review within the life of the 17th Assembly.
Last year the Standing Committee on Government Operations expressed a concern for the government’s lack of action on many of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s long-standing recommendations for legislative and ministerial improvement, most of which has been supporting the standing committee reports and motions in the House. The committee recommended that the government provide a privacy report.
In their response of October 19, 2012, the government tabled a detailed progress report on the work it has done on the committee’s access and privacy recommendations since 2008. Although the progress has been painfully slow in some areas, the committee found the report to be a useful tool in determining the government’s intentions and following up on key recommendations. Members commend the GNWT’s access and privacy office for their work on the progress report and would like to see an updated version on an annual basis.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories table an updated progress report and implementation plan for the committee’s recommendations concerning access to information and protection of privacy presented in the House since 2008, during or before the fall of 2013 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, I now turn the floor back to the chair of the committee, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
Northwest Territories residents are fortunate to have had Elaine Keenan-Bengts, a lawyer in private practice, as the Information and Privacy Commissioner since 1997. This length of service provides the Northwest Territories with remarkable continuity and expertise in the complex and involved field of access to information and protection of privacy. The Standing Committee on Government Operations is grateful for Ms. Keenan-Bengts passion for information and privacy rights in northern Canada. It respects her work in reviewing complaints and making thoughtful, well-considered recommendations for legislative change. Members are committed to giving the Commissioner’s recommendations due consideration, forwarding them, as appropriate, to this House and following up with the government on their implementation.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days.
The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Nadli.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and move Committee Report 3-17(4) into Committee of the Whole for consideration today.
---Unanimous consent granted
The report has been moved into Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2013-2014.” Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
