Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya.
It has been 17 years since the coming into force date of the ATIPP Act. The committee notes that many NWT statutes contain a provision triggering an automatic review at set intervals; for example, every five or 10 years. When one considers that the Internet was in its infancy when the ATIPP Act came into force, it is easy to appreciate how information technology has evolved since then. The committee is of the opinion that, by any measure, a review of the ATIPP Act is long overdue. The committee encourages the GNWT, when reviewing the ATIPP Act, to include a triggering provision for a mandatory statutory review, to ensure that the ATIPP Act is kept current in future years.
In her 2012-2013 Annual Report, the IPC made a series of recommendations for modernizing and updating the legislation to, amongst other things, address the use of current day technologies, to provide strict and enforceable timelines for response to access requests and to encourage public bodies to properly document information-related decisions. In addition to these earlier recommendations, the IPC has also pointed to the value of including “access and privacy by design” considerations in updated ATIPP legislation. This latter point is addressed further in committee Recommendation 3 below.
The committee references the Progress Report on the Comprehensive Review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, provided as an attachment to TD 114-17(4), and recognizes that the GNWT is now looking beyond 2015 for the completion of this important work. The committee urges the GNWT to make this work a priority as it moves forward.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations again recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide an updated progress report to this Assembly on work done towards a comprehensive review of the ATIPP Act; and
That the Government of the Northwest Territories undertake a review of all previous recommendations made regarding updating the ATIPP Act and include, in the progress report, a status report on how the committee’s recommendations are being addressed.
The committee discussed with the IPC the benefits of building access and privacy considerations into the development of programs, policies and legislation at the ground floor. This helps to ensure that the tools required to access information more easily, and to better protect the privacy of individuals are incorporated into the design of any initiative, rather than having to be retrofitted after the fact.
The IPC pointed out that achieving the goal of easier information access and appropriate privacy protections may be as simple as enabling a search function, but there is more to be done than that. The IPC spoke of the concept of open government, where the objective is to put as much information as possible online, to reduce the need for people to want to make access inquiries. The committee was encouraged to hear that the IPC had her first meeting with the GNWT’s office of the chief information officer, to discuss areas of mutual interest.
The committee is supportive of the IPC’s views on access and privacy by design and therefore encourages the GNWT to work with the IPC to integrate this approach into day-to-day business practices. The committee places special emphasis on the development of legislative proposals by departments and strongly encourages the GNWT to consider ways in which access and privacy by design considerations will be incorporated into legislative proposals. The committee would welcome the opportunity, when reviewing legislative proposals, to assess the access by design considerations included by departments.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories work with the IPC to incorporate access by design considerations into the design phase of program, policy and legislation development, giving particular thought to how these considerations may be built into the legislative proposal process.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to turn my attention over to my other committee colleague Mr. Alfred Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Dolynny.
Inclusion of IPC in Implementation of Health Information Act
The committee is in agreement with the Commissioner’s assertion that the GNWT can only benefit from involving the office of the IPC in the work that it is doing to implement the Health Information Act and encourages the GNWT to avail itself of the expertise that the office can provide.
As noted by the IPC in her 2013-2014 Annual Report, the ATIPP Act requires public bodies to respond to access requests within 30 days. Certain exceptions are provided for in very specific instances. As the IPC points out, it is concerning that seven out of 12 access matters dealt with in review recommendations pertained to the failure of a public body to reply to an access request in a timely manner. The committee shares this concern.
The IPC pointed out to the committee that, in many instances, the reasons cited by departments in requesting extensions under the act and in explaining the causes for delays are not adequate because they do not fall within the reasons for delays provided for by the act.
The committee shares the IPC’s concern and discussed ways in which this issue may be improved. The IPC offered the following suggestions to departments to improve their response times: institute a GNWT policy to prioritize the response from departments to access requests; use redaction software, which automates the process of censoring materials to be released in response to a request; and train more people to respond to access requests, to minimize the impact of staff absences on response times.
With respect to privacy breaches, the ATIPP Act requires a public agency to respond within 90 days to any recommendations made by the IPC as the result of investigating a complaint. The IPC did note that almost all privacy breaches are the result of human error and that these are rarely, if ever, caused maliciously or with intent. She also observed that, during the course of her time in office, she is not aware of a public body taking disciplinary action against an employee responsible for a breach of privacy. The IPC noted that the Department of Justice offers ATIPP training for any GNWT employees who want it and that it is important for staff to understand their obligations in signing employee confidentiality agreements.
The committee wishes to stress to the GNWT the importance of meeting its statutory obligations under the act and to ensuring that enough staff are adequately trained to meet those obligations without undue delay.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories work closely with departments to help them improve their response times under the act and that the GNWT make clear what sanctions will be imposed for departments that fail to meet their statutory commitments.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to pass the report over to our chair of Government Operations, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Nadli.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts has served as the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Northwest Territories since 1997. During her time in office, Ms. Keenan Bengts has demonstrated a passion for information and privacy rights and a long-standing commitment to the work of her office that the Standing Committee on Government Operations respects and admires.
The committee is pleased to hear that Ms. Keenan Bengts will be continuing her important work on a full-time basis as the Information and Privacy Commissioner for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
As the 17th Assembly draws to a close, the committee remains 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.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The motion is in order.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Report 10-17(5), Report on the Review of the 2013-2014 Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, is received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration on Tuesday, February 17, 2015.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to recognize Mr. Kevin Goodrem. He’s the vice-president of beneficiation with De Beers Group. Welcome to the House. With Mr. Goodrem this afternoon is Tracy St-Denis. She’s our director of secondary diamond industry with ITI. Welcome to the House.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize two Pages from the Mackenzie Delta, Gordon Blake and Randy Omingmak. Also, their chaperone, Ms. Elizabeth Wright.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although not a constituent of mine, I’d like to recognize one of the Pages who happens to be the daughter of a friend of mine, which is Davida Patterson, and her mother is the constituency assistant, I think, to Mrs. Groenewegen, Orlanda Patterson.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize the two hardworking Pages from Hay River South who have been able to join us in the Chamber here this week, Jolene Lamalice and Davida Patterson. Thank you for your great services, and welcome.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize a resident of Weledeh, Tracy St-Denis.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I’d like to welcome everybody here in the public gallery here today. Thank you for taking an interest in our proceedings.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. I want to ask the Minister, has this department ever done an inventory as to the exact number of residential school survivors in the Northwest Territories?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. This is an area that we’ve collected information on the residential school survivors of the Northwest Territories. We’ve compiled that information and we worked very closely with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission when they first started off with their programming and voicing all those across the nation and national events, and even in the Northwest Territories, Inuvik. We do have that information. I can share that detailed information with the Member.
I look forward to that information. The Minister has been collecting this information so if I go to the Sahtu and would know how many survivors are actually in Tulita, Fort Good Hope, Tuktoyaktuk…(inaudible)…any other communities, I would know the exact number of survivors that either passed away or that have gone into schools in the early 1900s. Is that what I’m hearing? You have the numbers and I’d be able to get those numbers?
The information that we’ve compiled, obviously with consent from the clientele as well as the survivors and even the families of the survivors, obviously we have work if we can release those names. But surely, I’ll be working very closely with the Member if we could allow that to happen and then provide that information to the Member.
I respect the survivors’ anonymity or the privacy of the survivors, so some of the information in the Northwest Territories, we know how many survivors or how many, say, students are in a school right now without having them consent to releasing that number. I want to ask why it’s so different with the survivors. If there are some survivors in our community, we can do our own. For example, in the Grollier Hall residential school, from the Roman Catholics report there were 2,500 students that went to the Grollier Hall Residential School, the highest amount of survivors in one residential school.
I’m asking the Minister, is there something like that that he can share, saying in the territory right now there are 6,000 to 8,000 survivors right now?
In the Northwest Territories the number that we do have as part of the claimants is around 5,500, which gives us an idea of the issues that we have to deal with in the territory. We do have a breakdown by community, so I can provide that information to the Member and also other Members, as well, if they wish.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to that from the Minister. I appreciate the flexibility to share, because that is a very important number for our communities.
I want to ask the Minister, based on that number, are the appropriate programs there to support the survivors today with the programs that we have within the GNWT?
Yes, 2010 we’ve developed a residential school curriculum that we wanted to focus on those residential school survivors to hear their stories, and we have reached out to them. We’ll carry on their stories for generations to come. That’s part of the Grade 10 curriculum within the high school. It’s mandatory. They need to have the Grade 10 residential curriculum before they graduate. That’s just one piece that we’ve developed as part of our programming to deal with residential schools, and there will be plenty of others that I will be addressing with the leadership at the…(inaudible)…of education next month in Banff. I’m leading the task on Aboriginal education, so I will be presenting that to them as well.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll follow up with my questions for the Minister of Justice.
My first question is: When can the community of Hay River expect to get a resident judge back in the community? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister of Justice, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had a deputy judge that was residing in Hay River up until last summer. We will certainly take the Member’s concerns back to the department and see what we can come up with. Thank you.
With the deputy judge stepping away from Hay River, was that on choice or was it the department’s move, and what is the hiring policy? Are we hiring somebody to fill that position? Can the Minister give me some more information on that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the circuit in Hay River hasn’t been growing. Meanwhile, here in Yellowknife court time is going up. The demand is here in Yellowknife, but we do take the Member’s concerns seriously. It was the individual’s decision to relocate out of the Northwest Territories from Hay River. Thank you.
My next question is to deal with remand and dealing with inmates, our accused people of the public, and they’re holding in facilities and the Minister just indicated that it’s busy in Yellowknife.
Why do we not have remand in Hay River? Why are we not taking some of that court pressure off in Yellowknife in the Hay River area for South Slave residents? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in ‘12-13 there were 67 inmates from the South Slave and Deh Cho regions that were in remand. Last year we had 71.
The current facility in Hay River is a minimum security facility. It’s not meant to house remand offenders and we have moved forward now from the decision that was made in 2005. It was a cost-cutting effort, but again, because the program is available here at North Slave Correctional Centre for inmates that are on remand, it was deemed more appropriate to house them here at North Slave Correctional Centre given the fact that the facility in Hay River is a minimum security facility and it would be a security risk to have inmates on remand in that facility. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question about the remand, and it used to be in Hay River and Hay River has always been a minimum security, so I’m not sure, has there been a change in policy? Has there been a change in the facility? Has their requirement for infrastructure for that facility to have remand in Hay River, to get that back in the community, get back to that in the South Slave to relieve some of that pressure in Yellowknife? Thank you.
In my time as Minister of Justice, I’m not aware of any changes in policy. I do know that the facility in Hay River could only house six inmates at any one time and it is a minimum security facility. They don’t have the level of programming that is offered to inmates that are on remand here at the North Slave Correctional Centre. I can get the Member some further detailed information on whether or not there was a policy shift. This is going back 10 years, so I’ll ask the department about that.
The good news is that with the facility in Hay River, we have added three new positions to that facility over the last number of years in working with inmates at that facility. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Premier. I want to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask some questions about plans for amendments and changes to the devolution legislation we passed a year ago.
With devolution, we accepted the federal legislation holus-bolus. There were no changes to any of that legislation when we took it over. We put our name on it but we accepted it as it had been with the feds.
I’d like to thank the Premier for his commitment for us to look at all those pieces of legislation and for us to review them, but I’d like to know from the Premier, what is the government’s plan to review these seven pieces of legislation? Can a copy of this plan be given to Members and to the public? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
