I simply don't have that information in front of me. I am not certain how the contract was set up, whether it was denominated in Canadian or American funds or dollars. I will look into it. I doubt there will be any supplementary appropriation required.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I would like to just pursue this issue of changes to the diamond mine environmental agreements a little bit further with the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. Earlier, I said that I can assure the Minister that the initiative to change the agreements last time to remove the federal government from the agreements was actually coming from our government, GNWT. I am pleased to hear him say that is not the case now, that there were some letters sent in December of 2016 about changes. Can the Minister table some sample letters in this House just so we have a better sense of what is going on? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I will find out if I am able to do that, or if I do find the letters, I will share them with the Members, and if possible, I can table them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to written question asked by Mr. Vanthuyne on February 9, 2017, to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment regarding impact of proposed Aurora College program changes.
The Department of Education, Culture and Employment, or ECE, provides support directly to teachers employed in the Northwest Territories through a combination of education and training opportunities. In response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions Call to Action No. 62 section ii, ECE provides:
A four-day orientation to the North for all new teachers that includes a full day of awareness training on the issues related to the history and legacy of residential schools before they begin their teaching assignments;
Awareness training on the issues related to the history and legacy of residential schools to all ECE headquarters staff;
Required training for all NWT principals that includes a three-day on-the-land cultural orientation;
Support for teacher professional development that may focus on cultural and linguistic issues in the North; and
In cooperation with Aboriginal governments, language learning opportunities for educators and community members, such as the Certificate of Aboriginal Language Revitalization from the University of Victoria.
The Northwest Territories Teachers Association also offers professional development funding for current language teachers to attend language learning opportunities, such as the University of Alberta's Canadian Indigenous Languages and Literacy Development Institute.
In response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Call to Action No. 63 section i, ECE is currently working on renewing the Aboriginal Language and Culture-Based Education Directive, which ensures that NWT students have access to Aboriginal language and culture-based education, and that their schools reflect their communities and cultures. The renewed directive will be implemented in the 2018-19 school year.
Working in partnership with the Government of Nunavut and the Legacy of Hope Foundation, ECE has developed a collection of teaching resources that address the history and legacy of residential schools in Canada. The Residential School System in Canada: Understanding the Past - Seeking Reconciliation - Building Hope for Tomorrow is now mandatory for all grade 10 high school students in the Northwest Territories.
We continue to work with jurisdictions from across Canada through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada to respond to a wide range of Aboriginal education issues, including:
Developing and implementing K-12 curriculum and learning resources on Aboriginal peoples in Canadian history, and the history and legacy of residential schools;
Sharing information and best practices on teaching curriculum related to residential schools and Aboriginal history;
Building student capacity for intercultural understanding, empathy and mutual respect; and
Identifying teacher training needs.
With regard to the concerns around the social deficit in the Northwest Territories, it should be noted that the significant demand for social workers described in the recent Labour Market Information Report is not being met by the graduation rates of the Aurora College Social Work Diploma Program. On average, there are four students who graduate from the program each year with an average annual cost of $500,000 per year.
Operating this program at Aurora College with so few graduates is not economically viable and is not producing enough graduates to meet the future labour market demands. Furthermore, the Labour Market Information Report identifies a need for registered social workers, who require a degree. As a diploma granting program, Aurora College Social Work graduates are unable to meet this need.
Students have access to Student Financial Assistance to support completion of a diploma or degree program at another institution. Southern institutions are able to provide a broader spectrum of courses that can better equip students as they progress through the program. They also provide a wide range of similar support to Aurora College, such as tutors, Student Wellness and Life counsellors and flexibility for students who face work-life balance issues.
Following the GNWT mandate, ECE is seeking to expand opportunities for postsecondary education in the NWT. However, in order to contribute to this goal, Aurora College must be effective, efficient and aligned with labour market demands.
As Aurora College continues to align its programming with labour demands identified by the Skills 4 Success Framework and Labour Market Information Report it will be able to provide new opportunities for Northerners.
ECE is also developing legislation for the creation of an overarching framework to govern postsecondary education in the NWT. This work is a critical step toward increasing postsecondary opportunities for NWT residents. Aurora College, the Dechinta Centre for Research and Learning and College nordique francophone are expected to benefit from having a more inclusive and transparent governance structure. Within this structure, they will be better positioned to align their efforts and fill key gaps in education and training opportunities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to written question asked by Ms. Green on February 9, 2017, to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment regarding Instructional School Hours.
Staff from the Department of Education, Culture and Employment are in regular contact with staff from Alberta Education and have considered the potential impact on course curriculum and student outcomes.
Students in the Northwest Territories will continue to receive grade 12 diplomas at the standard set by Alberta. In achieving a diploma, NWT students will continue to meet the same curriculum requirements.
Alberta Education does not mandate a specified number of instructional hours to NWT schools which teach Alberta diploma exam courses. While Alberta has followed the formula of 125 hours for a five credit course for many years, they are now engaged in their own High School Redesign project that will see a similar reduction of instructional time in some Alberta schools.
There will not be cuts to the curriculum in the NWT or a reduction in course content. However, we will increasingly begin implementing different approaches to teaching and learning that are expected to better engage students and increase opportunities for student success. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its report on the review of the 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 Annual Reports of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and commends it to the House.
The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy (ATIPP) Act came into force on December 31, 1996. The purpose of this legislation is to promote government accountability by balancing access to government information with the protection of individual privacy rights related to that information.
Under the act, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC or Commissioner) is appointed for a five-year term as an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. That appointment is currently held by Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts. The act requires the Commissioner to file an annual report on her activities and authorizes her to include recommendations for amending the legislation to improve the act’s efficiency and effectiveness.
On October 20, 2016, the Standing Committee on Government Operations (SCOGO or the Committee) conducted a public review of the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 Annual Reports of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which were tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 2, 2015 [Tabled Document 329-17(5)] and October 14, 2016 [Tabled Document 148-18(2)] respectively. This report summarizes that review.
The Role of the Commissioner
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner was established with the 1997 enactment of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Office provides independent oversight and enforcement of the ATIPP Act, which applies to a number of GNWT departments, boards, and agencies.
The Commissioner is appointed as a statutory officer of the Legislative Assembly for a five-year term and can only be removed “for cause or incapacity,” which affords her the ability to comment freely and directly. Ms. Keenan Bengts currently holds the office for a five-year term terminating on October 30, 2020.
The ATIPP Act enshrines two principles:
public records must be accessible to the public; and
personal information must be protected by public bodies. The act outlines the rules by which the public can obtain access to government-held records and rules about the collection, use, and disclosure of information by government.
Generally, the act requires that the government collect only the information that is absolutely necessary for the implementation of the program under which the information is collected. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that laws like ATIPP are “quasi-constitutional” laws that are generally paramount to other laws and define fundamental democratic rights.
The Commissioner reports to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Additionally, the powers provided to the Commissioner under the ATIPP Act include the powers to investigate, mediate, and resolve matters concerning access and privacy disputes and complaints; comment on the privacy implications of proposed legislation or government programs; undertake research into matters related to the purposes of the act; and educate the public about their rights.
The new Health Information Act, which came into effect on October 1, 2015, is intended to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal health information and provide for its protection. The act sets out clear direction that medical practitioners are to have access to records only to the extent required in order to provide care.
The act allows medical practitioners to assume that an individual who seeks healthcare has implicitly provided consent to the collection, use, or disclosure of such personal health information as is necessary to provide the patient with appropriate care. This assumption of implicit consent is contingent upon the practitioner’s belief that the patient is knowledgeable about how his or her personal information will be collected, used, and disclosed.
The act gives patients the right to put conditions on who has access to their records. Where a patient expressly indicates that the practitioner may not rely on implied consent, the practitioner is then required to obtain the patient’s express consent to collect, use, or disclose the patient’s health information. There are limited exceptions to this, such as in the provision of emergency health care.
The act gives patients the right to access their own health records. The process is similar to that contained in the ATIPP Act, which governs access to government records. Unlike the ATIPP Act, however, which only permits recovery of photocopying costs, access by a patient to his or her medical records under the Health Information Act is subject to the payment of fees.
The act allows a person who believes their records have been improperly collected, used, or disclosed to request the IPC to undertake a review. Rights of appeal under this act are different than those under ATIPP. Appeal rights apply to both access to information and breach of privacy issues. As well, the IPC has the authority to appeal the decision of a health information custodian to the courts.
Also new is the positive duty imposed on health information custodians to notify any individual whose medical records have been compromised. This notice must also be given to the IPC, who may choose to investigate the breach.
The Information and Privacy Commissioner often chooses to highlight topical aspects of her work in her annual “Commissioner’s Message.”
For 2014-15, the Commissioner’s message focused on the impacts of technology on government and its implications on access to information and protection of privacy. She noted that, while the recording, storage, and sharing of data have become easier, technological advances such as portable and personal devices, USB drives, and other mass storage devices have made keeping track of information more difficult, thereby necessitating a robust records management system.
With respect to privacy, she observed that the use of technology has led to a tendency to over-collect and over-retain personal information. Over-collection can result in such things as inappropriate sharing, data matching (bringing together data from different sources and comparing it to identify and investigate people for further action) and data breaches. She suggested that government should be vigilant about the over-collection of data, as the use of data for purposes other than that for which it was collected is prohibited under the ATIPP Act.
The Commissioner also pointed out that next year will be the 20th anniversary of the coming into force of the ATIPP Act and that, especially with respect to digital communication, “the world has changed exponentially” since the act was first developed. The Committee shares the Commissioner’s view that the implementation of a new, updated ATIPP Act would be a fitting way to celebrate this milestone anniversary.
2014-2015
In 2014-15, the Commissioner opened 43 new files and undertook nine reviews resulting in recommendations. Of these, 10 were requests for the Commissioner to provide comment to government on matters related to information access and privacy; two were requests for the Commissioner to undertake a review by a third party objecting to an access or privacy issue; seven were requests for the Commissioner to undertake a review related to a breach-of-privacy complaint and two were requests for reviews related to an access-to-information complaint.
At the time the Commissioner’s annual report was written, there was no obligation for public bodies to disclose to the IPC when they have discovered a breach of privacy. Despite this, 11 public bodies voluntarily disclosed breaches in 2014-15. Most of these were dealt with informally and cooperatively. The IPC was pleased to see these proactive breach notifications, noting that many came from health sector organizations, including the Department of Health and Social Services, the Stanton Regional Health Authority, Yellowknife Health and Social Services Authority, and the Beaufort Delta and Fort Smith Health and Social Services Authorities. This suggests to the Commissioner that they are cognizant of the requirement for notification under the new Health Information Act scheduled to come into effect the following year.
The remaining 11 files opened in 2014-15 were related to a variety of miscellaneous matters, such as an access or privacy complaint regarding municipalities, over which the IPC has no jurisdiction; participation of the IPC on a federal-provincial-territorial working group; a request to disregard an access request; and other administrative matters arising under the ATIPP Act.
In 2015-16, purely by coincidence, the Commissioner again opened 43 new files and undertook nine reviews resulting in recommendations; however, these files related to matters which were different than in the previous year.
In her review, the Commissioner observed that her office is being asked more frequently to provide comments and input on pending legislation, which she views as a positive development. In 2015-2016, the Commissioner received 12 requests by government to comment on matters requiring access or privacy consideration. The Commissioner expects this trend to continue in the coming year, noting that the Department of Justice’s review of the ATIPP Act will demand a significant amount of the office’s time.
Privacy issues continued to be at the heart of the work of the IPC’s office. Six files were opened requesting the Commissioner to undertake a review related to a breach-of-privacy complaint, of which three arose prior to the October 1, 2015 effective date of the Health Information Act. As previously noted, with the coming into force of this act, it became a requirement under law for Northwest Territories’ health sector agencies to report to the IPC any instances where the privacy of a patient’s health information has been breached. This requirement for mandatory breach notification may have contributed to the drop in the number of voluntary breach notifications from 11 in the previous year to four in 201516.
As well, it is likely that the enactment of the Health Information Act also resulted in an increase in the number of requests for review of access and privacy matters falling outside of the IPC’s jurisdiction from one in the previous year to seven in 2015-16. Matters falling outside of the Commissioner’s jurisdiction are often related to the handling of information by municipalities which are presently not subject to the requirements of the ATIPP Act. However, in the lead-up to the implementation of the Health Information Act, the Commissioner additionally received requests for reviews that were premature but requiring follow-up once the Health Information Act was in effect.
In 2015-16, the Commissioner opened three files related to an access-to-information complaint. One file was opened in response to a request for review by a third party objecting to an access or privacy issue. The remaining ten files related to miscellaneous inquiries, requests, consultations and administrative matters.
IPC Recommendations for Legislative Change and Improvement
Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act
As already noted, the Information and Privacy Commissioner is authorized to make recommendations for legislative change. Over the period of time covered by this review, the IPC has made a number of recommendations for changes and improvements to the ATIPP Act, including:
Undertaking access and privacy impact assessments for new legislation, policy and program initiatives would promote early consideration of the impact that these may have on the right to access information and the privacy of the individual. The Commissioner has encouraged departments developing new legislation, policy and programs to seek the input of her office, pointing out that they are under no obligation to follow her recommendations.
In 2015-16, there were a number of files involving the NWT Housing Corporation and local housing authorities. While these issues were resolved cooperatively, they highlight the fact it is unclear, in the view of the Commissioner, whether or not local housing authorities fall under the scope of the act. The IPC has recommended that the ATIPP regulations be amended to clearly include local housing authorities and associations.
The IPC has repeatedly recommended that municipal governments be subjected to some form of access and privacy legislation, noting that they have had 20 years to determine how to achieve this. She emphasizes it is her view that municipal governments, who spend public funds, should have legislated obligations with respect to access to information by, and the protection of the privacy of, the citizens they serve.
The IPC notes that, because of her ombudsman-like role, any applicant who is unhappy with the Commissioner’s decision is responsible to take the matter to court. In her 18 years as IPC, the Commissioner notes that there have only been three such appeals, which she attributes to the expense and complexity of such an undertaking. The Commissioner has suggested a review of the ATIPP Act should include a consideration of the ways to improve the appeals process under the act. She highlights her review recommendation 15-132, respecting the NWT Power Corporation, which exemplifies the difficulties an applicant faces in appealing a decision of the IPC to the court.
The recommendations made by the IPC with respect to privacy concerns usually involve recommendations for changes to the processes and procedures followed by the public body in order that similar breaches be avoided in the future. Once the public body responds to the IPC’s recommendations, the act does not provide a formal mechanism allowing the IPC to follow up to ensure that commitments made by public bodies are being met. The Commissioner has recommended changing the legislation to provide some method for assessing how a public body is fulfilling its commitments, with a view to satisfying complainants that their concerns are being addressed.
The Commissioner points out that under the Health Information Act, the Northwest Territories now has the requirement for mandatory breach notification in the health sector, which is consistent with the trend across other jurisdictions across Canada. The IPC asserts that it is time to make all public bodies subject to the same obligation.
Health Information Act Implementation
In her report, the Information and Privacy Commissioner observes that the coming into force of this legislation should have significantly changed the way the Northwest Territories health institutions deal with medical records. She is of the view that there has been no apparent change.
In the first six months since its coming into force, the IPC opened seven substantive files related to privacy issues under the act: three arose out of privacy complaints; and four in response to mandatory breach notifications.
While there was some basic training done for health sector employees before the act came into effect, it is the finding of the IPC that training has been sporadic and does not appear to have been made mandatory for any sector of the health services industry. She notes that few, if any, health authorities have yet been able to properly comply with section 8 of the act requiring the adoption of standards, policies, and procedures to implement the requirements of the act. She notes that some have suggested to her that this is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services, which is not the case under the act.
The IPC holds the opinion that the act is complicated and difficult to interpret. She notes, for example, the term "medical practitioner" is not adequately defined and could be broadly interpreted to mean a wide variety of professionals such as dentists, psychologists, physiotherapists, dieticians, naturopaths, chiropractors, et cetera, even though it does not appear to have been the intent of legislators or the understanding of officials in the Department of Health and Social Services at the time of the development of the legislation.
Even more concerning to the IPC is that little appears to have been done to allow patients to limit and control access to their records. She notes that, in their current format, electronic records do not have the functionality to mask or physically block the access of those whose access is limited or excluded at a patient’s request. It is the Commissioner’s view that a great deal of work needs to be done to ensure that members of the public understand their rights under the new Health Information Act and know how their personal health information will be managed under the act.
No review recommendations were issued by the IPC under the act during the first six months of it being in force.
Committee Recommendations to the GNWT
Having considered the information put forward by the IPC in her 2014-15 and 2015-16 Annual Reports and the discussion held during the public meeting of October 20, 2016, the Standing Committee on Government Operations provides the following recommendations to the GNWT.
Review and Revision of the ATIPP Act
The committee wishes to note, in particular, its support for the concept of access and privacy by design and the inclusion of municipalities under the ATIPP Act.
The committee is also aware of recommendations to government made by standing committees in previous assemblies, arising from earlier reviews of the IPC’s annual reports. This includes the recommendations to include a triggering provision for a mandatory statutory review of the act within a set timeframe, to ensure that another 20 years does not pass before the act is reviewed again.
The committee expects that the GNWT is compiling and considering all of these recommendations as it undertakes its review of the legislation. With that expectation, the committee notes here that it looks forward to further considering the merit of and providing detailed comment on the many issues raised by the IPC within the context of its review of the bill.
At this time, however, the committee is more concerned with the timely introduction of the bill so that changes to the ATIPP Act can be completed in the life of the 18th Assembly, as promised in the GNWT’s mandate. To this end, the Committee makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 2
The Committee urges the Department of Justice to prioritize the modernization of the ATIPP Act to ensure that it can be completed prior to the dissolution of the 18th Assembly.
Recommendation 3
Implementation of the Health Information Act
The standing committee is concerned by the IPC’s perception that health authorities have not done enough to bring themselves into compliance with the Health Information Act and that the efforts of the Government of the Northwest Territories to ensure all residents are aware of their rights under the act has also been less than adequate.
The committee takes notes of the fact that the first recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Social Programs during the review of the draft legislation in the 17th Assembly was “that the Department of Health and Social Services develop and implement a comprehensive public awareness campaign” on the Health Information Act.
Research by the committee reveals that the GNWT’s Department of Health and Social Services has made information available to the public on its website and has prepared a document titled “Health Information Act Guide: A Practical Guide to the Northwest Territories’ Health Privacy Legislation,” dated July 2015. The committee notes that this document was not tabled in the Legislative Assembly at the time of its release nor by the date of this report. This suggests to the committee that, while the Department of Health and Social Services has made efforts to prepare information to assist the public to understand its rights under the act, more work needs to be done to ensure that this information is broadly distributed to the public. To this end, the committee makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 4
Recommendation 5
Recommendation 6
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories ensure that Health Authorities undertake the steps necessary to establish or adopt standards, policies and procedures in compliance with Section 8 of the Health Information Act.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations further recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories keep the Committee advised of progress on this work, with a view to having the appropriate written procedures in place within six months from the date of this report.
When the Information and Privacy Commissioner appeared before the Committee, she noted that the Department of Health and Social Services had not provided her with any privacy impact assessments related to health authority amalgamation, also referred to as the health system transformation initiative, and that the failure to do so appeared to be a contravention of section 89, paragraphs two and three, of the Health Information Act.
Previously, during the review of Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Hospital Insurance and Health and Social Services Administration Act, the Standing Committee on Social Programs in the 17th Legislative Assembly had recommended that the Department of Health and Social Services undertake a privacy impact assessment related to the health system transformation initiative.
In its response, the department noted that it had opted not to do this work, expressing the view that, under the Health Information Act, “the department is required to carry out privacy impact assessments whenever considering changes to or creating a new electronic health information,” and that “system transformation does not affect existing departmental plans for electronic health information systems, such as the Electronic Medical Record system, for which a privacy impact assessment had previously been completed.”
The question at hand is whether section 89(2) of the Health Information Act compels the Department of Health and Social Services to complete a privacy impact assessment of the changes to the information systems associated with the health system transformation initiative.
The department contends that the legislation does not compel it to perform a privacy impact assessment because the amalgamation does not involve changes to electronic health information systems. Their argument hinges on the notion that information systems are necessarily electronic systems.
The Committee is of the view that, under the act, the term “information system” is not synonymous with “electronic system” and that the department’s narrow interpretation of this section of the act is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the act, the stated purpose of which is “to govern the collection, use, disclosure, and protection of personal health information in a manner that recognizes both the right of individuals to access and protect their personal health information and the need of health information custodians to collect, use, and disclose personal health information to support, manage, and provide health care.”
The committee believes that a privacy impact assessment on the health system transformation initiative would provide assurances to members of the standing committee and, more importantly, members of the public that the Department of Health and Social Services has exercised sufficient due diligence to ensure that the rights of individuals to access and protect their personal health information has not been adversely impacted by health system transformation. Accordingly, the committee makes the following recommendation:
Recommendation 7
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories obtain a legal opinion on whether “information system” as referenced in section 89 of the Health Information Act is limited to electronic health systems when the act is considered as a whole;
And further, that the Government of the Northwest Territories share that legal opinion with the standing committee, in confidence, once it is completed;
And furthermore, that the Government of the Northwest Territories conduct a privacy impact assessment on the health system transformation initiative, should the legal opinion find that “information system” as referenced in section 89 of the Health Information Act is not limited to electronic health systems when the act is considered as a whole.
CONCLUSION
Members would like to thank Ms. Keenan Bengts for her reports and for her appearance before the committee at the public review held on October 20, 2016. The committee also wants to take this opportunity to thank Ms. Keenan Bengts for her continued commitment and dedication to all matters relating to access to information and the protection of privacy by public agencies in the Northwest Territories.
Recommendation 8
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide a response to this report within 120 days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River North, that Committee Report 818(2), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report of the Review of the 20142015 and 20152016 Annual Reports of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is on the floor. To the motion.
Question
Question has been called. All those in favour. All those opposed.
Carried
I wish to table the following document entitled “Strategy for Revitalizing the Great Slave Lake Commercial Fishery - March 2017.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister of Health and Social Services.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled “Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 572-18(2): Social Services Facilities in Downtown Yellowknife.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabling of documents. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Monsieur le President. I wish to table the following document. It’s a letter from the chair of the Giant Mine Oversight Board to Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada regarding Giant Mine Oversight Board Funding Roll Over Provision. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Tabling of documents. Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Motions. Item 17, motions. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act; Bill 13, Marriage Act; Committee Report 618(2), Report on the Review of Bill 7: An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act; Tabled Document 26118(2), Northwest Territories Main Estimates, 20172018; with the Member for Hay River South the chair.
I call Committee of the Whole order. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, committee would like to consider Tabled Document 261-18(2), Northwest Territories Main Estimates 2017-2018 with the Departments of Executive and Indigenous Affairs and Finance. Energy levels and time permitting, Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, we will consider the document after a short recess.
---SHORT RECESS
I will call the Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 261-18(2), Main Estimates 2017-2018, and to begin with the Department of Executive and Indigenous Affairs. I will begin by turning to the Minister responsible for opening comments. Premier McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to present the 2017-2018 Main Estimates for the proposed new Department of Executive and Indigenous Affairs. This new department, which will come into effect on April 1, 2017 represents the amalgamation of the Executive and Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, two departments which have much in common, face similar challenges, and are significantly interdependent. The April 1st merger was designed to strengthen communications and coordination among functions and, most importantly, to better serve a shared client base.
These estimates continue to support the Government of the Northwest Territories' objective of ensuring a strong and sustainable future for the government and its programs by managing expenditures due to limited revenue growth.
The 2017-2018 Main Estimates total $19.194 million. This amount remains unchanged from the 2016-2017 Main Estimates for the Departments of Executive and Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. Highlights of the department's proposed 20172018 Main Estimates include:
Forced growth of $22,000 for increased software licensing requirements;
A new initiative of $95,000 to hire an additional government service officer; and
Reductions of $117,000.
The department's proposed estimates for 201718 continue to support the priorities of the 18th Legislative Assembly. Specific activities in support of these priorities include:
Coordinating and supporting the planning and implementation of initiatives and actions in support of crossgovernment goals;
Providing policy, strategic, legislative, and communications advice to support Cabinet and Ministers;
The conclusion of land, resources, and selfgovernment agreements in a manner that respects the inherent right of selfgovernment and ensures an overall effective, affordable, and workable system of governance, capable of providing an adequate and comparable level of quality programs and services for all Northwest Territories residents;
The successful ongoing implementation and monitoring of land, resources, and selfgovernment agreements by ensuring all Government of the Northwest Territories obligations within its agreements are met; and
Constructive and cooperative intergovernmental relations with federal, provincial, territorial, Aboriginal, and foreign governments that are based on mutual respect.
That concludes my opening remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier. Do you have witnesses you would like to bring into the Chamber?
Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. SergeantatArms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Mr. Premier, would you please introduce your witnesses to committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left, I have Mike Aumond, secretary of the Cabinet and deputy minister of the Executive. To my right, Shaleen Woodward, deputy minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, and Terence Courtoreille, director of Corporate Affairs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Premier. As always, we will begin with general comments. Do we have any general comments from the committee for Executive and Indigenous Affairs? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do have some general comments. I guess the thing that I am most concerned about with regard to this new merged department is the progress or lack thereof that we are making on land rights negotiations.
Back on December 9, 2015, when the Premier was running to become the Premier I am just going to quote something here. He says, "I propose a joint committee between Regular Members and Cabinet to provide oversight and give direction to our negotiators on files dealing with Aboriginal land and resource agreements. Let's get these land claim agreements completed, all of them, in the life of the 18th Assembly." So those were the words back in December of 2015.
There has been a joint committee that was put together. I know that it does not provide oversight, does not give direction to the negotiators. In fact, when those sorts of things were proposed by the Regular MLAs, they were rejected by Cabinet. This committee has now met a grand total of one time since it was set up, and I am just not sure we are actually moving ahead in a collaborative, constructive way with this.
I know, in the budget last year for Aboriginal and Intergovernmental Affairs, positions were cut, staff positions were cut, and they were directly involved in the negotiations. So, with a diminished capacity, I don't know how we are going to make this deadline of completing them by the end of the 18th Assembly. I note, in the budget this year, that there are five positions out of 46 in Yellowknife that are going to be cut.
There is some sort of movement towards a shared services unit, and I guess I will have questions around that, but it's not clear how that will really increase our capacity and ability to continue with negotiations. I am just not sure how that part of the mandate is going to be accomplished. I have heard good words out of everybody in this Assembly, including the Minister, saying how he wants to move ahead with this, but I think the actions speak louder than the words so far or, sorry, the inaction speaks louder than the words.
I do have a couple of other matters that I want to pursue with regard to this new amalgamated department. I am wondering about the future of the Public Utilities Board and, indeed, whether it's the intention of this government to get rid of that body. Also, I have some questions around net metering. It's found in our mandate, that there is to be some new direction, some improvements made to net metering, but nothing has been done to date. There is also some continuing work that is needed on establishing government service officers in all of our communities. There are still some that do not have these important staff people that can serve as pathfinders. I think that is about all I have now in terms of my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, look forward to going through this department to review the resources that are going to be going towards conclusion of the claims in the other parts of our territory and discussing resources and authorities needed to groom the Deline Got'ine Government. One thing is to sign and conclude the agreement. That is only the beginning. The real starts on the implementation of setting up this government similar to ours, here, and to ensure that there are adequate resources to support the implementation of the concluded agreement. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to make a couple of comments, especially in regard to land claim and selfgovernment negotiations.
At the beginning of the 18th Assembly, it was very strongly stated that we needed to put extra efforts in terms of concluded land claim agreements and selfgovernment arrangements, especially with the regions that have outstanding matters that have yet to be resolved, whether it's in the realm of sovereignty jurisdiction or ownership on land rights and resources. That has been ongoing for some time, so I am encouraged to hear those words, and, yet, I remain curious as to some of the constructive milestones that we could achieve.
At this point, I understand that the ministerial special reporter for both Deh Cho and Akaitcho has concluded their report, and I understand that both the GNWT and the federal government are contemplating the next steps. So I am very optimistic that things could move forward and that we might be seeing perhaps the final stretch towards finalizing these outstanding land rights and resources in terms of the negotiations that have been going on for some time. That is not to say it will be easy.
Some positions, whether it's based on positions or interest, are very fundamental. It is rooted in terms of the oral treaties of 1921 or else 1899 Treaty 8, as well, so it goes right back to 1921. In 2021, which is four years from now, it will be 100 years since these regions entered into treaty understanding. The assertion from First Nations is that it was a peace treaty, but, at the same time, governments interpreted that, in the instant of signing the treaty, in that practice, the assertion was that you have ceded, surrendered, and extinguished your Aboriginal title and your treaty rights.
So, you know, therefore the negotiations that we currently have, that have been going on for some time, I'm hopeful that a lot of serious consideration will be made in terms of the negotiations' mandate that could probably see a breakthrough in terms of ensuring that there's fair and equitable arrangements between governments and First Nations people
In some respect, I think lots of people are kind of hoping that things could move forward because it brings a level of certainty in terms of understanding the roles of First Nations and the governments in the development stages of the Northwest Territories. I think it's in all our interests to ensure that those matters are resolved and that we move towards bringing economic wealth to the NWT and I believe those First Nations people want to play a role in that.
So if we reach that plateau of coming to a point where perhaps land claims and self-government arrangements are made with these regions that have outstanding issues, then I think the more it is for the betterment of the NWT.
At the same time, I am quite curious in terms of parties that have signed on to the Devolution Agreement. Through the Intergovernmental Council there have been efforts in terms of striking cooperation agreements with the five regions that make up the NWT, and especially the Indigenous groups or Aboriginal governments that make up the five regions.
It's clearly the intent of, you know, trying to cooperate with the GNWT and First Nations on matters that perhaps could bring some practical results, whether it's housing, whether its social issues within communities. That spirit of cooperation I think has to be held closely to the senior officials, especially the leaders from both sides, that we need to build trust and that relationship has to be stronger.
Bringing some practical or perhaps resolutions to some really hard issues that we're confronted with, especially in the small communities, in terms of whether it's social issues, some of the very deep-rooted fundamental issues such as housing needs to be resolved. I'm optimistic that these agreements that are struck between the GNWT and First Nations groups will be at least making the attempt of breaking new trail and new ground in terms of bringing some solutions to the table.
Those are just some comments that I wanted to share and I look forward to the specific matters of the details that will be reviewed. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't double up on what my colleague, Mr. Nadli, had to say, but getting back to self-government negotiations and where each land claiming group stands right now and looking forward. I think we all have similar issues, but also very, very different issues in all of our regions in the territory given the structure of self-government and, as well, how the government relationships are working between each region in the GNWT.
I think as much of a struggle as it is for our regions, I think the Northwest Territories is probably the closest government to work with so many different Aboriginal groups, and I think this gives us an opportunity to not just lead the way in Canada but show that there's sovereignty among Arctic nations that coincide in the Northwest Territories. Mine, definitely being for the furthest north, I see the progress that we're making and I commend both the Inuvialuit and the GNWT for taking the steps together.
For me this is important as we move forward the decisions that are being made by Indigenous groups are going to have a lasting effect and we need to ensure that the wording on these agreements stand strong to who we are. As I mentioned earlier, I won't mention much, but, you know, fostering and creating a sustainable development and building a resilience in our communities is important and the access to basic education is a key as well as housing and all these other things that we've been working towards
Lately, there's been a lot of research and documents that come out from across the territories, and I think we need to use those as a foundation of where we are because in some cases in some provinces or territories that's the only hard data that we have.
Also, when it comes to dealing with Arctic issues, not including northern provinces which are considered Arctic communities and in a case from where we look at from our point of view from the globe where we stand that's not the case. So focusing on our needs is important and I think moving forward I look forward to seeing what the department has to offer in regards of support for the GNWT to provide the best support for Indigenous groups. Even though some of these agreements may be with Canada I think that if we work together we can make a bigger difference. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
