Debates of May 28, 2019 (day 75)

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 2 of Bill 29 provides for Northwest Territories' municipalities to be included under ATIPP by extending the definition of a "public body" to include municipalities as defined under the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, the Charter Communities Act, or the Hamlets Act. Clause 2 also specifies that a municipality must be designated in the regulations in order for ATIPP to take effect. This mechanism ensures that municipalities do not immediately assume responsibilities under the amended legislation when it goes into force, but rather when the GNWT amends the regulations.

Clause 10 of Bill 29 specifies which municipal records are to be exempt from disclosure under ATIPP. In her submission, the IPC urged the government to consult with her office regarding which municipalities are to be designated as public bodies and indicated that she hopes to see the larger communities designated first. She also noted her support for the protection provided to municipal confidences under clause 10.

In its submission, the City of Yellowknife emphasized the degree to which they are already very open and transparent. The city claimed to already be covered under PIPEDA, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The city expressed concern about the potential impact of ATIPP on their Whistleblower Policy, which allows complainants to remain anonymous in order to encourage reporting without fear of reprisal. The city is also concerned about its capacity to implement this change and the costs associated with the requirement to designate an ATIPP coordinator. They said:

"If ATIPP is amended to include municipalities, it is imperative that the territorial government provide appropriate financial, records management and training resources to municipalities."

The Hamlet of Tulita noted that its records management is probably similar to other NWT communities in that there is no standardized indexing system or centrally maintained file system. They said:

"Being able to access information is critical to the effective functioning of ATIPP. Council would like to see, before any such action is taken to require community governments to become compliant, that the GNWT (probably through MACA) provide training and assistance to the community governments in standardized record management."

The hamlet went on to suggest that perhaps the electronic systems being used in larger NWT communities could be acquired by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs (MACA) as a standard records management system for all communities.

The NWT Association of Communities (NWTAC) advised the committee that they had passed a resolution stating:

"The implementation of ATIPP legislation to communities needs to be done in a measured, realistic and highly planned way; and further, that any implementation plan needs to include adequate resources and training to ensure its success."

In addition, the NWTAC called upon the committee to do all it can to ensure that the GNWT honour commitments made in 2018 to support a staged implementation recognizing operational challenges, and to ensure that the Departments of Municipal and Community Affairs and Justice work with community governments, to assess capacity, resource requirements, and training, and consult with communities on implementation timing.

In its submission, OpenNWT noted that the:

"Inclusion of municipalities under the act is an important one that has been a long time coming…Much of the current conversation has been filled by "what ifs" -- what if there are too many requests, what if records capacity isn't there -- these are all systems that can evolve with time."

This submission further pointed out that when the act was first brought into force, the GNWT "did not have any advanced records management system in place, either."

The committee does not take a position on the application of PIPEDA to municipal governments, but notes guidance on this subject from the federal Information and Privacy Commissioner which suggests that, contrary to the city's assertion, PIPEDA may have limited application to municipalities in the NWT only to the extent that it applies to information about municipal employees.

With respect to the city's concern regarding the impact of ATIPP on the confidentiality of the process under its Whistleblower Policy, again, the committee does not take a position on this. Committee does, however, note the following provision from the Government of the Northwest Territories' Harassment Free and Respectful Workplace Policy which suggests that protecting the anonymity of complainants is inconsistent with due process:

7. The investigation process is conducted following the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. This means:

(a) Only those complaints in which the complainant's identity is disclosed may be taken through the mediation and/or investigation processes. Anonymous complaints do not allow for due process.

The committee supports the inclusion of municipalities under ATIPP legislation, but is cognizant of the very real concerns municipal authorities have about ensuring that implementation is staged and orderly. Accordingly, the committee makes the following recommendation:

The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, working with the Department of Justice, develop a detailed and costed plan to guide the implementation of ATIPP for municipalities.

Additionally, the standing committee recommends that the plan identify: i) timelines for the inclusion of different categories of municipalities in the ATIPP Regulations; ii) the resources needed by each municipal government to comply with ATIPP, to ensure adequate funding for initial implementation and ongoing operational requirements; along with iii) any other significant considerations as determined through consultation on development of the plan.

The standing committee further recommends that, before being finalized, the plan be provided in draft so that input may be obtained from the appropriate standing committee, the NWT Association of Communities, and the local government administrators of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will now pass the reading of the further sections to my honourable Member colleague from Hay River North. Mahsi.

Member for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner noted the importance of bringing local housing organizations under ATIPP. Her submission notes that:

"From a privacy perspective, housing corporations collect, use and disclose significant amounts of personal information about their residents. This includes financial information, information about their employment and personal information about their family situation. It can also include sensitive information about any conditions that a resident may have. The many privacy complaints my office receives show a clear need for these corporations to live under the same privacy rules as other public sector actors."

From its review of the IPC's 2017-2018 Annual Report, committee is aware of an instance in which a person sought access to information held by a local housing organization. In this case, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation directed the local housing organization to respond to the request, even though the housing organization is not bound by ATIPP. In committee's view, this suggests that the NWT Housing Corporation recognizes the need for open and transparent conduct by local housing organizations.

Committee considered bringing forward a motion to define local housing organizations as "public bodies" under the act, but recognized that this would not be consistent with the manner by which public bodies are designated under the act. To be consistent with the existing structure of the legislation, the most appropriate way to include local housing organizations under ATIPP would be to define them as public bodies by including them in Schedule A to the regulations. Accordingly, committee makes the following recommendation:

The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Minister of Justice propose, for approval by the Commissioner in Executive Council, amending the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations to include Housing Associations incorporated under the Societies Act and Housing Authorities incorporated under section 45 of the NWT Housing Corporation Act, as public bodies under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The ATIPP Act sets out the powers of the IPC with respect to both access and privacy matters. The committee gave a great deal of consideration to the scope of these powers.

Bill 29 proposes a number of changes to strengthen the powers of the IPC. Clause 35 expands the powers of the IPC to:

provide educational programs about the act and the public's rights;

consult with any person with expertise in any matter related to the act;

provide comments on the privacy implications of new technology;

provide comments on practices and procedures to improve access and privacy;

advise the heads of public bodies when their staff fail to fulfill the duty to assist applicants; and

inform the public of deficiencies in the system, including in the office of the IPC.

Committee supports the inclusion of the powers set out in clause 35, which will modernize the IPC's powers and align them with other provincial and territorial privacy commissioners. However, committee feels that Bill 29 could do more to strengthen the IPC's powers in the following areas.

Committee supports the proposal under Clause 28 to allow the IPC to initiate a review relating to a privacy breach on her own initiative, without receiving a complaint. Committee notes that this is something the IPC has called for in her past annual reports and is a power afforded to information and privacy commissioners in other Canadian jurisdictions and to other statutory officers with Ombud-like powers in the Northwest Territories.

This would give the IPC the authority to investigate problems that might be systemic and thus not restricted to a single complaint. The committee sees no sound policy rationale for giving the IPC this authority only for privacy matters, as proposed under clause 28, and believes that the IPC should also have the authority to investigate systemic issues relating to access matters. Consequently, committee moved motions 10(a) and (b) to ensure that the IPC has this power to initiate an investigation relating to an access matter without the prerequisite of having received a complaint. Committee also moved motion 15 to clarify that the IPC's power to initiate reviews related to privacy matters on her own initiative also includes reviews related to the correction of personal information.

From the IPC, committee heard that:

"A key shortcoming of Bill 29 is that it would continue to give public bodies the unacceptable ability to ignore adjudicated decisions by the IPC...NWT public bodies can pick and choose which decisions they will respect and which they will not. From a rule-of-law perspective, this is an unacceptably weak regime. It is also not clear why access to information -- which the Supreme Court of Canada has stated has constitutional dimensions -- does not merit better protection."

In its submission, OpenNWT noted that:

"The current process for making ATIPP requests can be difficult for the public and onerous. Currently, when a government body refuses to release a record the applicant can appeal to the Commissioner for a review. However, these reviews are not binding…and it is up to the applicant to then seek a judicial order. Considering the disparity in resources available to the government versus a private citizen or organization, this is fundamentally unfair."

Both the IPC and OpenNWT recommend that the GNWT adopt an approach found in the Newfoundland and Labrador Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was designed to enhance the enforceability of the IPC's recommendations. In this model, a public body is required to comply with the IPC's recommendations. If a public body does not wish to comply, it must apply to the court within a prescribed timeline, for a declaration that it is not required to comply with the IPC's recommendation. In its application, the public body must substantiate the reason it disagrees with the IPC's recommendations and justify how its own decision to refuse access was guided by the provisions of the act. "It should not be left to public bodies to pick and choose which access to information rights/privacy rights they will respect."

Currently, the recommendations made by the IPC under the ATIPP Act are not binding on the GNWT or its boards and agencies. If the IPC finds in favour of a complainant and recommends that a public body give access to a record that it has refused to release and the public body refuses to accept the recommendation, the only recourse left to the complainant is to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court, pursuant to section 37 of the act. The act does not provide any similar avenue of appeal for privacy complaints. Committee was in agreement that the recommendations of the IPC need to be strengthened so that they are binding upon government in some fashion.

Committee looked closely at the Newfoundland model. Committee believes that, because the GNWT is more adequately resourced to undertake legal actions, requiring the GNWT to go to court for approval to disregard the IPC's recommendations is more fair than requiring an applicant to go to court when the GNWT refuses to comply with the IPC's recommendation. Committee views this approach as consistent with the GNWT's commitment to a more open and accountable government. The Newfoundland model would even the playing field, making the access and privacy system in the Northwest Territories more accessible for those with access or privacy concerns.

The committee further believes that this approach would by its nature promote more careful and justifiable decision-making on the part of public bodies, whose heads will be more inclined to assess whether or not their decision on an access matter is likely to be viewed favourably by the courts.

In considering the scope of powers available to the IPC, committee was aware that other statutory officers, such as the NWT Human Rights Adjudication Panel, have the power to make orders having the weight of court rulings. Committee considered that providing the IPC with order-making power would be an alternative approach to the status quo and to the Newfoundland model.

Because ministerial concurrence with committee motions is required if a bill is to be amended at the committee stage, committee met with the Minister of Justice and his staff to discuss a number of potential amendments to Bill 29. Committee was surprised to learn at this meeting that the Department of Justice views the option of providing the IPC with order-making power more favourably than the Newfoundland model. The department offered the insight that the most frequent reason the GNWT refuses to comply with the IPC's recommendations is because those recommendations often lack a degree of precision necessary to allow the government to comply in a manner consistent with its mandate and operating structure. Providing the IPC with order-making power, the department suggested, would impose a level of discipline on the IPC that would result in more specific and precise direction to government. The minister indicated his willingness to concur with such an amendment on the condition that he could obtain the support of Cabinet.

Accordingly, committee moved motions 12 and 12(a) to amend Bill 29 to provide the IPC with order-making power related to access matters and motion 16 to provide the IPC with order-making power related to privacy concerns.

I would now like to hand reading of the report over to my colleague, the Member for Sahtu.

Member for Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 4 of Bill 29 proposes to amend the ATIPP Act to provide that, for certain records, the exemption from disclosure provided under the act will not apply where the applicant "demonstrates that a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption." This means that, where the act prohibits a record from being disclosed, the person seeking access may be able to obtain the record if they are able to demonstrate that the public's need to know is more important than the privacy considerations that would otherwise prevent the record from being disclosed.

Committee heard from Mr. David Loukidelis, a former British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner, who appeared before the committee as a witness at the invitation of the NWT IPC. Mr. Loukidelis asserted that the proposal does not go far enough because it only allows the public interest to override four of the act's disclosure exemptions: advice from officials (section 14), intergovernmental relations (section 16), government's economic interests (section 17), and harm to the applicant or another individual (section 21). In contrast, Mr. Loukidelis notes, the public interest prevails over all of the secrecy provisions contained in the ATIPP acts of Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick.

"The bar is set too high -- the public interest would only win out over secrecy where there is a 'compelling' public interest that 'clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption.' Experience with similar language in Ontario shows that the bar is so high that the override will effectively be illusory."

Both Mr. Loukidelis and the IPC additionally point out that clause 4 of Bill 29 only applies in instances where someone has made a request for a record. They argue that there should be a positive duty on government to disclose information that is in the public interest. As the NWT IPC noted:

"Bill 29 should be amended to provide that the public body is required to disclose to the public, an affected group of people or an applicant, as promptly as practicable, information about a risk of serious harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people. This duty should apply, to be clear, regardless of whether an access request has been made."

Finally, both the IPC and Mr. Loukidelis express concern that clause 4 of Bill 29 places the onus on a member of the public to demonstrate a compelling public interest "from a position of complete or near complete ignorance." This observation served to confirm committee's view that this places an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant.

In response to these concerns, committee moved motion 2, which places a positive duty on government to disclose to the public, without delay, information about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or information that, for any other reason, should be disclosed because it is clearly in the public interest to do so. This public interest override applies throughout the act, not just to the four disclosure exemptions provided for in clause 4 of the bill. It also removes the requirement for a member of the public to demonstrate a compelling public interest and, instead, puts the onus on government to ensure that, regardless of protections provided under ATIPP, information in the public interest is properly disclosed.

Clause 17 of Bill 29 proposes to add a new section 24.1 to the act, that would require a public body to refuse to disclose to an applicant "labour relations information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal information supplied to, or the report of, an arbitrator, mediator, labour relations officer or other person or body appointed to resolve or inquire into a labour relations matter."

As pointed out by the IPC in her submission, "this would be a mandatory exemption, and a public body would not be permitted to waive its protection." She goes on to express the view that "this is a potentially vast black hole in the act. For one thing, the terms 'labour relations information' and 'labour relations matter' are not defined. They could be very broad in their scope."

The IPC also expresses her concern with the proposal to "withhold even the final report of a labour arbitrator or similar decision-maker," noting that, with respect to arbitration decisions, "there is no good reason for an access to information law to require them to be secret." She argues that "these decisions are an important part of our law and the act should not require them to remain secret when an access request is made for an unpublished decision."

Committee agrees that the exemption from disclosure of information harmful to the GNWT's labour relations interests is too broad as set out in clause 17 of Bill 29. Committee discussed with Justice the possibility of adding a definition to the act and was persuaded by the department's concern that such a definition this might inadvertently capture types of information that should not be exempted or, conversely, fail to address types of information that should. Committee also considered an approach that would narrow the scope of the provision by inserting a "harms test." The effect of this would be to require a public body to give consideration to the nature of the information being requested, to determine if it "could reasonably be expected to (i) harm the competitive position of the GNWT as an employer; (ii) interfere with the negotiating position of the public body as an employer, or (iii) result in financial loss or gain to the public body as an employer."

Unfortunately, an amendment to clause 17 of the bill could not be finalized in time for this provision to be amended at the committee stage. Had such an amendment been completed, it would have been moved as motion 7, which is why readers of this report will not find such a motion in Appendix 1 to this report.

Committee has enjoyed a positive and extremely collaborative relationship with the Minister of Justice and his staff on the review of Bill 29, and work to resolve the committee's concern is still underway as this report is being read into the record. Committee has every confidence that a solution can be reached that is satisfactory to both the Minister and to committee and that will result in a further amendment to this bill on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I pass the further reading on to the honourable Member for Nunakput.

Masi. Member for Nunakput.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I checked my papers, and I do not have any duplicates, so you only get all 29 pages in this report.

The ATIPP Act places a number of obligations on public bodies. Bill 29 proposes to amend certain of these obligations.

As set out in Bill 29, clause 31 proposes to require a public body to provide the IPC with a status report on its implementation of the IPC's privacy-related recommendations.

The committee originally supported this proposal because it is something that has been long sought by the IPC. However, committee could see no sound policy reason for this obligation to exist only with respect to privacy-related matters. Committee considered moving a motion which proposed to also place this obligation on public bodies with respect to access-related recommendations by the IPC. However, the subsequent decision to provide the IPC with order-making power, for both access and privacy matters, as set out in motions 12 and 16, supplanted the need for either clause 31 of the bill or an amendment requiring public bodies to report on the status of access-related recommendations.

Motions 12 and 16 require a public body to comply with an order of the IPC within 20 or 40 business days, respectively. Because the IPC's orders become mandatory under these amendments, the IPC will no longer be left wondering to what extent recommendations accepted by a public body are being implemented.

Section 72 of the ATIPP Act gives public bodies discretionary authority to identify categories of records that do not contain personal information and can, therefore, be made available to the public without the need for a formal access request under the act.

Clause 37 of the bill proposes to make this requirement mandatory, rather than optional, for public bodies. Committee supports this proposal, but wants to ensure that the public has a way of knowing which categories of records may be requested without an access request.

Committee therefore moved Motion 19, which obligates public bodies not only to develop these categories of records, but also to publish them, so that people seeking information held by the government will know which records they may readily access without need to make a formal request under the act.

The IPC has spoken to the committee, many times, about the importance of "privacy by design," which is the notion that whenever government is developing a new initiative, it should give consideration, in the earliest planning stages, to the initiative's impacts on the privacy of individuals. One of the ways to achieve this is through the use of a privacy impact assessment (PIA), which describes how individuals, whose personal information will be collected, used or disclosed, would be affected by the initiative.

Committee heard from the IPC on this subject, who said:

"PIAs help ensure that initiatives proceed only if there are no compliance concerns that cannot be mitigated. They enable what is known as privacy by design, with privacy compliance being designed into the initiative at the outset. PIAs also enable public bodies to assess whether, even if an initiative is legally compliant, it is not good policy from a privacy perspective. A PIA is an important and highly-desirable business risk assessment tool that should be mandatory."

Committee sees the value in privacy impact assessments, noting that such assessments are required under the Health Information Act for any proposed change to an information system or communication technology relating to the collection, use or disclosure of personal health information.

Committee was persuaded to seek an amendment to Bill 29 requiring public bodies to conduct privacy impact assessments, not only by the IPC's evidence, but out of consideration for impacts related to "common or integrated programs or services," a concept introduced in Bill 29.

One of the key features of the ATIPP Act is that it places an obligation on public bodies to limit their collection of personal information to only that which is needed to deliver a given program or service. It also requires that each public body must disclose to an individual the reasons for which their personal information is being collected. As a result, public bodies are not authorized to share the personal information they have collected, such that it can be used for purposes other than those for which it was first collected. Bill 29 proposes to change this with the introduction of the concept of a "common or integrated program or service."

A common or integrated program or service is one that provides one or more services through a public body working collaboratively with one or more other public bodies. The rationale for this approach is to break down the silos that tend to occur within government, so that different government departments or agencies may collaborate to deliver programs and services.

While this may be desirable from a program-delivery perspective, it creates challenges for collaborating offices, as they are currently prevented under the act from sharing with one another the personal information they have collected from their clients. As a result, clause 26 of Bill 29 proposes to amend the act to allow public bodies to share personal information they have individually collected for the purpose of collaboratively delivering a common or integrated program or service. Committee sees privacy impact assessments as vitally important in this context.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, committee moved Motion 13 to amend Bill 29. This amendment requires public bodies to develop privacy impact assessments for any proposed enactment, system, project, program or service, including common or integrated programs and services, involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal information. These PIAs must be submitted to the head of the public body for review and comment. It further requires that privacy impact assessments done for common or integrated programs or services be submitted to the IPC for her review and comment. Finally, this motion also requires the head of a public body to notify the IPC at an early stage, when developing common or integrated programs or services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now pass it on to the Member for Hay River North.

Masi. Member for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Northwest Territories Health Information Act, which came into force on October 1, 2015, places an obligation on the custodians of health information to advise affected individuals if the privacy of their health information is breached. Having had experience with this legislation, the IPC has recommended that public bodies under ATIPP should be required to provide the same breach notification for personal information under their control. She says,

"The duty to notify individuals of a breach that meets a statutorily-defined risk of harm is necessary for several reasons. First, it enables those affected to protect themselves from identity theft or fraud, and in some cases from personal harm. Second, the duty to notify affected individuals, and the public, serves as an important incentive for governments to take privacy seriously and avoid breaches in the first place. Third, a breach notification requirement would require public bodies to investigate the details of breaches, notably how they happened, and thus give them a solid information base for steps to prevent similar breaches in the future."

OpenNWT also recommended mandatory breach notification for ATIPP, stating that "Based on the large number of privacy breaches in the NWT it is important that our residents are notified individually."

Committee was persuaded of the value of amending the act to include a mandatory breach notification. To determine how to achieve this, committee looked at the relevant provisions of the NWT's Health Information Act and Nunavut's ATIPP Act, Division E, Data Breach Notification. Committee moved a lengthy Motion 17, to incorporate into Bill 29 a section, largely modeled on the Nunavut example, which provides a definition of "harm" and sets out a process governing public bodies with respect to data breach notifications. In addition, committee moved Motion 20, to provide the Minister with the authority, under section 73 of the act, to make regulations respecting the requirements to be fulfilled by public bodies in the event of a data breach

The IPC has recommended that the identity of access requesters be protected under the act. She notes that "although it is convention not to disclose the identity of access requesters within a public body, there is no legal bar to doing so."

Committee believes that people seeking access to government records should be afforded a right to privacy, especially in a jurisdiction such as ours, where the population is small and many members of the public and the public service are known to one another.

Committee moved motion 3, which amends Bill 29 to provide that the identity of a person requesting access to information constitutes personal information which should be known only to the public body's ATIPP coordinator. It further provides that the identity of an access requester may only be disclosed by the ATIPP coordinator, to other employees in a public body, to the extent required in order to fulfill the access request.

Consistent with the GNWT's commitment to openness and transparency, committee sees the value of having public bodies report annually on activities they have undertaken as required by ATIPP. Committee moved motion 23, which requires public bodies to submit a report to the responsible Minister, within 60 days of the fiscal year end, detailing the:

Number of requests received;

Time taken to process the requests;

Number of requests that were denied and the exceptions that were relied upon by the public body, in determining the denial;

Fees collected;

Justification relied upon for any extensions of time; and

Number of privacy impact assessments the public body has conducted in the fiscal year.

Motion 23, which requires annual reporting on ATIPP by public bodies, also requires that the Responsible Minister compile the reports submitted by the public bodies into an annual report, to be tabled within 60 business days of receiving the year-end information from the public bodies or, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting at that time, at the next sitting of the Assembly. This will ensure that the information produced by public bodies as part of their year-end reporting is made available to the public.

As noted at the outset of this report, the Northwest Territories' ATIPP legislation is just a few years shy of being a quarter of a century old. While it has been amended from time to time, the legislation has not, until now, been subjected to a comprehensive review.

ATIPP legislation governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Processes used for collecting, exchanging, cataloguing and distributing personal information are intrinsically linked with technological changes. To put the age of the current ATIPP Act into perspective with respect to technological advancement, consider that in the same year it went into force the DVD was launched, smartphones were in their infancy, and there were roughly 45 million Internet users, none of whom had yet heard of Google, as compared with today's 1.4 billion Internet users.

Given the impact of changing technology on ATIPP, committee sees a greater-than-average need to ensure that the legislation is kept current. Clause 39 of Bill 29 achieves this by proposing to amend the act to include a requirement that the responsible Minister undertake a review of the legislation every seven years.

Based on past reviews of the Official Languages Act, committee is aware that mandated reviews of legislation occurring at arbitrary intervals, be it every five years, seven years, or whatever the case may be, do not always lend themselves to producing amended legislation. One reason for this is that, if the date for a review happens to coincide with the final year of an Assembly, there will not be enough time remaining to complete any recommended legislative changes arising from a review.

Committee prefers to see the statutory requirement to review legislation be tied to the lifespan of a sitting assembly. In this way, the review period can be synched to coincide with the four year term of an assembly, allowing enough time for any required changes to the legislation to make their way through the legislative process.

Committee moved motion 21 to amend clause 39 of the bill to require the Minister to carry out the review within 18 months of the start of the 20th Legislative Assembly and within 18 months of every second assembly thereafter. This will result in ongoing reviews of the act at eight-year intervals.

Committee debated whether or not to also amend the proposal in clause 39 of the bill to require that the review be done by a committee of the Legislative Assembly rather than being done by the Minister, as is the case with the Official Languages Act. Regardless of who does the review, it will ultimately be up to the responsible Minister to sponsor amending legislation to implement the findings of the review. On this basis, committee was satisfied with leaving the responsibility for the review in the hands of the Minister, providing that the results of the review be tabled in the Legislative Assembly for the consideration of Members. Committee moved motion 22 to provide for this reporting requirement.

As noted at the start of this report, Bill 29 proposes to revise time limits in the act by restating them as business days rather than calendar days; shortening some turn-around times; and adding time limits for certain actions required under the act that did not previously have them. Committee is proposing changes to a number of the time limits set out in Bill 29.

Presently, the ATIPP Act requires the IPC to complete her reviews on access and privacy matters within 180 calendar days, or approximately six months. Clauses 22 and 29 of Bill 29 propose to shorten this timeframe to 60 business days, which is approximately three months. It is perhaps not surprising that the IPC would not be in favour of this amendment. Noting her deep concern, she asserts that the:

"Imposition of such a severe constraint without my office having more resources would either cause my office to fail to meet that standard or, in order to do so, to divert scarce resources from other important tasks, such as privacy complaints under the Health Information Act. Neither outcome is desirable."

She goes on to argue for the complete elimination of her time limit, pointing out that her office's review functions differ from those of other public bodies. Public bodies act on the basis of their own records and the contextual information they receive. In contrast, the IPC is entirely dependent upon public bodies to be timely in their responses to the IPC's requests for information when processing an applicant's request for a review.

The committee considered this input along with the testimony from Department of Justice representatives who pointed out that, in their review of the ATIPP Act, they heard from the public that the entire process is too lengthy.

Committee recognizes that the public should be able to have access to a process that is as expedient as possible. At the same time, committee notes that the cut to the IPC's time limit proposed in Bill 29 is the most severe cut proposed to any of the timelines contained in the act, while her office has far fewer resources than most public bodies. Committee is of the view that a reduction of that size would have a negative impact on the IPC's ability to complete thorough reviews. Committee moved motions 11(a) and (b), which set the IPC's time limit for completing access and privacy reviews respectively at 90 calendar days, which is approximately four and a half months. Committee believes that this will expedite the process for the public while still allowing the IPC adequate time to complete her work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hand the reading of the report over to the Member for Kam Lake.

Masi. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. I will finish off the end of the report once I find the page. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 5 of Bill 29 proposes to amend the deadline for a public body to respond to an access request from 30 calendar days to 20 business days. Under subsection 11(1), the act allows a public body to extend this initial deadline "for a reasonable period." Clause 6 of the bill changes strikes out "for a reasonable period" and substitutes "for a period not exceeding 20 business days," placing a hard deadline on the extension a public body may grant itself. The combined effect of these amendments is that a public body will have a total of 40 business days to respond to an access request. Committee supports both of these proposals.

Should a public body require further time, clause 7 of Bill 29 requires the head of a public body to seek a further extension from the IPC. Under proposed subsection 11.1(3), while this request is being made, the time limit for replying to the request is suspended. If this request is then denied by the IPC, the original time limit does not resume under the bill as drafted. Rather, under the proposed new subsection 11.2(6), the clock is re-set and the public body is required to reply no later than 20 business days after receiving the decision of the IPC.

Committee expressed concern with this latter provision because, even if the request for an extension is denied by the IPC, proposed subsection 11.2(6) in effect grants an extension of the same length (20 business days) as that which the public body was originally able to grant itself. This builds an incentive into the act for public bodies to seek extensions in every instance, with the knowledge that even a denial from the IPC will result in an additional 20 days to complete the request.

Committee considered a motion to address this concern, but the motion was later superseded by the decision to grant the IPC order-making power as set out under motions 12 and 16. Motion 12 gives the IPC the authority to "reduce, deny, or authorize an extension of a time limit under section 11 or 11.1." Motion 4 complements motion 12 by deleting subsections 11.2(2) to 11.2(7), which would have set out the IPC's authority to grant an extension of a public body's deadline. Instead, in accordance with motion 4, a request by a public body for an extension of its deadline will be treated as a "review" in accordance with Division D of the act, which deals with reviews and recommendations of the IPC. As such, a decision by the IPC related to a deadline extension will be final and binding upon the public body.

Division C of the ATIPP Act is concerned with the rights of third parties with respect to the disclosure of information. Where a public body is considering giving access to a record that may contain information potentially constituting an unreasonable invasion of a third party's privacy or negatively impacting on their business or other interests, the public body is required to give notice to the third party. Paragraph 26(2)(c) gives the third party 60 calendar days to respond. Clause 19 of Bill 29 proposes to shorten that deadline to 30 business days. Committee has no objection to this proposal.

Upon receiving input from a potentially affected third party, the head of a public body must consider that input in determining whether or not to give the applicant access to the requested record. Section 27 of the act requires that the head must wait for a reply from the third party or until at least 61 days have passed since notice was given to the third party before making a decision on the request. The same section also provides that the head of a public body cannot wait any later than 90 calendar days to respond to the applicant.

Clause 20(b) of the bill proposes to shorten, from 61 calendar days to 31 business days, the period during which the public body must wait for the third party's reply. Clause 20(a) proposes to amend the deadline for the public body to reply to the applicant from 90 calendar days to 45 business days.

In effect, Bill 29 proposes a 15-day window between the last day upon which a third party has to respond to the public body and the last day upon which the public body must provide an answer to the applicant. Committee heard that this time period was still too long. As a result, committee moved motion 8 to change the deadline for the public body's reply to the applicant from 45 business days to 40 business days, thereby reducing the 15-day window to 10 days.

Section 27 of the act also specifies time limits for a public body to give notice that a third party has a right of appeal where access to a record is being granted to an applicant, and that an applicant has a right of appeal where access to a record is being denied by a public body. When the bill was drafted, an oversight resulted in these deadlines of 30 calendar days each not being converted to business days. While a straight conversion of calendar to business days would have resulted in an amendment setting these deadlines at 20 business days, committee learned, in discussions with the Minister of Justice, that the department had intended to reduce these deadlines to 15 business days. In the interest of expediting the entire ATIPP process, committee was in agreement with this proposal. Motion 9 was moved at the committee stage to make this change.

Committee also proposed a number of miscellaneous or technical amendments to the bill, some of which were completed in cooperation with the Department of Justice to address oversights and other drafting-related matters. This includes motion 1 which corrects a typographical error, amending "public body" to the plural "public bodies." Other miscellaneous or technical amendments are as follows:

Subsection 12(1) of the act provides that a public body may transfer an access request to another public body, where the other public body has custody of the requested record. To ensure that access requests are administered by the appropriate public body having care and control of the requested record, committee considers that this transfer should be compulsory under the act, instead of being discretionary, as is currently the case. Committee moved motion 5, which amends Clause 8 of the bill by changing "may" to "shall."

Subsection 19(b) of the act allows that the head of a public body may refuse to disclose information having "Aboriginal cultural significance." Committee moved motion 6, which amends the word "Aboriginal" to "Indigenous" to reflect the current standard terminology in use by the GNWT.

Clause 36 of Bill 29 requires public bodies to designate and ATIPP coordinator, and sets out the responsibilities associated with the position. Committee moved motion 18 to enhance this provision by adding a requirement for public bodies to ensure that the contact information for ATIPP coordinators is made publicly available.

Section 48 of the ATIPP Act sets out a lengthy list of circumstances under which a public body has the discretion to disclose personal information. Clause 26 of the bill adds additional circumstances, including one, Section 48(q.4), that permits disclosure of a deceased person's personal information to a "surviving spouse, adult interdependent partner, or relative."

Committee looked further into the meaning of the term "adult interdependent partner" in the context of Bill 29. Committee's research revealed that the Province of Alberta enacted the Adult Interdependent Relationship Act in 2002 to legally define common-law and same-sex relationships outside of the definition of marriage, which is "an institution that has traditional religious, social, and cultural meaning for many Albertans." An "adult interdependent partner" is defined in the legislation within this context.

In discussion with the Department of Justice, committee asked whether or not the term "adult interdependent partner," that is not defined in Bill 29, is necessary or whether the term "spouse," as used in Clause 26 of the bill, is sufficient to include spouses in the Northwest Territories who are in common-law and same-sex marriages. It was determined that the word "spouse," as defined in the Northwest Territories' Interpretation Act, does include individuals in common-law and same-sex marriages, rendering the term "adult interdependent partner" unnecessary in Bill 29. Motion 14 removes this term from the bill.

Given the complexity of this bill and the number of proposed amendments, the committee requested and received two extensions to the 120-day deadline for the review of bills provided for by rule 75(1)(c) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly. These extensions provided time, following the public consultation process, for motions to be drafted and reviewed by the committee and by Cabinet. Committee thanks the Legislative Assembly for granting these extensions.

The clause-by-clause review of Bill 29 was held on May 22, 2019. At this review, the committee moved 25 motions set out in Appendix 1.

The Minister concurred with all of the motions moved by committee, allowing for extensive amendments to Bill 29 at the committee stage.

In conclusion, the committee wants to thank the Minister of Justice for his concurrence with the motions to amend the bill that were moved during the clause-by-clause review. Committee also again thanks the honourable Minister and his staff for their assistance and collaboration on the review of Bill 29. Committee also thanks the public for their participation in the review process and everyone involved in the review of this bill for their assistance and input.

Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 29: An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the Standing Committee on Government Operations' Review of Bill 29.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River North, that Committee Report 16-18(3) be received by this Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Masi. Reports of standing and special committees. Item 5, returns to oral questions. Item 6, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Item 7, acknowledgments. Colleagues, at this point in time, I am calling for a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. As I mentioned in my Member's statement, I believe it's time to build on our successes in our growing film and television production industry. I would like to start asking the Minister, the NWT's three-year film strategy will soon be coming to an end, so I'd like to ask the Minister: can the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place in the department about renewing or updating the strategy? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is correct. We are about to begin a process to review and evaluate our current NWT film strategy, as the previous Assembly had one laid out for us. In order to move forward on that, we needed to look and build on the success that we have. As all Members know in this House, the amount of work that we've done around the film industry in the 18th Legislative Assembly, there has been a lot of great work done there working with these people. It's one of my favourite diversification files to work with these individuals. There's a lot of fun in this group of people, but we have to ask ourselves: where have we been? What are we doing? What do we need to do moving forward, and how can we get there?

These are the questions that we have to ask ourselves, and also I think a lot of Members in this House pushed on the ITI file, in particular. How do we measure, and what kind of indicators do we need to put in place to be able to confirm what our progress is? These are the types of things that we have to ask ourselves to allow us to identify the next steps moving forward.

Thank you to the Minister for his reply. I appreciate that he is, in fact, very fond of this industry, and that diversifying the economy is certainly a big piece of our mandate as a government. Earlier, I spoke about a possible program similar to the Mining Incentive Program, but specifically designed for film production. I'm wondering: would the Minister be willing to entertain discussions on such as program, in particular, with industry types, even now and during the life of this 18th Assembly?

I welcome the Member's enthusiasm, as well, for this industry. He was actually at the Dead North Festival with myself, and participated in the awards night. I'm always happy to have a discussion with all Members of this House about the importance of this industry, particularly the Member for Yellowknife North. As I said, he has a keen interest in this, as well.

As I said, this industry has grown significantly since the 18th Legislative Assembly, and we need to consider how much we invest in these projects and productions with NWT residents. With the review coming up, it's due in 2019-2020. We have to sit down and have a look at this. There have been some good successes, like I said, in the film rebate programs. A good example is where our department has invested in 11 projects across the Northwest Territories, Mr. Speaker, and we invested roughly $375,000 and were able to leverage $1.5 million out of these projects in NWT. Is this something that we have to build on, or is this something we want to change and do something differently? We need to have those discussions going forward.

I appreciate the Minister's comments, once again. It seems as though at minimum we are going to at least to agree to have a discussion with industry types and see where the future will lie. That said, if a program such as what I was proposing is to come about, then we recognize that any new program would obviously need new money. In many jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, a visiting film or TV crew will have to buy a licence or permits in order to work in that particular jurisdiction. As well, there may be requirements for local hiring, et cetera. Does the NWT currently have any, call them, "location fees" that they charge to visiting production crews?

Currently, no, we do not charge fees for out-of-town producers in the Northwest Territories. This is something that I am glad the Member has brought up so that we can be aware of it. As far as the film industry goes, we are in a competitive marketplace. We are in a higher-cost jurisdiction. These are things that we have to be relatively paying attention to. I think it would be difficult charging and a financial challenge for these guys who are looking to invest in the Northwest Territories. We are just building on the momentum of attracting these people here in the Northwest Territories and help us build our capacity and awareness around the Northwest Territories as an attractive jurisdiction. Like I said, do we want to be able to risk these opportunities with a small fee that probably would not have a large impact on the revenue that we would collect to help support the industry? These are the discussions that we are going to have to have and have a serious look at these things going forward.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to go down this road a little bit further because there are a lot of jurisdictions around the country that are in fact charging these types of fees and/or issuing these types of permits, and they are for the simple case that (a) you at least know they are in your jurisdiction; (b) you know that they are following certain safety conditions. You never know where they might be filming. In other jurisdictions, like if you are going to go into a territorial park, maybe you need to take out a permit of some kind, and so I am wondering: would the Minister create these kinds of measures in support northern film industry? It would be nominal. It's not something that would be extensive, but I think the payback in terms of being able to support a program like the Producers Incentive Program is what these funds could go towards.

As I said, I do not know if the risk is worth the reward at this point, without some more research and analysis of what implications it would have on the industry. I would certainly like to have a look at it, but I would love to sit down with the Member and have a little better understanding and conversation with him of how he thinks we could implement this thing. Maybe we could even pull some of the people from this industry together and have a chat about what these things are going to look like going forward, as we renew our strategy in the 2020-2021 session. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some questions for the Minister of Infrastructure related to my earlier statement about dredging. In my earlier statement, I was talking directly to the federal government because people tell me they listen to what we are saying here, but I am sure, like most people, they tuned out while we were reading that report, so I have some questions about what our government is doing.

It's been tough to get someone to take responsibility for dredging. In 2015, the then Minister of Transportation said:

"I wrote a letter to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and asked the federal government to consider putting money into dredging the Port of Hay River, and I indicated it was vital to the territories for resupply of fuel and food to some communities. I did not get a response."

In a letter to me from the Minister of Transportation, he has stated that Transport Canada has indicated generally that it does not want to fund dredging activities. Given their investment in dredging in the last 25 years, it's clear that they do not. That is because they have ended, the Government of Canada has ended, their national dredging program. They ended it years ago. I would like to know what this government is doing. Like other governments, the Government of Manitoba has a dredging program, so clearly it's within the responsibility of the other territories or provinces, so what is this government doing? Can I get an update from the Minister on dredging the Port of Hay River? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To update the House or to remind the House, I guess, more than anything, last year, I wrote a letter, actually we applied, Infrastructure applied under the Ocean Protection Plan. If all Members remember that, that is one of the programs the federal government has listed in their mandate going forward. We applied under the 2018 application form for the fund for marine facility planning studies. In that study, in our application with the federal government under the OPP, we asked for planning studies to identify dredging requirements in the Port of Hay River and the Port of Tuktoyaktuk. Both of these facilities are federal facilities. However, this funding application at that time was not approved.

I have a pile of papers here. I have been doing research, and this file goes back a long time. The Minister said that there was an application for a study to find out where it needs to be dredged. Mr. Speaker, we know. The Minister has given us statements before where he said that there has been surveillance-aircraft reported imagery over the harbour. The coast guard has done sounding operations. There is a price tag for dredging. He tells me it's about $10 million. There is an estimated volume that needs to be dredged of about 100,000 cubic metres. So it seems like this work is here. When I flew over the West Channel the other day, I could see the sand bars in the water. I think that we need to move past studies and we need to move towards dredging. Has the Minister submitted or is submitting any application to the federal government for dredging, not just planning studies but for dredging? Can he elaborate on that?

The Member is making his point here. We've talked to different Ministers. Different Assemblies have talked to the federal government about this dredging issue in Hay River and the Port of Tuktoyaktuk. It's an ongoing issue. The federal government got out of this racket in about 2012. That was when they cancelled their program, and they left the jurisdictions hanging. Members and Ministers from that point forward have pushed this issue for a long time. We have in this Assembly, I myself particularly since I have become the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Infrastructure, have been pushing this issue with different Ministers, and, at the end of the day, they are not that interested. They do not even like the word "dredging" mentioned. What we are doing, our new approach now, is we are working closely with our partners, the Canadian Coast Guard, to explore possibilities of restoring the former federal remote marine resupply sites MoU with our government. We have got an ask in with them, and I am waiting to hear back from the Minister on that. Actually, with any luck here, we are going to be setting up a call, and that will be one of the things I will be discussing with the federal Minister here in the coming weeks.

That response is similar to one that was heard in this House on February 4, 2011, when actually the Member for Great Slave at that time asked our then Transportation Minister or now MP a similar question. He said there was going to be some discussions with Coast Guard; they are going to look into getting some dredging done. Hopefully, these discussions are a little more fruitful.

There is another working group that has been put together, and I believe the government is part of it, and it has been led by the harbour authority. It's been around since 2016. Can the Minister give us some updates about what's been going on with that group?

The development of the working group is intended to facilitate joint work on issues of common interests concerning marine transportation and marine infrastructure in the Northwest Territories. The Department of Infrastructure will continue to emphasise the importance of dredging in the Port of Hay River and other federal port facilities in the Northwest Territories and particularly Tuktoyaktuk, which is of some concern going forward, too, and to Canadian Coast Guard, but cannot guarantee these efforts will increase the likelihood of dredging.

Now, as I have said in this House and the Member has made quite clear, a number of people have approached the federal government on this issue. They clearly do not want to be involved in this thing, and they are trying to download it as much as they can to the jurisdictions. This is an important issue going forward, particularly this year. My concern already is the low water we see. Great Slave Lake is already down. Many of the Members here who live in Yellowknife can testify to that when they go down to how low the level is. The river system is low. So this is going to be an issue that is going to be of significant importance going forward, particularly with the MTS stationed in Hay River that has to use that port facility. We also have to use the part going into Tuktoyaktuk.

We are going to have to try to find a way with the federal government to help support this initiative because, without their support, it's going to end up on our lap and it's going to cost us a significant amount of money. As all Members in this House know, the financial resources of the 18th Legislative Assembly have been taxed right to the max, and the 19th Assembly is going to be in just as tough shape going forward, so we are going to have to find a way to partner with the federal government and all the people and players in this industry to try to make this happen. I will continue to do that.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree that the 18th Assembly is in rough financial shape. I think that the 19th is going to be in even worse shape and the 20th in even worse than that. The fact remains that, when something has to get done, it has to get done. We hear about dredging Hay River. We hear about it in Tuktoyaktuk. We hear about it for the ferries. There are some ferries that are in a few inches of water, and that is not sustainable. Will the Minister stop waiting for the federal government to come to the table after 25 years and just pony up and buy some dredging equipment that we can use all across the territory? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes. We can postpone a lot of capital projects to do that. That is going to cost a lot of money. That is not something I am willing to do without an analysis of what this thing would even fathom what this would cost, never mind the permitting that would have to be obtained to do this type of thing. At this point, I am going to continue as the Minister of Infrastructure to work with my colleague in the federal government on this issue. I will update the House when I have a call with him in the coming weeks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Foster parents are a very important part of our child and family system in the Northwest Territories. I greatly appreciate the selfless work that they do to help our children as they grow and develop during difficult times. Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Can the Minister tell us how many foster parents we have in the Nahendeh region, including those families who make their homes available for emergencies? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are 159 foster caregivers in the Northwest Territories today. Twenty-eight of those are in the Deh Cho. Thank you.

Can the Minister tell us: How does the department recruit foster parents throughout the year, or does the department or the NWT Health and Social Services Association have a blitz once a year?

The Foster Family Coalition is a significant stakeholder, and they provide leadership in the recruitment of foster homes across the Northwest Territories through the year. The Foster Family Coalition and the department have developed a foster care recruitment video. You can go online and see it. It is "We Need You." This launched in March 2019, and as a result of this video, the Foster Family Coalition has indicated that they have already started seeing increase in the number of individuals coming forward, expressing an interest to be in foster families. That is good news. This video was launched through social media, and it is being played at theatres in Yellowknife, Hay River.

Just as a note, the Foster Family Coalition has also been displaying posters in various location in NWT communities and have distributed recruitment postcards to every home in the Northwest Territories. The coalition has often used different tables at community trade shows and are hosting information sessions regarding fostering and adopting. That was at the trade show here in Yellowknife just recently.

A significant part of the foster care recruitment involves the establishment of extended foster family homes. This is something your colleague Mr. Beaulieu has raised for years. In that situation social workers make a significant effort to recruit extended family members as foster caregivers to children when they come into care. There are two streams. For the family foster caregivers, often we are dealing directly with families that are identifying the need, and then on the other side, the Foster Family Coalition is doing their recruitment.

That is great to hear, and I am very happy to hear that the department is working with the coalition on this issue. I really appreciate that we are working with families to keep the families together. I have known the Minister was very committed to that, and I appreciate him and the department for doing that. How does the department ensure that the homes are safe and the parents get the necessary training to deal with these youth, especially when we are talking about families and that as the process moves on?

To ensure the safety and security of children and youth who are placed in foster homes, all applicants and adults over the age of 19 must complete a home study, child protection records check, and a criminal records check in order to be approved as a foster home. Foster caregivers and foster children are seen by child protection workers according to the department's contract standards and policies. I will note that this is one of the areas that we did have difficulty and was identified in the audit. Through our quality improvement plan, we have already started to see improvements in this area. Also, these homes are also reviewed annually to ensure the safety and well-being of children and youth and to ensure foster homes continue to conform with the standards established within our regulations.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answers that the Minister has provided us here today. Mr. Speaker, one of my concerns I hear is sometimes we don't have enough foster homes. We can't get children into emergency homes. What happens if we, as the department, do not have places for them to go? Where do we place these individuals? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The department works to always find a place for a young person in need of our services. This could be through placements at foster homes as the Member has identified, group homes, specialized treatment which may be outside of the Northwest Territories. As I have already indicated, we try really hard to keep our children with extended family if that is possible. In some situations, we will approach friends and make sure that we can keep them in community, in families.