Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The NWT ATIPP commissioner referred to her 1999/2000 annual report suggesting that an amendment be added to the ATIPP Act specifying that the head of a public body would be deemed to have accepted the commissioner's recommendation if that public body had not responded within 30 days.

In the review of the commissioner's 1999/2000 annual report, the committee noted that no other ATIPP or Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts in other Canadian jurisdictions currently contain a "deemed acceptance clause". In fact the committee noted most other jurisdictions use a "deemed refusal" clause. The AOC did not agree with the commissioner's recommendation at that time and instead suggested an amendment stating that the head of a public body would be deemed to have refused the commissioner's recommendation if that public body has not responded within 30 days.

The government agreed with the committee and stated it would implement a "deemed refusal" amendment to the act. The committee notes however, that as of the end of 2002 the committee has yet to see a proposed amendment to the NWT ATIPP Act.

As the standing committee reviewed the privacy commissioner's 2001-2002 report, it reconsidered the commissioner's concerns regarding the use of the "deemed refusal" clause and the concern she had that it would be used to, in effect, reverse the recommendation of the commissioner.

The standing committee consulted with other Canadian jurisdictions and found that, in practice, the "deemed refusal" clause is considered a refusal to release the records in question. Given the commissioner's concerns about the possible misinterpretation of a "deemed refusal of the commissioner's recommendation" clause the standing committee would like to suggest alternative wording. The committee suggests that the government adopt a "deemed refusal to release the documents" clause. This amendment would address both the commissioner's concerns about clarity within the act and would protect the public from the inadvertent release of private documents.

The committee asked the commissioner if this new wording would satisfy the commissioner's concerns about a "deemed refusal" clause. The commissioner stated that while it does provide more clarity it still leaves the complainant with no further option than a costly appeal to the NWT courts.

The committee considered the commissioner's concerns, however, ultimately decided that the deemed refusal of release of documents clause was a more appropriate action for the government to take: The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight once again recommends that the Government adopt a "deemed refusal" amendment to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The committee further recommends the wording be such that should the head of a public body not respond within the required 30 days to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act Commissioner's recommendation(s) the head is deemed to have refused access to the records in question.

Privacy Complaints

The commissioner reiterated her need for an amendment to the ATIPP Act clarifying her authority to investigate and make recommendations in the event of a breach of privacy provisions in the act. The commissioner states that although she currently lacks the official authority to do so, she has been reviewing, investigating and making recommendations with respect to breaches of provisions of the act dealing with personal privacy. In the absence of such a review and recommendations, the only other option would be for a government employee to be prosecuted under the act. As the commissioner points out in her report, most of the offences are accidental and therefore should not proceed to the courts.

The standing committee agreed with the commissioner's initial recommendation in her 1999-2000 report and recommended to the government that the act be amended to give the commissioner authority to investigate and make recommendations in the event of a breach of privacy provisions in the act. The government stated that it also agreed and committed to an amendment of the act. Again, however the standing committee has yet to see the proposed change to the act.

Use Of Public Registries On-line

The commissioner informed the committee in her report that ATIPP officers across Canada are increasingly concerned about the use of public registries, such as personal property registry information, on-line. While this type of information has always been publicly available it has enjoyed what some have described as "practical obscurity", due to the relative difficulty in accessing a specific file. Now that such databases are becoming available on-line, new software can sort and sift through vast amounts of information in a short period of time. This could allow for the substantial violations of privacy provisions and could allow stalkers to obtain victims' addresses or criminals to commit identity fraud. The commissioner recommends that the government investigate the possibility of limiting access to such databases on-line in order to protect the public.

Records Data And Directory

The commissioner spoke of the need for government departmental ATIPP personnel to keep accurate records of all contacts and requests made in relation to their department. While the commissioner has records for her own investigations she feels that data about the number of information requests received and filled by the department would be of value as well.

The committee agreed that any future need for training of staff in government departments could only be identified through the use of such data on information requests. The committee would like to encourage departmental ATIPP coordinators to maintain records on information requests, filled or denied, and supply them to the commissioner on an annual basis.

The commissioner would also like to see an up to date directory listing each departmental ATIPP coordinator with current contact numbers. The commissioner feels that, by publicly listing the personnel, access to information will be more easily obtained.

Conclusion

In conclusion the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight would like to thank the commissioner, Ms. Elaine Keenan-Bengts and her staff for appearing before the committee to present the 2001-2002 annual report. The committee looks forward to reviewing a bill shortly bringing forward many of the recommendations the commissioner has provided over the years: The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight requests the Executive Council table a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days in accordance with Rule 93(5) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Accountability and Oversight committee on the review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Commissioner's 2001-2002 annual report.