Thank you. If the Minister would like to correct the introduction for the record. Minister Bell, could you please, for the record, just clarify the introduction of your witnesses.

Thank you. I guess that was a practice run. We've got Janis Cooper and Glen Rutland from the Department of Justice with me today. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Are there any general comments? Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions to put on record of some of the concerns and questions of clarifications that came up during our committee process. One is, I would like to ask the Minister and his staff if they could give one example or situation that symbolizes the need for having this legislation. Why was there a need to include volunteers and students in the definition of employee? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. As I've indicated, the request came from the Department of Health and Social Services. They were dealing with IT contractors, and recognized that, in terms of protection of privacy, those IT contractors wouldn't be held to the same standard as GNWT employees. So there was a need to revisit the definition of employee, and sufficiently broaden that to make sure that it captured at least this aspect of contracting. It does that now, as well.

Also, the Department of Justice analyzed the definition, and suggested that it should also be broadened to include those who are appointed; or are volunteers; or students; in terms of summer students, those working for the government or a government agency and public body, as the test in the act, to ensure that no employees unknowingly disclosed information that should be protected and is of a private nature. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My second question has to do with something that's mentioned in our committee report, and it has to do with the presentation made by Ms. Hache. We had a really good debate and discussions about this during the public hearing process, and the question she had was whether or not she, or any other NGOs, would be obliged to give confidential information to bodies like Yellowknife Health Authority or groups like hers who enter into a lot of contracts. She had a fear of sort of being blended in with the rest of the government apparatus, and, thereby, being required to provide information that she would not want to otherwise. We concluded that it was outside of the scope of this legislation, but the Minister did commit to providing us with further information and further qualification on that. I'd like to give him the opportunities to put that answer on the record here. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Minister Bell.

Thank you. There was some concern raised in the public meeting around this issue, and I think that we specifically agreed that it probably comes from the term "agency relationship." Just to clarify, if the government is providing a contribution or is a funder to an agency like the one we were discussing, then there would be this funding relationship, which wouldn't necessarily stipulate that the information gathered by that group would come back to government. That would all be laid out in terms of the contribution and the expectation. However, if an agency is delivering a program on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories or a board -- so, essentially, our program -- there may be some expectations that that information, obviously, would be shared with government; but that is laid out in the contract. In terms of the delivery of that contract, it would be very clearly stipulated that there were certain expectations under access to information. In those requirements, there would be a section in the contract which would lay out exactly what the expectation was of the other party. So I don't think there's anything new here that changes that relationship and would give additional concern. This provision in the contract would be very clearly laid out as it is now, and I don't think that this changes that. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think it's as clear as the Minister says. I agree with the purpose of this legislation in including and widening the group of people who will be subject to the protection of privacy requirements, because we know that governments gather a lot of information; and their agents, and their contractors, casual employees and students that government hires and government agents hire, if they come across personal information that's sensitive, I think it's only right that we require them to not reveal that. They should be advised of that. That makes sense to me.

I think the question here is how broad is this umbrella, and does an agency like the Centre for Northern Families fit into that umbrella? I think that depends on the nature of the contract, the programs they provide and whatever else, but if the intention of this legislation is to broaden that reach as much as possible, then it is quite possible that a group like an NGO or agency like the Centre for Northern Families could come within that parameter. Even if it is remote, it is possible, and I think this legislation makes it more so than before this legislation came into place. The Minister is saying that it will just be the same as it is now because if it were, then why would we have this legislation? So I have to disagree with the Minister on that. I think the way to fix it is to make it very clear in a contract. I just want to make it doubly clear, in light of this new legislation we're putting into place.

That takes me to my next question to the Minister, and that is whether or not the government will take any steps to inform various parts of the government body, because we know that the GNWT as a whole machine has all sorts of parts all over the place. We get into thousands of contracts on any given day, and somebody has to tell these contractors that they are going to be required now, under this legislation, to protect the information, and whether or not that involves requiring an agency to reveal information or not. I don't think it does, but in the event that it does, I think it's better to be clearly laying out that requirement, and the extent of the obligation, just to be on the safe side. So I would like to know from the Minister, as Minister of Justice passing new law, if he could undertake to put that safety provision there, sort of take the steps to get everybody informed about it.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it's a good point, and I think it is something that's necessary. We will make sure that copies of the access and privacy policy and guidelines manual are sent to access and privacy coordinators, and also to contacts, the relevant contacts of NWT boards, which are subject to the act once the amendment is passed.

I guess the other point I should make is, we have scheduled some training for the end of October with the various different agencies that would be affected if this amendment is passed.

Just to respond further and clarify, in my earlier response what I really should have indicated is that so much of this hinges on the nature of the contract. The Department of Justice, for instance, has a contract with the YWCA. In that contract, we very clearly stipulate what information they come upon or are collecting, they have to report back to us. I don't have the Department of Health contract in front of me for the Centre for Northern Families, but I would assume that it is the same and does the same. So I don't think there is anything here, any change we are making in this amendment, that changes the contracting relationship between the Centre for Northern Families and the Department of Health or the Y and ourselves. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to do one follow-up on that, and that is, I don't think we can assume that the contract that the Department of Health might have with the Centre for Northern Families or a women's shelter will be the same as the YWCA providing a contract under protection against violence legislation. The government may enter into contacts where the core part of that contract is to reveal personal information. Then you may get into another contract where the personal information about somebody is completely irrelevant to the carrying out of that contract. When you consider how many contracts government gets into, it could be to build a road or to do a training course in the Housing Corporation on how to buy a home -- there are millions of contracts. I believe very strongly that, given this legislation now, I think it should be clearly laid out there. When the government is giving out a contract to whomever, you have to lay out whether you want that information or not. I think that's the extent of the information you are looking for. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

I agree with the Member. I would say we have contacted the Department of Health, and they have indicated to us that there is a contact who would be responsible for contribution agreements in the department.

They are responsible for spelling out the deliverables in those contracts and all the contribution agreements, the same way the Department of Justice does. Periodically, they request a report on the project initiative results. So my understanding is that that is very clearly laid out and stipulated in these contracts. If there are contracting issues with individual departments where this isn't laid out clearly enough, then that's something we can look to deal with and address, and that's a discussion I can have with my Cabinet colleagues. It is outside the amendment that we are speaking to here today, but I take the Member's point. It's a good one.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Any further general comments?

We will now refer to a clause-by-clause review of the bill. Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, clause 1.

Clause 2.