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

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Commissioner recommends two amendments to the act to address problems that came to light in the course of a review of a decision to refuse access to information by the former Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.

The first issue was with a specific provision of the act, paragraph 24(1)(f), which states that a public body must not disclose information that is a statement of financial assistance provided to a third party by a prescribed corporation or board. The Commissioner interpreted the words "prescribed corporation or board" to refer to any corporation or board subject to the act. The department interpreted them to require a specific designation as a "prescribed corporation or board." The Commissioner recommends the act be amended to clarify the meaning of paragraph 24(1)(f).

The second issue was with the department's response to the Commissioner's recommendations, which in her opinion seriously undermined the credibility of the review process. The Commissioner's recommendations were based on the department's argument that the information requested was subject to a specific exemption in the act. On receiving the Commissioner's recommendations, the department declined to follow them on the basis that they had changed their mind about which exemption they wanted to rely on and that they had determined the exemption they had initially cited, and on which the Commissioner based her recommendations, did not apply to them.

One of the Commissioner's concerns with this kind of response on the part of a public body is that it leaves no recourse for the applicant other than to make an application to court and effectively sidelines the role of the Commissioner. The act does not allow for the Commissioner to reconsider a request for review if a department changes its mind about its arguments after she has made her recommendations. In her report, she therefore recommends an amendment to the act requiring public bodies to refer to all relevant sections of the act when responding to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and to be bound by those submissions. During her meeting with the committee, she suggested an alternative would be an amendment requiring that no final decision be made by the head of a public body until the Commissioner is given an opportunity to make recommendations based on all the arguments the public body wishes to rely on.

In our discussions with the Commissioner it became apparent to the committee that the underlying problem is likely not so much a gap in the legislation as the overall corporate culture and approach to requests for review of access to information decisions. The Commissioner advised us that public bodies often take what she referred to as a "lazy" approach in making their submissions and fail to provide complete lists of their arguments and the specific exemptions or sections of the act they wish to rely on. As the Commissioner pointed out, the onus is on the public body to demonstrate that an exemption applies. However, because of the poor quality of submissions, the Commissioner sometimes finds herself in the position of having to research and make the public bodies' arguments for them because of the possible consequences of not considering all the angles.

The committee is not convinced that the solution to this problem lies in amendments to the act. We see the problem as relating back to the overall corporate culture and attitude discussed earlier in this report, and therefore suggests that the appropriate response is leadership and direction from the top down to ensure public bodies are more diligent and thorough in preparing submissions to the Commissioner.

I move that this committee recommends the GNWT set standards for submissions to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and provide appropriate leadership and direction to ensure they are understood and followed by public bodies.

The committee further recommends that the GNWT review the need for amendments to the act to allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to reconsider a request for review where a public body changes its arguments after the Commissioner has made her recommendations.

The committee further recommends that the GNWT either bring forward an amendment to clarify the meaning of paragraph 24(1)(f) or provide direction to public bodies on how it is to be interpreted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.

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

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the second time, the Commissioner's report includes a recommendation that schedule A of the regulations be kept up-to-date in order to ensure new or renamed public bodies are subject to the act. As of the date of our meeting with the Commissioner, the regulations still did not list the Business Development and Investment Corporation, although it was established over a year ago. The committee fails to understand the reason for the delay in making such a simple amendment. We therefore support the Commissioner's recommendation that the regulations be updated at least annually. Ideally, they

should be updated immediately each time a new public body is created or renamed to ensure the continued application of the act.

I move that this committee recommends that schedule A to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations be updated at least annually.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.

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

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Commissioner recommends that a link be provided from the Legislative Assembly web site to the directory of ATIPP coordinators as it is currently difficult to find on the Justice and GNWT web sites. She further recommends that a paper directory be made available throughout the NWT.

While the committee is not convinced that keeping an up-to-date paper directory in circulation is feasible, Members do support linking the directory to the Legislative Assembly's web site in order to make it more accessible to users.

I move that this committee recommends that GNWT continue to keep its online directory of ATIPP coordinators current, and that a link to the directory be included on the Legislative Assembly web site. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.

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

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the time of our public review of the 2004-2005 report, the Commissioner raised two additional issues which the committee wishes to comment on.

The first was a concern that the Department of Health and Social Services and health authorities have not sought her advice in the course of the move to electronic health records. As with the shift to online public registries, the change in the management of health records raises a number of privacy issues. The committee believes it would be sensible for public bodies to seek the Commissioner's expert advice on privacy matters when they undertake such initiatives.

I move that this committee recommends that the GNWT public bodies consult with the Commissioner to identify potential privacy issues in the early stages of projects resulting in the transfer of personal information to electronic records systems. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.

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

---Carried

Thank you, committee. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second issue the Commissioner raised was a concern with the capacity of existing staff to respond to access to information requests. As an example, she cited the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, which is currently dealing with a high volume of requests due to inquiries related to residential schools. Public bodies typically assign responsibility for coordinating ATIPP matters in addition to an employee's other duties rather than to a dedicated staff person. The Commissioner suggested the GNWT consider either hiring dedicated ATIPP staff for high-volume departments or establishing a central unit of dedicated ATIPP staff that public bodies could access.

I move that this committee recommends that the GNWT evaluate its capacity to respond to access to information requests.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion.