Normally what is causing the delays is summer students not registered with the program, so that results in a delay. Having said that, the demand exceeds the supply. Usually we have 600 students apply for summer employment and, like I say, our objective this year is to try to match last year’s number of 268. So we’re having situations where we’re having to interview summer students for jobs and so on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period is expired; however, I will allow the Member a supplementary question. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m just concerned about our government using the passive restraint measures in each of the departments. Would such measures or the concept actually impact the amount of summer students and the goal that we’re trying to reach? Thank you.

Obviously, the departments are the ones that find the funding for hiring the summer students and if you go back to 2008, we had 353 summer students. Since that time we’ve had a recession and we’ve had fiscal issues, so obviously that has implications. We’ve tried to address it by having departments hiring but also providing funds so that the private sector can be assisted in hiring summer students, as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister provide me with some details of an average of summer student hires in Fort Simpson and, as well, at Fort Liard? Thank you.

We’ll provide that information to the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Ms. Bisaro

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to return to item 7 on the Order Paper.

---Unanimous consent granted

The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, colleagues. Mr. Speaker, my Member’s statement spoke to multi-year funding for NGOs and the need for this government to go in that direction and to enter into multi-year funding agreements with our NGO partners. I mentioned that I had discovered that some organizations are funded for five-year agreements. I’d like to ask the Minister responsible for the Executive why we can do that for some organizations but we can’t do that for our NGO partners. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister responsible for the Executive, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do have a number of layers of agreements that are put in place and there are a number of multi-year agreements in place. It is department by department. The issue becomes, one, if a program is under review, then there’s a hesitancy to get into multi-year agreements. Thank you.

Thanks to the Minister for that response. I guess I would have to wonder why the Minister would say a program is under review when we’ve had the Seniors’ Society required to do a single-year agreement since 1999 for the same program. It seems like it’s not under review for 16 years.

The Program Manager’s Guide for NGOs has been developed and distributed and I’d like to commend the departments of the Executive and Finance for doing that. One of the suggestions in that document, and I think it’s an extremely good one, is to have one program manager for each NGO that would deal with all the contracts and all the agreements that an NGO has, whether it be one or four.

I’d like to ask the Minister when we might be able to see some progress in that direction, one program manager for each NGO. Thank you.

In the recommendations that have been laid out, that would have to occur within the life of the next government as our processes and budget have been passed. Changes in that pattern and the way of doing business would need to be carried on through the transition work. Thank you.

One of the other things that I spoke about in my statement was the need to provide for increases to funding to our NGO partners that takes care of cost of living increases. Again, one of the NGOs has not had an increase to the… The Seniors’ Society hasn’t had any increase in the funding for the 1-800 line in 16 years. I’d like to know what policy exists to provide for cost of living increases for contributions that we make to our NGO partners for programs.

We started our work early in the life of this Assembly with issues around stabilizing funds to NGOs and we categorized a number of groups that would fit into core programs that we deliver, that made sense as to looking at some growth in expenditures in those areas, and some adjustments were made. As we review the work that’s done in our contracts, some of the things we have to look at is the use of those programs and increase in forced growth as we would categorize it is how that might fit into our business planning cycle. It is, in a sense, by department and by area of responsibility and demand for programs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the Minister. I guess the issue for forced growth is exactly where I’m going, and there is no opportunity for forced growth increases in the contribution agreements that NGOs have to deal with. I’ve totally lost my thought… You stressed me out, Mr. Minister. I’ll go to my other question.

One of the things that’s in the new Program Manager’s Guide is a statement that if the government requires an audit, the government will pay for it. That hasn’t been past practice. I’d like to ask the Minister when that will change. Thank you.

I must say that it’s rare that a Minister has a chance and an opportunity to stump a Member...(inaudible)...questions. Maybe it’s just the seniors' questions about funding that we all face on a day-to-day basis.

The issue of funding and the forced growth nature is, as I was saying, some of the earlier work we did in the 16th Assembly as Members raised the issue

around funding stabilization and previous Assemblies, was the third-party accountability framework that we worked on to identify areas of accountability and dealing with some of those forced-growth pressures. In some categories there

was agreement for changes and others did not fit based on that work. We use that work to establish how departments would work with NGOs and how funding could be looked at. Again, not all parties were able to qualify in that area. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of the 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and commends it to the House.

Introduction

The Standing Committee on Government Operations reviewed the 2009-2010 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner at its meeting on May 16, 2011. The committee would like to thank Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts for her report and for her appearance before the committee.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. Her primary role is to review and make recommendations on public bodies’ decisions related to the Northwest Territories Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the ATIPP Act). The ATIPP Act requires that public bodies demonstrate their accountability by making information accessible to the public while at the same time protecting the privacy of individuals.

The committee is pleased to bring forward the following recommendations that were raised by the IPC in her annual report.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I’ll pass the floor to my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen for continuation of reading of the report. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Recommendations

Comprehensive Review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As in her 2008-2009 report, the Information and Privacy Commissioner recommended a comprehensive review of the ATIPP Act. The act was passed in 1994, long before e-mail, smartphones and flash drives were an everyday part of government business. As well, the IPC and standing committees have made a number of recommendations over the years for amendments to the act that have not yet been addressed by government. For example, a recommendation repeated in the current report is for the inclusion of a provision to give the IPC the discretion to expand the limitation period for seeking a review to an access to information request. This recommendation was adopted by the committee in its report on the IPC’s 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 annual reports. In its February 2010 response to this committee report, the GNWT indicated that the Department of Justice would review the time frames involved. To the committee’s knowledge, this review has never taken place. Another example is the longstanding recommendation for municipal access to information and protection of privacy legislation.

The committee agrees that it is time for a complete review of the act, which will provide an opportunity to reconsider all of the IPC’s previous recommendations, recently amended access to information and privacy legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions, and changes in information and communications technology. A review at this time will also help to inform the health privacy legislation that is currently under development to ensure that it is as up to date as possible.

As the committee will be supporting a formal motion for a comprehensive review of the act, a specific recommendation is not included in this report.

Review of the Fee Schedule

The ATIPP Act allows public bodies to charge fees for providing access to records. The IPC’s report details a complaint made to her office in which a public body assessed a “wildly overestimated” fee of $7,500 for providing information. This issue brought to the IPC’s attention problems with the way some of the line items in the fee schedule are worded, which make interpretation difficult. Further, in the IPC’s opinion, the public body in this case “used the fee provisions in a clear attempt to limit the right of an individual to challenge the policies of the public body.”

The committee agrees with the IPC that “the fee provisions should never create a situation in which it is financially impossible for the public to gain access to public records,” and supports her

recommendation for a review of the fee schedule, and in particular the wording of the line items for which fees may be charged.

Recommendation 1

The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories review the fee schedule to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to ensure that it is clearly worded and does not place an undue cost on persons requesting access to information.

Disclosure of Salaries and Bonuses Paid to Senior Employees of Public Bodies

Further to two complaints where access to information about the salaries and bonuses paid to senior employees of public bodies was denied, the IPC recommends a requirement for public bodies to proactively disclose bonuses paid to their employees, within a $1,000 range. She further recommends that consideration be given to legislation for proactive disclosure of salaries paid to senior employees of public bodies. As outlined in the IPC’s report, such disclosure would be consistent with practices in other Canadian jurisdictions.

The committee agrees with the IPC that the public is at least entitled to know what senior employees are being paid in bonuses, even if the amounts are given as a range.

Recommendation 2

The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories institute requirements for proactive disclosure of employee bonuses and the salaries of senior employees, or bring forward legislation to this effect if legislation is necessary.

I’ll now turn the floor back over to the committee chair, Mr. Menicoche.