Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya.
Review of the ATIPP Act
It has been 17 years since the coming into force date of the ATIPP Act. The committee notes that many NWT statutes contain a provision triggering an automatic review at set intervals; for example, every five or 10 years. When one considers that the Internet was in its infancy when the ATIPP Act came into force, it is easy to appreciate how information technology has evolved since then. The committee is of the opinion that, by any measure, a review of the ATIPP Act is long overdue. The committee encourages the GNWT, when reviewing the ATIPP Act, to include a triggering provision for a mandatory statutory review, to ensure that the ATIPP Act is kept current in future years.
In her 2012-2013 Annual Report, the IPC made a series of recommendations for modernizing and updating the legislation to, amongst other things, address the use of current day technologies, to provide strict and enforceable timelines for response to access requests and to encourage public bodies to properly document information-related decisions. In addition to these earlier recommendations, the IPC has also pointed to the value of including “access and privacy by design” considerations in updated ATIPP legislation. This latter point is addressed further in committee Recommendation 3 below.
The committee references the Progress Report on the Comprehensive Review of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, provided as an attachment to TD 114-17(4), and recognizes that the GNWT is now looking beyond 2015 for the
completion of this important work. The committee urges the GNWT to make this work a priority as it moves forward.
Recommendation 2
The Standing Committee on Government Operations again recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories provide an updated progress report to this Assembly on work done towards a comprehensive review of the ATIPP Act; and
That the Government of the Northwest Territories undertake a review of all previous recommendations made regarding updating the ATIPP Act and include, in the progress report, a status report on how the committee’s recommendations are being addressed.
Access and Privacy Impact Assessments for New Initiatives (Access and Privacy by Design)
The committee discussed with the IPC the benefits of building access and privacy considerations into the development of programs, policies and legislation at the ground floor. This helps to ensure that the tools required to access information more easily, and to better protect the privacy of individuals are incorporated into the design of any initiative, rather than having to be retrofitted after the fact.
The IPC pointed out that achieving the goal of easier information access and appropriate privacy protections may be as simple as enabling a search function, but there is more to be done than that. The IPC spoke of the concept of open government, where the objective is to put as much information as possible online, to reduce the need for people to want to make access inquiries. The committee was encouraged to hear that the IPC had her first meeting with the GNWT’s office of the chief information officer, to discuss areas of mutual interest.
The committee is supportive of the IPC’s views on access and privacy by design and therefore encourages the GNWT to work with the IPC to integrate this approach into day-to-day business practices. The committee places special emphasis on the development of legislative proposals by departments and strongly encourages the GNWT to consider ways in which access and privacy by design considerations will be incorporated into legislative proposals. The committee would welcome the opportunity, when reviewing legislative proposals, to assess the access by design considerations included by departments.
Recommendation 3
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories work with the IPC to incorporate access by design considerations
into the design phase of program, policy and legislation development, giving particular thought to how these considerations may be built into the legislative proposal process.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to turn my attention over to my other committee colleague Mr. Alfred Moses.