Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Social Programs is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 36: Health and Social Services Professions Act, and commends it to the House.

Introduction

Bill 36, the Health and Social Services Professions Act, will enable the government to regulate numerous professions under a single law. As such, it mirrors umbrella legislation in six other Canadian jurisdictions. The act will ensure that only qualified professionals are licenced to practice. It will also empower the Minister to establish a mechanism for hearing complaints and reviewing professional conduct.

The Standing Committee on Social Programs commends the Minister for developing the bill. It is the result of five years of work by the Department of Health and Social Services, professional stakeholders and the public. The committee believes that the act will enhance public safety, improve the level of care and professionalism in the Northwest Territories and bring our jurisdiction into step with other parts of Canada.

Bill 36 was referred to the committee on November 4, 2014. The public hearing was held on January 19, 2015, and the clause-by-clause review was held on February 24, 2015. During the review the committee passed two minor amendments to address drafting concerns identified by the department and made at the request of the Minister.

Comments were received from more than a dozen stakeholders, including: the Northwest Territories Information and Privacy Commissioner; the Association of Psychologists of the Northwest Territories; the Northwest Territories Association of Naturopathic Doctors; the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists; the Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory Science; the Northwest Territories Massage Therapists Association; the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; the Alliance of Medical Radiation Technologist Regulators of Canada; the Northern Nutrition Association; and a community advocate. All stakeholder comments were shared with the Minister.

Overall, stakeholders indicated strong support for the bill. Many are eager to become regulated under

the act. Stakeholders also raised some concerns about how the legislation will be implemented. The remainder of this report addresses these concerns and recommends several courses of action.

Privacy Concerns

The Northwest Territories Information and Privacy Commissioner identified four concerns related to the protection of privacy.

1. Authorities granted to an investigator under

the act may violate the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPP) or the Health Information Act.

The bill authorizes an investigator to make inquiries of “any person” when investigating a complaint. This leaves a person with no option but to produce records or other materials. The committee considered this matter carefully and concluded that authorities granted to an investigator are consistent with ATIPP and the Health Information Act. Under ATIPP, information may be disclosed if another statute authorizes the disclosure. Under the Health Information Act, a health-information custodian must disclose information if it is requested during the course of an investigation into a health provider’s conduct.

The committee noted that the bill protects third- party information against inclusion in the investigator’s written report. The bill requires an investigator to prepare a written report and provide it to the complaints officer. In turn, the bill allows the complaints officer to refer the matter to a board of inquiry. However, the bill stipulates that third-party information must not to be included in the report and may only be used to determine how a complaint will be handled.

2. Appointed officials under the act may not be

subject to ATIPP or the Information Act.

The Department of Health and Social Services advised the committee that all health-related registrars and registry offices are housed within the department and fall under the public service. Registrars and their records are therefore subject to ATIPP. In addition, the department noted that other appointed or contracted officials are required to sign standard contracts, which require compliance with ATIPP.

3. The requirement to hold a public hearing

may violate ATIPP, the Health Information Act, or the principles of the protection of personal information.

After careful review, the committee concluded that the common-law doctrine of procedural fairness requires hearings to be held in public. Public hearings allow for scrutiny and ensure that proceedings are fair, transparent and unbiased. Public hearings also give the respondent the right to be heard and to respond to evidence. Members

further determined that the bill’s provisions respecting public hearings are consistent with other health-related legislation.

The committee noted that the right to a public hearing is not unlimited. A board of inquiry may hold an in-camera hearing where it decides that the public interest is outweighed by other considerations, such as protection of a person’s privacy.

4. The power to compel witnesses at a public

hearing may violate ATIPP, the Health Information Act, or the principles of the protection of personal information.

The committee considered this matter in detail and concluded that the power to compel a witness is a common-law principle of procedural fairness. It allows the respondent and the complainant to put all relevant information before the decision-maker. The committee also determined that the bill’s provisions respecting the power to compel witnesses, and the potential consequences of contempt, are consistent with other health-related legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to pass the report over to my colleague Mr. Dolynny.