This is page numbers 5601 - 5648 of the Hansard for the 18th Assembly, 3rd Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was public. View the webstream of the day's session.

Topics

2019 Youth Parliament
Members' Statements

Page 5607

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this month, youth from across the territory came together here in the Chamber for the annual Youth Parliament. Model parliaments such as the one recently hosted by this Legislative Assembly are incredibly important in not only ensuring continued democratic participation of future generations, but as also integral to passing on the knowledge of how our system works to the next generation of leaders.

Our young parliamentarians showed us that they already have a strong grasp of the issues which face our territory today and made compelling arguments for increasing mental health support for youth while also acknowledging the complexities implementing such legislation would have. This discussion was informed by personal experiences and the observed experiences of their peers. I want to thank the young members who so openly discussed their experiences on the floor of the House and commend them for their courage.

Mr. Speaker, these young people remind us of how important it is to invest time, energy, and resources into the next generation of northern leaders. I was also impressed that the majority of the youth parliamentarians were young women, and I hope this is an indicator that interest in politics is alive and well with our youth and that young women will continue to make their voices heard as they move from schooling into the work force and, for some, I hope, a seat in this House.

I was thoroughly impressed by the work of our young parliamentarian for Kam Lake, Ms. Stella Smyslo, and her skills in debate, her enthusiasm, and her hard work in putting together her Member's statement and her performance in the debate throughout the week of Youth Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank all Members of this Assembly and the staff of the institution who worked tirelessly to make this event a reality for our youth, and I offer particular recognition of yourself, Mr. Speaker, as host of the Youth Parliament. The behind-the-scenes work often goes unnoticed, but I know that the participants learned a great deal from your guidance and instruction.

It is great to see young people given an opportunity to speak in this Chamber, and they in no way wasted that opportunity. I am also impressed with the young parliamentarians, and this year was no different. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

2019 Youth Parliament
Members' Statements

Page 5607

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to visitors in the gallery. With us here today is the Consul-General of India, Ms. Abhilasha Joshi. She joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1995 and, over the years, she has been posted in Lisbon, Portugal; New Delhi, India; and Sao Paulo, Brazil. As of August 2017, she assumed charge of the Consul-General of India in Vancouver. Colleagues, please join me in welcoming the Consul-General to our proceedings and to our beautiful Legislative Assembly, and to the North, as well. Of course, with her is our very own Carmen Moore, chief of protocol. Thanks for doing a great job. Masi. Members' statements. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Affirmative Action Policy
Members' Statements

Page 5607

Tom Beaulieu

Tom Beaulieu Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh

Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker. On June 1, 2018, I made a Member's statement on the Affirmative Action Policy. Today, I will be making a similar statement.

Over the years, I have seen, both as a Regular Member and a former Minister of Human Resources, that our government has failed numerous Priority 1 candidates trying to get employment with the GNWT. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that our government is committed to increasing the number of Priority 1 employees that we employ in our departments, as per the Affirmative Action Policy.

Mr. Speaker, we need to have more Priority 1 candidates in management positions in order to increase the volume of P1 employees across the board. I have not seen any departments with a solid human-resource plan that advances their Priority 1 employees into positions that have greater say in hiring Indigenous employees.

Mr. Speaker, in our small communities, we encourage our students by telling them to go to school every day and graduate from high school, in order to provide themselves with an opportunity to take post-secondary studies. However, we cannot in good faith tell them they have opportunities with the GNWT, because the actions of various departments do not project a welcoming environment for Indigenous people.

This government has not developed proper plans to increase the Priority 1 numbers in all departments, boards, and agencies. I think it's time our government starts the process of allowing small communities to deliver their own programs and services, similar to how the municipalities are funded. This will allow the communities themselves to decide who can do the best job for their residents.

Mr. Speaker, I have said to most people who have asked, "I will be retiring at the end of this term." So, after all of these years in the House, I can firmly say that the Affirmative Action Policy does not work, because it is not the will of our government to make it work.

Mr. Speaker, this is witnessed by amalgamating the Departments of Finance and Human Resources, as human resources has no standing in the GNWT structure. In order to make affirmative action work, more attention must be paid to it. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the government should scrap the Affirmative Action Policy and replace it with something that does work. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Affirmative Action Policy
Members' Statements

Page 5608

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Members' statements. Member for Nunakput.

Mental Health Services in Regions
Members' Statements

Page 5608

Herbert Nakimayak

Herbert Nakimayak Nunakput

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently, there were two adults who passed away from suicide in my region. The rates in the Northwest Territories continue to be high, despite the various programs provided by Health and Social Services. Although the programs we have, such as the group phone session, Facebook chat, and funds for on-the-land healing, the underlying causes of suicide, such as unemployment, lack of housing, poverty, colonization, mental illness, and addictions remain.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share a quote from my friend, Gabe Nurlugatuk, who lost his son to suicide. He says: "Depression is hard to diagnose, but, with all of us, we can make a difference. We all need someone. We all need to live. Tomorrow is another day."

Mr. Speaker, the new Stanton Territorial Hospital shows promise for better mental health. It has a therapeutic garden with a ceremonial fire pit, a playground, sleeping couches for family and friends, and a sacred space for prayer with ventilation to allow smudging. It's efforts like these that give me hope, Mr. Speaker. It shows that the Government of the Northwest Territories is focusing on the well-being of our Indigenous people. However, these features are located in Yellowknife, which is a far reach from Nunakput's constituents. The Minister shows commitment to treating and preventing suicide. It's also important that we engage the underlying causes for suicide in order to lower the rates in the Northwest Territories. The negative effects suicide has on families and communities are at times unheard. This issue is compounded and triggers multiple issues that can be prevented with help, such as interventions and continuous support from our friends, family, and coworkers.

Mr. Speaker, an example also to think about are the benefits that we get from employment as a Government of the Northwest Territories employee. In the communities, on paper, the benefits are great, but most times don't physically reach our communities when it comes to mental health and issues that affect our well-being.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Later on, I will have questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services.

Mental Health Services in Regions
Members' Statements

Page 5608

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Members' statements. Member for Hay River North.

Dredging the Hay River
Members' Statements

Page 5608

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let's talk about dredging. When I was growing up, there used to be a sandbar at the public beach in Hay River maybe a couple of hundred feet out. You couldn't really see it from the shore, but seagulls would land on it, so it became known as Seagull Island. To get there, you would have to wade out waist-deep in water. About 10 years ago, a former Hay River MLA stood up in this House and talked about how Seagull Island had changed because of the build-up in sediment, saying, "You could practically walk halfway to Fort Providence now without getting wet." Obviously, she was exaggerating, but Seagull Island hasn't been an island in a long time.

A while ago, you could have probably called it Seagull Peninsula. Then it turned into Seagull Point. I was out there just a couple weeks ago, and what was once a submerged sandbar is now hundreds of metres of dry land. It juts out into the Great Slave Lake, curves west and then south, resulting in a brand new body of water, thousands of square feet in area that is physically separated from the lake. Let's call it Seagull Lagoon.

On the other side of the island, the West Channel is increasingly becoming isolated from the lake, as sediment is deposited at the mouth of the channel, merging islands with the mainland, and creating the perfect barrier to block ice that would otherwise flow out of the channel into the lake during breakup.

Mr. Speaker, things have gotten worse since I stood up in this House three and a half years ago and asked this Cabinet how they were going to work towards fulfilling the GNWT's mandate of getting the Hay River dredged. The statement I made that day was similar to the one made by the previous MLA from Hay River North at the beginning of his term. His statement was similar to the one made by the former Member for Hay River South the term before that. The answers that all three of us have received over and over again from the three different Ministers of Transportation have all been the same. They say dredging is not the GNWT's responsibility, but they'll work with the federal government to see if they'll pay for it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, over the last quarter century, the feds have made their position clear by denying applications put forth by the GNWT and, in some cases, outright ignoring letters sent by our Ministers related to this issue.

Mr. Speaker, they say the Government of Canada pays attention to our proceedings, so instead of asking our Cabinet to lobby the feds, I'll address the rest of my comments directly to the federal government: start doing your job and resume dredging operations in Hay River. This is an economic issue, this is a public safety issue, and, as far as I'm concerned, this is a federal election issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Dredging the Hay River
Members' Statements

Page 5609

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Members' statements. Item 4, reports of standing and special committees. Member for Kam Lake.

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 29: An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and commends it to the House.

The Standing Committee on Government Operations ("the committee") is pleased to report on its review of Bill 29: An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act or ATIPP Act.

Bill 29: An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was sponsored by the Department of Justice and has been referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review. The bill proposes to:

  • Provide for the application of the act to municipalities that are designated in regulations;
  • Clarify the types of records exempted from disclosure because they would reveal Cabinet or Financial Management Board confidences and provide for a similar exemption for municipal records;
  • Allow for a compelling public interest to override particular statutory grounds providing that a record is to be exempt from disclosure;
  • Revise time limits by restating them as business days rather than calendar days, shortening some turn-around times, and adding time limits for certain actions required under the act that did not previously have them;
  • Set out a process for the Information and Privacy Commissioner, or IPC, to consider requests from heads of public bodies to extend time limits for responding to requests for access;
  • Address the privacy and access considerations related to human resources documents, including employee evaluation and workplace investigation documents;
  • Clarify exemptions from disclosure relating to business interests;
  • Permit the collection and disclosure of information for the delivery of common or integrated programs and services;
  • Update the general powers of the IPC;
  • Provide for a review of the act by the Minister every seven years; and
  • Make other adjustments intended to improve language and enhance clarity in the act.

Now in its 23rd year, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act came into force on December 31, 1996. The stated purposes of the act are to make public bodies more accountable to citizens and to protect the privacy of personal information held by public bodies. Public bodies include the Government of the Northwest Territories and its agencies, boards, commissions, and corporations, as set out in the regulations. The act achieves its purposes by:

  • Giving individuals the right to access and the right to request the correction of personal information about themselves held by public bodies;
  • Setting out limited exceptions to the right of access;
  • Preventing the unauthorized collection, use, or disclosure of personal information by public bodies; and
  • Providing for an independent review of decisions made under the act by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Although the act has been amended from time to time to respond to specific issues raised by stakeholders and standing committees, the act had never subjected to a comprehensive review until the Department of Justice committed to undertake this work in 2012. The results of that review informed the development of Bill 29.

Bill 29 received second reading in the Legislative Assembly on October 30, 2018, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for review.

The work of the standing committee to amend Bill 29 is set out in this report. The report contains recommendations to government on the implementation of the revised legislation. It also provides a rationale for the motions moved by the committee to amend specific provisions in the bill. These motions are listed in Appendix 1 in order of their appearance in the bill and are referred to in this report by their number assigned in the appendix.

The Public Review of Bill 29

In this digital age, where data of all descriptions is easily accessible by personal computer and phone, people have become increasingly aware of the need to protect their personal information and the potential impacts of failing to do so. At the same time, the public is demanding more accountability and openness from government. Citizens want access to documents held by government, so they may determine if government decision-making is reasoned, defensible, and being carried out in accordance with the legislative and policy framework that government has put in place.

In this environment, it is vitally important to have strong access and privacy legislation governing how the public sector collects, manages, and discloses personal information. Committee was pleased to see the Minister of Justice bring forward Bill 29, in accordance with mandate commitment 5.3.1.

In addition to soliciting input through letters sent to stakeholders, the committee travelled to, and held public hearings on Bill 29, during the week of January 21, 2019, in Fort Smith, Inuvik, and Fort McPherson. A final public hearing was held in Yellowknife on January 24, 2019. Committee thanks everyone who attended these meetings or provided written submissions to the committee for sharing their views on Bill 29.

Committee noted a great deal of public interest in Bill 29. In addition to the input received from residents in the communities we visited, committee received both verbal and written submissions from:

  • The City of Yellowknife;
  • The NWT Association of Communities;
  • OpenNWT; and
  • The Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts, who was accompanied by former British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner, Mr. David Loukidelis.

Committee also received written submissions from the Hamlet of Tulita and the Northwest Territories Branch of the Canadian Bar Association.

Given the breadth of input and the complexity of the legislation, public input is noted in greater detail under the topic headings below.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hand the reading of the report over to my colleague, the honourable Member from Deh Cho.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Member for Deh Cho.

Michael Nadli

Michael Nadli Deh Cho

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

WHAT WE HEARD AND DID

Scope of the Act

Inclusion of Municipalities

Input Received

Clause 2 of Bill 29 provides for Northwest Territories' municipalities to be included under ATIPP by extending the definition of a "public body" to include municipalities as defined under the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, the Charter Communities Act, or the Hamlets Act. Clause 2 also specifies that a municipality must be designated in the regulations in order for ATIPP to take effect. This mechanism ensures that municipalities do not immediately assume responsibilities under the amended legislation when it goes into force, but rather when the GNWT amends the regulations.

Clause 10 of Bill 29 specifies which municipal records are to be exempt from disclosure under ATIPP. In her submission, the IPC urged the government to consult with her office regarding which municipalities are to be designated as public bodies and indicated that she hopes to see the larger communities designated first. She also noted her support for the protection provided to municipal confidences under clause 10.

In its submission, the City of Yellowknife emphasized the degree to which they are already very open and transparent. The city claimed to already be covered under PIPEDA, the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The city expressed concern about the potential impact of ATIPP on their Whistleblower Policy, which allows complainants to remain anonymous in order to encourage reporting without fear of reprisal. The city is also concerned about its capacity to implement this change and the costs associated with the requirement to designate an ATIPP coordinator. They said:

"If ATIPP is amended to include municipalities, it is imperative that the territorial government provide appropriate financial, records management and training resources to municipalities."

The Hamlet of Tulita noted that its records management is probably similar to other NWT communities in that there is no standardized indexing system or centrally maintained file system. They said:

"Being able to access information is critical to the effective functioning of ATIPP. Council would like to see, before any such action is taken to require community governments to become compliant, that the GNWT (probably through MACA) provide training and assistance to the community governments in standardized record management."

The hamlet went on to suggest that perhaps the electronic systems being used in larger NWT communities could be acquired by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs (MACA) as a standard records management system for all communities.

The NWT Association of Communities (NWTAC) advised the committee that they had passed a resolution stating:

"The implementation of ATIPP legislation to communities needs to be done in a measured, realistic and highly planned way; and further, that any implementation plan needs to include adequate resources and training to ensure its success."

In addition, the NWTAC called upon the committee to do all it can to ensure that the GNWT honour commitments made in 2018 to support a staged implementation recognizing operational challenges, and to ensure that the Departments of Municipal and Community Affairs and Justice work with community governments, to assess capacity, resource requirements, and training, and consult with communities on implementation timing.

In its submission, OpenNWT noted that the:

"Inclusion of municipalities under the act is an important one that has been a long time coming...Much of the current conversation has been filled by "what ifs" -- what if there are too many requests, what if records capacity isn't there -- these are all systems that can evolve with time."

This submission further pointed out that when the act was first brought into force, the GNWT "did not have any advanced records management system in place, either."

Committee Response

The committee does not take a position on the application of PIPEDA to municipal governments, but notes guidance on this subject from the federal Information and Privacy Commissioner which suggests that, contrary to the city's assertion, PIPEDA may have limited application to municipalities in the NWT only to the extent that it applies to information about municipal employees.

With respect to the city's concern regarding the impact of ATIPP on the confidentiality of the process under its Whistleblower Policy, again, the committee does not take a position on this. Committee does, however, note the following provision from the Government of the Northwest Territories' Harassment Free and Respectful Workplace Policy which suggests that protecting the anonymity of complainants is inconsistent with due process:

7. The investigation process is conducted following the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. This means:

(a) Only those complaints in which the complainant's identity is disclosed may be taken through the mediation and/or investigation processes. Anonymous complaints do not allow for due process.

The committee supports the inclusion of municipalities under ATIPP legislation, but is cognizant of the very real concerns municipal authorities have about ensuring that implementation is staged and orderly. Accordingly, the committee makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 1

The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, working with the Department of Justice, develop a detailed and costed plan to guide the implementation of ATIPP for municipalities.

Additionally, the standing committee recommends that the plan identify: i) timelines for the inclusion of different categories of municipalities in the ATIPP Regulations; ii) the resources needed by each municipal government to comply with ATIPP, to ensure adequate funding for initial implementation and ongoing operational requirements; along with iii) any other significant considerations as determined through consultation on development of the plan.

The standing committee further recommends that, before being finalized, the plan be provided in draft so that input may be obtained from the appropriate standing committee, the NWT Association of Communities, and the local government administrators of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will now pass the reading of the further sections to my honourable Member colleague from Hay River North. Mahsi.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Member for Hay River North.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Inclusion of Local Housing Organizations

Input Received

The Information and Privacy Commissioner noted the importance of bringing local housing organizations under ATIPP. Her submission notes that:

"From a privacy perspective, housing corporations collect, use and disclose significant amounts of personal information about their residents. This includes financial information, information about their employment and personal information about their family situation. It can also include sensitive information about any conditions that a resident may have. The many privacy complaints my office receives show a clear need for these corporations to live under the same privacy rules as other public sector actors."

Committee Response

From its review of the IPC's 2017-2018 Annual Report, committee is aware of an instance in which a person sought access to information held by a local housing organization. In this case, the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation directed the local housing organization to respond to the request, even though the housing organization is not bound by ATIPP. In committee's view, this suggests that the NWT Housing Corporation recognizes the need for open and transparent conduct by local housing organizations.

Committee considered bringing forward a motion to define local housing organizations as "public bodies" under the act, but recognized that this would not be consistent with the manner by which public bodies are designated under the act. To be consistent with the existing structure of the legislation, the most appropriate way to include local housing organizations under ATIPP would be to define them as public bodies by including them in Schedule A to the regulations. Accordingly, committee makes the following recommendation:

Recommendation 2

The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Minister of Justice propose, for approval by the Commissioner in Executive Council, amending the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations to include Housing Associations incorporated under the Societies Act and Housing Authorities incorporated under section 45 of the NWT Housing Corporation Act, as public bodies under the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Powers of the Information and Privacy Commissioner

The ATIPP Act sets out the powers of the IPC with respect to both access and privacy matters. The committee gave a great deal of consideration to the scope of these powers.

Modernizing the Role of the IPC

Bill 29 proposes a number of changes to strengthen the powers of the IPC. Clause 35 expands the powers of the IPC to:

  • provide educational programs about the act and the public's rights;
  • consult with any person with expertise in any matter related to the act;
  • provide comments on the privacy implications of new technology;
  • provide comments on practices and procedures to improve access and privacy;
  • advise the heads of public bodies when their staff fail to fulfill the duty to assist applicants; and
  • inform the public of deficiencies in the system, including in the office of the IPC.

Committee supports the inclusion of the powers set out in clause 35, which will modernize the IPC's powers and align them with other provincial and territorial privacy commissioners. However, committee feels that Bill 29 could do more to strengthen the IPC's powers in the following areas.

Initiating Access and Privacy Reviews on the IPC's Own Initiative

Committee supports the proposal under Clause 28 to allow the IPC to initiate a review relating to a privacy breach on her own initiative, without receiving a complaint. Committee notes that this is something the IPC has called for in her past annual reports and is a power afforded to information and privacy commissioners in other Canadian jurisdictions and to other statutory officers with Ombud-like powers in the Northwest Territories.

This would give the IPC the authority to investigate problems that might be systemic and thus not restricted to a single complaint. The committee sees no sound policy rationale for giving the IPC this authority only for privacy matters, as proposed under clause 28, and believes that the IPC should also have the authority to investigate systemic issues relating to access matters. Consequently, committee moved motions 10(a) and (b) to ensure that the IPC has this power to initiate an investigation relating to an access matter without the prerequisite of having received a complaint. Committee also moved motion 15 to clarify that the IPC's power to initiate reviews related to privacy matters on her own initiative also includes reviews related to the correction of personal information.

Making Binding Recommendations

Input Received

From the IPC, committee heard that:

"A key shortcoming of Bill 29 is that it would continue to give public bodies the unacceptable ability to ignore adjudicated decisions by the IPC...NWT public bodies can pick and choose which decisions they will respect and which they will not. From a rule-of-law perspective, this is an unacceptably weak regime. It is also not clear why access to information -- which the Supreme Court of Canada has stated has constitutional dimensions -- does not merit better protection."

In its submission, OpenNWT noted that:

"The current process for making ATIPP requests can be difficult for the public and onerous. Currently, when a government body refuses to release a record the applicant can appeal to the Commissioner for a review. However, these reviews are not binding...and it is up to the applicant to then seek a judicial order. Considering the disparity in resources available to the government versus a private citizen or organization, this is fundamentally unfair."

Both the IPC and OpenNWT recommend that the GNWT adopt an approach found in the Newfoundland and Labrador Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which was designed to enhance the enforceability of the IPC's recommendations. In this model, a public body is required to comply with the IPC's recommendations. If a public body does not wish to comply, it must apply to the court within a prescribed timeline, for a declaration that it is not required to comply with the IPC's recommendation. In its application, the public body must substantiate the reason it disagrees with the IPC's recommendations and justify how its own decision to refuse access was guided by the provisions of the act. "It should not be left to public bodies to pick and choose which access to information rights/privacy rights they will respect."

Committee Response

Currently, the recommendations made by the IPC under the ATIPP Act are not binding on the GNWT or its boards and agencies. If the IPC finds in favour of a complainant and recommends that a public body give access to a record that it has refused to release and the public body refuses to accept the recommendation, the only recourse left to the complainant is to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court, pursuant to section 37 of the act. The act does not provide any similar avenue of appeal for privacy complaints. Committee was in agreement that the recommendations of the IPC need to be strengthened so that they are binding upon government in some fashion.

Committee looked closely at the Newfoundland model. Committee believes that, because the GNWT is more adequately resourced to undertake legal actions, requiring the GNWT to go to court for approval to disregard the IPC's recommendations is more fair than requiring an applicant to go to court when the GNWT refuses to comply with the IPC's recommendation. Committee views this approach as consistent with the GNWT's commitment to a more open and accountable government. The Newfoundland model would even the playing field, making the access and privacy system in the Northwest Territories more accessible for those with access or privacy concerns.

The committee further believes that this approach would by its nature promote more careful and justifiable decision-making on the part of public bodies, whose heads will be more inclined to assess whether or not their decision on an access matter is likely to be viewed favourably by the courts.

In considering the scope of powers available to the IPC, committee was aware that other statutory officers, such as the NWT Human Rights Adjudication Panel, have the power to make orders having the weight of court rulings. Committee considered that providing the IPC with order-making power would be an alternative approach to the status quo and to the Newfoundland model.

Because ministerial concurrence with committee motions is required if a bill is to be amended at the committee stage, committee met with the Minister of Justice and his staff to discuss a number of potential amendments to Bill 29. Committee was surprised to learn at this meeting that the Department of Justice views the option of providing the IPC with order-making power more favourably than the Newfoundland model. The department offered the insight that the most frequent reason the GNWT refuses to comply with the IPC's recommendations is because those recommendations often lack a degree of precision necessary to allow the government to comply in a manner consistent with its mandate and operating structure. Providing the IPC with order-making power, the department suggested, would impose a level of discipline on the IPC that would result in more specific and precise direction to government. The minister indicated his willingness to concur with such an amendment on the condition that he could obtain the support of Cabinet.

Accordingly, committee moved motions 12 and 12(a) to amend Bill 29 to provide the IPC with order-making power related to access matters and motion 16 to provide the IPC with order-making power related to privacy concerns.

I would now like to hand reading of the report over to my colleague, the Member for Sahtu.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Member for Sahtu.

Daniel McNeely

Daniel McNeely Sahtu

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Public Interest Override

Clause 4 of Bill 29 proposes to amend the ATIPP Act to provide that, for certain records, the exemption from disclosure provided under the act will not apply where the applicant "demonstrates that a compelling public interest in the disclosure of the record clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption." This means that, where the act prohibits a record from being disclosed, the person seeking access may be able to obtain the record if they are able to demonstrate that the public's need to know is more important than the privacy considerations that would otherwise prevent the record from being disclosed.

Input Received

Committee heard from Mr. David Loukidelis, a former British Columbia Information and Privacy Commissioner, who appeared before the committee as a witness at the invitation of the NWT IPC. Mr. Loukidelis asserted that the proposal does not go far enough because it only allows the public interest to override four of the act's disclosure exemptions: advice from officials (section 14), intergovernmental relations (section 16), government's economic interests (section 17), and harm to the applicant or another individual (section 21). In contrast, Mr. Loukidelis notes, the public interest prevails over all of the secrecy provisions contained in the ATIPP acts of Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick.

"The bar is set too high -- the public interest would only win out over secrecy where there is a 'compelling' public interest that 'clearly outweighs the purpose of the exemption.' Experience with similar language in Ontario shows that the bar is so high that the override will effectively be illusory."

Both Mr. Loukidelis and the IPC additionally point out that clause 4 of Bill 29 only applies in instances where someone has made a request for a record. They argue that there should be a positive duty on government to disclose information that is in the public interest. As the NWT IPC noted:

"Bill 29 should be amended to provide that the public body is required to disclose to the public, an affected group of people or an applicant, as promptly as practicable, information about a risk of serious harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or a group of people. This duty should apply, to be clear, regardless of whether an access request has been made."

Finally, both the IPC and Mr. Loukidelis express concern that clause 4 of Bill 29 places the onus on a member of the public to demonstrate a compelling public interest "from a position of complete or near complete ignorance." This observation served to confirm committee's view that this places an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant.

Committee Response

In response to these concerns, committee moved motion 2, which places a positive duty on government to disclose to the public, without delay, information about a risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public or information that, for any other reason, should be disclosed because it is clearly in the public interest to do so. This public interest override applies throughout the act, not just to the four disclosure exemptions provided for in clause 4 of the bill. It also removes the requirement for a member of the public to demonstrate a compelling public interest and, instead, puts the onus on government to ensure that, regardless of protections provided under ATIPP, information in the public interest is properly disclosed.

Labour Relations Information

Clause 17 of Bill 29 proposes to add a new section 24.1 to the act, that would require a public body to refuse to disclose to an applicant "labour relations information, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal information supplied to, or the report of, an arbitrator, mediator, labour relations officer or other person or body appointed to resolve or inquire into a labour relations matter."

Input Received

As pointed out by the IPC in her submission, "this would be a mandatory exemption, and a public body would not be permitted to waive its protection." She goes on to express the view that "this is a potentially vast black hole in the act. For one thing, the terms 'labour relations information' and 'labour relations matter' are not defined. They could be very broad in their scope."

The IPC also expresses her concern with the proposal to "withhold even the final report of a labour arbitrator or similar decision-maker," noting that, with respect to arbitration decisions, "there is no good reason for an access to information law to require them to be secret." She argues that "these decisions are an important part of our law and the act should not require them to remain secret when an access request is made for an unpublished decision."

Committee Response

Committee agrees that the exemption from disclosure of information harmful to the GNWT's labour relations interests is too broad as set out in clause 17 of Bill 29. Committee discussed with Justice the possibility of adding a definition to the act and was persuaded by the department's concern that such a definition this might inadvertently capture types of information that should not be exempted or, conversely, fail to address types of information that should. Committee also considered an approach that would narrow the scope of the provision by inserting a "harms test." The effect of this would be to require a public body to give consideration to the nature of the information being requested, to determine if it "could reasonably be expected to (i) harm the competitive position of the GNWT as an employer; (ii) interfere with the negotiating position of the public body as an employer, or (iii) result in financial loss or gain to the public body as an employer."

Unfortunately, an amendment to clause 17 of the bill could not be finalized in time for this provision to be amended at the committee stage. Had such an amendment been completed, it would have been moved as motion 7, which is why readers of this report will not find such a motion in Appendix 1 to this report.

Committee has enjoyed a positive and extremely collaborative relationship with the Minister of Justice and his staff on the review of Bill 29, and work to resolve the committee's concern is still underway as this report is being read into the record. Committee has every confidence that a solution can be reached that is satisfactory to both the Minister and to committee and that will result in a further amendment to this bill on the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I pass the further reading on to the honourable Member for Nunakput.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Member for Nunakput.

Herbert Nakimayak

Herbert Nakimayak Nunakput

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I checked my papers, and I do not have any duplicates, so you only get all 29 pages in this report.

Obligations of Public Bodies

The ATIPP Act places a number of obligations on public bodies. Bill 29 proposes to amend certain of these obligations.

Response to the IPC's Access-Related Recommendations

As set out in Bill 29, clause 31 proposes to require a public body to provide the IPC with a status report on its implementation of the IPC's privacy-related recommendations.

The committee originally supported this proposal because it is something that has been long sought by the IPC. However, committee could see no sound policy reason for this obligation to exist only with respect to privacy-related matters. Committee considered moving a motion which proposed to also place this obligation on public bodies with respect to access-related recommendations by the IPC. However, the subsequent decision to provide the IPC with order-making power, for both access and privacy matters, as set out in motions 12 and 16, supplanted the need for either clause 31 of the bill or an amendment requiring public bodies to report on the status of access-related recommendations.

Motions 12 and 16 require a public body to comply with an order of the IPC within 20 or 40 business days, respectively. Because the IPC's orders become mandatory under these amendments, the IPC will no longer be left wondering to what extent recommendations accepted by a public body are being implemented.

Records That May Be Disclosed Without an Access Request

Section 72 of the ATIPP Act gives public bodies discretionary authority to identify categories of records that do not contain personal information and can, therefore, be made available to the public without the need for a formal access request under the act.

Clause 37 of the bill proposes to make this requirement mandatory, rather than optional, for public bodies. Committee supports this proposal, but wants to ensure that the public has a way of knowing which categories of records may be requested without an access request.

Committee therefore moved Motion 19, which obligates public bodies not only to develop these categories of records, but also to publish them, so that people seeking information held by the government will know which records they may readily access without need to make a formal request under the act.

Privacy Impact Assessments

Input Received

The IPC has spoken to the committee, many times, about the importance of "privacy by design," which is the notion that whenever government is developing a new initiative, it should give consideration, in the earliest planning stages, to the initiative's impacts on the privacy of individuals. One of the ways to achieve this is through the use of a privacy impact assessment (PIA), which describes how individuals, whose personal information will be collected, used or disclosed, would be affected by the initiative.

Committee heard from the IPC on this subject, who said:

"PIAs help ensure that initiatives proceed only if there are no compliance concerns that cannot be mitigated. They enable what is known as privacy by design, with privacy compliance being designed into the initiative at the outset. PIAs also enable public bodies to assess whether, even if an initiative is legally compliant, it is not good policy from a privacy perspective. A PIA is an important and highly-desirable business risk assessment tool that should be mandatory."

Committee sees the value in privacy impact assessments, noting that such assessments are required under the Health Information Act for any proposed change to an information system or communication technology relating to the collection, use or disclosure of personal health information.

Committee Response

Committee was persuaded to seek an amendment to Bill 29 requiring public bodies to conduct privacy impact assessments, not only by the IPC's evidence, but out of consideration for impacts related to "common or integrated programs or services," a concept introduced in Bill 29.

One of the key features of the ATIPP Act is that it places an obligation on public bodies to limit their collection of personal information to only that which is needed to deliver a given program or service. It also requires that each public body must disclose to an individual the reasons for which their personal information is being collected. As a result, public bodies are not authorized to share the personal information they have collected, such that it can be used for purposes other than those for which it was first collected. Bill 29 proposes to change this with the introduction of the concept of a "common or integrated program or service."

A common or integrated program or service is one that provides one or more services through a public body working collaboratively with one or more other public bodies. The rationale for this approach is to break down the silos that tend to occur within government, so that different government departments or agencies may collaborate to deliver programs and services.

While this may be desirable from a program-delivery perspective, it creates challenges for collaborating offices, as they are currently prevented under the act from sharing with one another the personal information they have collected from their clients. As a result, clause 26 of Bill 29 proposes to amend the act to allow public bodies to share personal information they have individually collected for the purpose of collaboratively delivering a common or integrated program or service. Committee sees privacy impact assessments as vitally important in this context.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, committee moved Motion 13 to amend Bill 29. This amendment requires public bodies to develop privacy impact assessments for any proposed enactment, system, project, program or service, including common or integrated programs and services, involving the collection, use or disclosure of personal information. These PIAs must be submitted to the head of the public body for review and comment. It further requires that privacy impact assessments done for common or integrated programs or services be submitted to the IPC for her review and comment. Finally, this motion also requires the head of a public body to notify the IPC at an early stage, when developing common or integrated programs or services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I now pass it on to the Member for Hay River North.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Member for Hay River North.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mandatory Breach Notification

Input Received

The Northwest Territories Health Information Act, which came into force on October 1, 2015, places an obligation on the custodians of health information to advise affected individuals if the privacy of their health information is breached. Having had experience with this legislation, the IPC has recommended that public bodies under ATIPP should be required to provide the same breach notification for personal information under their control. She says,

"The duty to notify individuals of a breach that meets a statutorily-defined risk of harm is necessary for several reasons. First, it enables those affected to protect themselves from identity theft or fraud, and in some cases from personal harm. Second, the duty to notify affected individuals, and the public, serves as an important incentive for governments to take privacy seriously and avoid breaches in the first place. Third, a breach notification requirement would require public bodies to investigate the details of breaches, notably how they happened, and thus give them a solid information base for steps to prevent similar breaches in the future."

OpenNWT also recommended mandatory breach notification for ATIPP, stating that "Based on the large number of privacy breaches in the NWT it is important that our residents are notified individually."

Committee Response

Committee was persuaded of the value of amending the act to include a mandatory breach notification. To determine how to achieve this, committee looked at the relevant provisions of the NWT's Health Information Act and Nunavut's ATIPP Act, Division E, Data Breach Notification. Committee moved a lengthy Motion 17, to incorporate into Bill 29 a section, largely modeled on the Nunavut example, which provides a definition of "harm" and sets out a process governing public bodies with respect to data breach notifications. In addition, committee moved Motion 20, to provide the Minister with the authority, under section 73 of the act, to make regulations respecting the requirements to be fulfilled by public bodies in the event of a data breach

Protecting the Privacy of Individuals Making Access Requests

Input Received

The IPC has recommended that the identity of access requesters be protected under the act. She notes that "although it is convention not to disclose the identity of access requesters within a public body, there is no legal bar to doing so."

Committee Response

Committee believes that people seeking access to government records should be afforded a right to privacy, especially in a jurisdiction such as ours, where the population is small and many members of the public and the public service are known to one another.

Committee moved motion 3, which amends Bill 29 to provide that the identity of a person requesting access to information constitutes personal information which should be known only to the public body's ATIPP coordinator. It further provides that the identity of an access requester may only be disclosed by the ATIPP coordinator, to other employees in a public body, to the extent required in order to fulfill the access request.

Annual Reporting to the Responsible Minister

Consistent with the GNWT's commitment to openness and transparency, committee sees the value of having public bodies report annually on activities they have undertaken as required by ATIPP. Committee moved motion 23, which requires public bodies to submit a report to the responsible Minister, within 60 days of the fiscal year end, detailing the:

  • Number of requests received;
  • Time taken to process the requests;
  • Number of requests that were denied and the exceptions that were relied upon by the public body, in determining the denial;
  • Fees collected;
  • Justification relied upon for any extensions of time; and
  • Number of privacy impact assessments the public body has conducted in the fiscal year.

Obligations of the Responsible Minister

Annual Reporting to the Legislative Assembly

Motion 23, which requires annual reporting on ATIPP by public bodies, also requires that the Responsible Minister compile the reports submitted by the public bodies into an annual report, to be tabled within 60 business days of receiving the year-end information from the public bodies or, if the Legislative Assembly is not sitting at that time, at the next sitting of the Assembly. This will ensure that the information produced by public bodies as part of their year-end reporting is made available to the public.

Statutory Review of the Act

As noted at the outset of this report, the Northwest Territories' ATIPP legislation is just a few years shy of being a quarter of a century old. While it has been amended from time to time, the legislation has not, until now, been subjected to a comprehensive review.

ATIPP legislation governs the collection, use and disclosure of personal information. Processes used for collecting, exchanging, cataloguing and distributing personal information are intrinsically linked with technological changes. To put the age of the current ATIPP Act into perspective with respect to technological advancement, consider that in the same year it went into force the DVD was launched, smartphones were in their infancy, and there were roughly 45 million Internet users, none of whom had yet heard of Google, as compared with today's 1.4 billion Internet users.

Given the impact of changing technology on ATIPP, committee sees a greater-than-average need to ensure that the legislation is kept current. Clause 39 of Bill 29 achieves this by proposing to amend the act to include a requirement that the responsible Minister undertake a review of the legislation every seven years.

Based on past reviews of the Official Languages Act, committee is aware that mandated reviews of legislation occurring at arbitrary intervals, be it every five years, seven years, or whatever the case may be, do not always lend themselves to producing amended legislation. One reason for this is that, if the date for a review happens to coincide with the final year of an Assembly, there will not be enough time remaining to complete any recommended legislative changes arising from a review.

Committee prefers to see the statutory requirement to review legislation be tied to the lifespan of a sitting assembly. In this way, the review period can be synched to coincide with the four year term of an assembly, allowing enough time for any required changes to the legislation to make their way through the legislative process.

Committee moved motion 21 to amend clause 39 of the bill to require the Minister to carry out the review within 18 months of the start of the 20th Legislative Assembly and within 18 months of every second assembly thereafter. This will result in ongoing reviews of the act at eight-year intervals.

Committee debated whether or not to also amend the proposal in clause 39 of the bill to require that the review be done by a committee of the Legislative Assembly rather than being done by the Minister, as is the case with the Official Languages Act. Regardless of who does the review, it will ultimately be up to the responsible Minister to sponsor amending legislation to implement the findings of the review. On this basis, committee was satisfied with leaving the responsibility for the review in the hands of the Minister, providing that the results of the review be tabled in the Legislative Assembly for the consideration of Members. Committee moved motion 22 to provide for this reporting requirement.

Time Limits

As noted at the start of this report, Bill 29 proposes to revise time limits in the act by restating them as business days rather than calendar days; shortening some turn-around times; and adding time limits for certain actions required under the act that did not previously have them. Committee is proposing changes to a number of the time limits set out in Bill 29.

Time Limit for IPC to Complete Reviews

Input Received

Presently, the ATIPP Act requires the IPC to complete her reviews on access and privacy matters within 180 calendar days, or approximately six months. Clauses 22 and 29 of Bill 29 propose to shorten this timeframe to 60 business days, which is approximately three months. It is perhaps not surprising that the IPC would not be in favour of this amendment. Noting her deep concern, she asserts that the:

"Imposition of such a severe constraint without my office having more resources would either cause my office to fail to meet that standard or, in order to do so, to divert scarce resources from other important tasks, such as privacy complaints under the Health Information Act. Neither outcome is desirable."

She goes on to argue for the complete elimination of her time limit, pointing out that her office's review functions differ from those of other public bodies. Public bodies act on the basis of their own records and the contextual information they receive. In contrast, the IPC is entirely dependent upon public bodies to be timely in their responses to the IPC's requests for information when processing an applicant's request for a review.

Committee Response

The committee considered this input along with the testimony from Department of Justice representatives who pointed out that, in their review of the ATIPP Act, they heard from the public that the entire process is too lengthy.

Committee recognizes that the public should be able to have access to a process that is as expedient as possible. At the same time, committee notes that the cut to the IPC's time limit proposed in Bill 29 is the most severe cut proposed to any of the timelines contained in the act, while her office has far fewer resources than most public bodies. Committee is of the view that a reduction of that size would have a negative impact on the IPC's ability to complete thorough reviews. Committee moved motions 11(a) and (b), which set the IPC's time limit for completing access and privacy reviews respectively at 90 calendar days, which is approximately four and a half months. Committee believes that this will expedite the process for the public while still allowing the IPC adequate time to complete her work.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hand the reading of the report over to the Member for Kam Lake.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Member for Kam Lake.

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. I will finish off the end of the report once I find the page. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Time Limit for a Public Body Responding to an Access Request

Clause 5 of Bill 29 proposes to amend the deadline for a public body to respond to an access request from 30 calendar days to 20 business days. Under subsection 11(1), the act allows a public body to extend this initial deadline "for a reasonable period." Clause 6 of the bill changes strikes out "for a reasonable period" and substitutes "for a period not exceeding 20 business days," placing a hard deadline on the extension a public body may grant itself. The combined effect of these amendments is that a public body will have a total of 40 business days to respond to an access request. Committee supports both of these proposals.

Should a public body require further time, clause 7 of Bill 29 requires the head of a public body to seek a further extension from the IPC. Under proposed subsection 11.1(3), while this request is being made, the time limit for replying to the request is suspended. If this request is then denied by the IPC, the original time limit does not resume under the bill as drafted. Rather, under the proposed new subsection 11.2(6), the clock is re-set and the public body is required to reply no later than 20 business days after receiving the decision of the IPC.

Committee expressed concern with this latter provision because, even if the request for an extension is denied by the IPC, proposed subsection 11.2(6) in effect grants an extension of the same length (20 business days) as that which the public body was originally able to grant itself. This builds an incentive into the act for public bodies to seek extensions in every instance, with the knowledge that even a denial from the IPC will result in an additional 20 days to complete the request.

Committee considered a motion to address this concern, but the motion was later superseded by the decision to grant the IPC order-making power as set out under motions 12 and 16. Motion 12 gives the IPC the authority to "reduce, deny, or authorize an extension of a time limit under section 11 or 11.1." Motion 4 complements motion 12 by deleting subsections 11.2(2) to 11.2(7), which would have set out the IPC's authority to grant an extension of a public body's deadline. Instead, in accordance with motion 4, a request by a public body for an extension of its deadline will be treated as a "review" in accordance with Division D of the act, which deals with reviews and recommendations of the IPC. As such, a decision by the IPC related to a deadline extension will be final and binding upon the public body.

Time Limit for Notice to Third Parties

Division C of the ATIPP Act is concerned with the rights of third parties with respect to the disclosure of information. Where a public body is considering giving access to a record that may contain information potentially constituting an unreasonable invasion of a third party's privacy or negatively impacting on their business or other interests, the public body is required to give notice to the third party. Paragraph 26(2)(c) gives the third party 60 calendar days to respond. Clause 19 of Bill 29 proposes to shorten that deadline to 30 business days. Committee has no objection to this proposal.

Upon receiving input from a potentially affected third party, the head of a public body must consider that input in determining whether or not to give the applicant access to the requested record. Section 27 of the act requires that the head must wait for a reply from the third party or until at least 61 days have passed since notice was given to the third party before making a decision on the request. The same section also provides that the head of a public body cannot wait any later than 90 calendar days to respond to the applicant.

Clause 20(b) of the bill proposes to shorten, from 61 calendar days to 31 business days, the period during which the public body must wait for the third party's reply. Clause 20(a) proposes to amend the deadline for the public body to reply to the applicant from 90 calendar days to 45 business days.

In effect, Bill 29 proposes a 15-day window between the last day upon which a third party has to respond to the public body and the last day upon which the public body must provide an answer to the applicant. Committee heard that this time period was still too long. As a result, committee moved motion 8 to change the deadline for the public body's reply to the applicant from 45 business days to 40 business days, thereby reducing the 15-day window to 10 days.

Appeal Notice Time Limit

Section 27 of the act also specifies time limits for a public body to give notice that a third party has a right of appeal where access to a record is being granted to an applicant, and that an applicant has a right of appeal where access to a record is being denied by a public body. When the bill was drafted, an oversight resulted in these deadlines of 30 calendar days each not being converted to business days. While a straight conversion of calendar to business days would have resulted in an amendment setting these deadlines at 20 business days, committee learned, in discussions with the Minister of Justice, that the department had intended to reduce these deadlines to 15 business days. In the interest of expediting the entire ATIPP process, committee was in agreement with this proposal. Motion 9 was moved at the committee stage to make this change.

Miscellaneous or Technical Amendments

Committee also proposed a number of miscellaneous or technical amendments to the bill, some of which were completed in cooperation with the Department of Justice to address oversights and other drafting-related matters. This includes motion 1 which corrects a typographical error, amending "public body" to the plural "public bodies." Other miscellaneous or technical amendments are as follows:

Transfer of Access Request to Appropriate Public Body

Subsection 12(1) of the act provides that a public body may transfer an access request to another public body, where the other public body has custody of the requested record. To ensure that access requests are administered by the appropriate public body having care and control of the requested record, committee considers that this transfer should be compulsory under the act, instead of being discretionary, as is currently the case. Committee moved motion 5, which amends Clause 8 of the bill by changing "may" to "shall."

Disclosure Harmful to Conservation

Subsection 19(b) of the act allows that the head of a public body may refuse to disclose information having "Aboriginal cultural significance." Committee moved motion 6, which amends the word "Aboriginal" to "Indigenous" to reflect the current standard terminology in use by the GNWT.

Publication of ATIPP Coordinator Contact Information

Clause 36 of Bill 29 requires public bodies to designate and ATIPP coordinator, and sets out the responsibilities associated with the position. Committee moved motion 18 to enhance this provision by adding a requirement for public bodies to ensure that the contact information for ATIPP coordinators is made publicly available.

Reference to "Spouse" in the Act

Section 48 of the ATIPP Act sets out a lengthy list of circumstances under which a public body has the discretion to disclose personal information. Clause 26 of the bill adds additional circumstances, including one, Section 48(q.4), that permits disclosure of a deceased person's personal information to a "surviving spouse, adult interdependent partner, or relative."

Committee looked further into the meaning of the term "adult interdependent partner" in the context of Bill 29. Committee's research revealed that the Province of Alberta enacted the Adult Interdependent Relationship Act in 2002 to legally define common-law and same-sex relationships outside of the definition of marriage, which is "an institution that has traditional religious, social, and cultural meaning for many Albertans." An "adult interdependent partner" is defined in the legislation within this context.

In discussion with the Department of Justice, committee asked whether or not the term "adult interdependent partner," that is not defined in Bill 29, is necessary or whether the term "spouse," as used in Clause 26 of the bill, is sufficient to include spouses in the Northwest Territories who are in common-law and same-sex marriages. It was determined that the word "spouse," as defined in the Northwest Territories' Interpretation Act, does include individuals in common-law and same-sex marriages, rendering the term "adult interdependent partner" unnecessary in Bill 29. Motion 14 removes this term from the bill.

Clause-by-Clause Review of the Bill

Given the complexity of this bill and the number of proposed amendments, the committee requested and received two extensions to the 120-day deadline for the review of bills provided for by rule 75(1)(c) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly. These extensions provided time, following the public consultation process, for motions to be drafted and reviewed by the committee and by Cabinet. Committee thanks the Legislative Assembly for granting these extensions.

The clause-by-clause review of Bill 29 was held on May 22, 2019. At this review, the committee moved 25 motions set out in Appendix 1.

The Minister concurred with all of the motions moved by committee, allowing for extensive amendments to Bill 29 at the committee stage.

In conclusion, the committee wants to thank the Minister of Justice for his concurrence with the motions to amend the bill that were moved during the clause-by-clause review. Committee also again thanks the honourable Minister and his staff for their assistance and collaboration on the review of Bill 29. Committee also thanks the public for their participation in the review process and everyone involved in the review of this bill for their assistance and input.

Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 29: An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.

This concludes the Standing Committee on Government Operations' Review of Bill 29.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River North, that Committee Report 16-18(3) be received by this Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Some Hon. Members

Question.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

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

---Carried

Masi. Reports of standing and special committees. Item 5, returns to oral questions. Item 6, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Item 7, acknowledgments. Colleagues, at this point in time, I am calling for a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Welcome back, Members. As we left off, we were about to reach item 8, oral questions. We'll continue with oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.