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Committee considered a motion to address this concern, but the motion was later superseded by the decision to grant the IPC order-making power as set out under motions 12 and 16.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.