EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 68(6) so that Bill 38 can be referred immediately to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 38 is therefore referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Minister of Human Resources, Minister Ell.
Tabled Document 212 – 3(3): Towards a Representative Public Service – Statistics as of June 30, 2011 (Ell)
Tabled Document 213 – 3(3): Towards a Representative Public Service – Statistics as of September 30, 2011 (Ell)
Tabled Document 214 – 3(3): Towards a Representative Public Service – Statistics as of December 31, 2011 (Ell)
Tabled Document 215 – 3(3): Correspondence from Kakivak Association from June 1, 2012 about CEDO Funding Cuts (Ell)
Hon. Monica Ell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Minister of HR, I have three documents; I also have one as an MLA. Am I able to do those four items at the same time?
I am pleased to table the Department of Human Resources “Towards a Representative Public Service” - Statistics as of June 30, 2011; Statistics as of September 30, 2011; and Statistics as of December 31, 2011.
As I mentioned earlier, I have received a letter from the chair of the Kakivak Association Board of Directors and I’m tabling the letter.
Tabled Document 216 – 3(3): Annual Report on the Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) for 2006-2008 (Aariak)
Tabled Document 217 – 3(3): Annual Report for the Nunavut Implementation Plan for 2008-2010 (Aariak)
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to table two annual reports for the Nunavut Implementation Plan for the year 2008-2010 and 2006-08.
Tabled Document 218 – 3(3): Fuel Tax Rebate Program Annual Report for 2010-2011 (Peterson)
I am pleased to table the Fuel Tax Rebate Program Annual Report for 2010-11.
Tabled Document 219 – 3(3): FPT Ministerial Report of the Northern Development Ministers’ Forum in Happy Valley, Goose Bay – February 1-4, 2012 (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministerial Report of the Northern Development Ministers Forum in Happy Valley, Goose Bay, February 1 to 4, 2012.
Item 13. Tabling of Documents. Minister responsible for the Department of Justice, Minister Shewchuk.
Tabled Document 220 – 3(3): Strengthening the Nunavut Human Rights System (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to table the report on “Strengthening the Nunavut Human Rights System.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. Item 13. Tabling of Documents.
Tabled Document 221 – 3(3): Sitting Calendar for 2012 (Speaker)
Tabled Document 222 – 3(3): Report of Members’ Absences from Sitting of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses to the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012 (Speaker)
Members, I have two documents to table today, the first being the Legislative Assembly’s updated Sitting Calendar for 2012 and the Report of Members’ Absences from Sittings of the House and Meetings of Committees and Caucuses for the period of January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2012.
Bill 40 – Representative for Children and Youth Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by Hon. Member for Iqaluit West, that Bill 40, Representative for Children and Youth Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this Act establishes the office of the Nutaqqanut Kakkuttunnullu Kiggaqtuiji, or representative for children and youth, and guided by Inuit culture and Inuit societal values, will advocate for the rights and interests of children and youth and assist the Legislative Assembly and the Government of Nunavut in ensuring that the needs of children and youth are met.
The motion is carried and Bill 40 has had second reading and is referred to the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Minister’s Statement 155 – 3(3) and Bill 38 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:18 and Committee resumed at 15: 47
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 38 and Minister’s Statement 155 – 3(3).
We wish to proceed with the review of Bill 38 and when completed, we will proceed to discuss Minister’s Statement 155 – 3(3).
Does the committee agree that we first deal with Bill 38?
Bill 38 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act – Consideration in Committee
I would like to ask the Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Madam Premier, if she would like to make her opening comments on Bill 38. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
I will read my opening comments in English as we have capable interpreters with us.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am pleased to appear before the Committee of the Whole today to answer any questions you may have.  Hold on.
I’ll have to start from the beginning of my presentation here. (interpretation) I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have the first part of my opening comments.
I’ll start all over, Mr. Chairman.
(interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
I am pleased to appear before the Committee of the Whole today to answer any questions you may have on Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Nunavut’s Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act was inherited from the Government of the Northwest Territories upon division in 1999.
Since that time, only minor changes have been made to the Act.
Bill 38 would mark the first substantive amendment to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act is important legislation to all Nunavummiut as it gives them the right to access information held by the Government of Nunavut.
It also obligates the government to respect Nunavummiut by protecting the privacy of their personal information.
It has been noted over the years that the privacy provisions of our Act are not adequate.
We have heard these concerns and have committed to improving the privacy rights of Nunavummiut.
This amendment will do the following:
It will provide a time extension for the government to provide access to records in any official language of Nunavut.
This provision will require the government to release the records in the language they are found within the 30-day time period but provides a reasonable amount of time to provide the translated copies.
This will ensure delays are not a barrier to access to information.
It will allow the government to deem a request abandoned where the applicant has failed to respond to the public body within 90 days of receipt of notice.
Often, the government requires an applicant to provide clarification on a request or pay applicable fees.
This will give the applicant a timeframe for response. If the applicant does not provide the government with the clarification or pay the fees, the public body may deem the request abandoned and close the file.
This should not be seen as a barrier to access as it does not limit an individual from placing another, even similar, request in the future.
It is an administrative tool we can use to ensure files are not left open from year to year.
It will increase the privacy rights of Nunavummiut. Currently, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act has provisions that protect against the “intentional” breach of privacy. However, there is no oversight, internal or external, to handle accidental breaches of privacy.
Finally, there is no recourse for an individual who feels their privacy has been breached by a public body nor is a public body required to inform the individual or commissioner where a privacy breach has been identified.
The amendment to the privacy provisions will increase the privacy rights of Nunavummiut in the following ways:
Allow individuals to request a review be done by the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to initiate a review where she has reason to believe that the public body has inappropriately collected, used, or disclosed personal information.
Allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to make recommendations regarding administration to the Government of Nunavut which must be addressed by the minister responsible for the public body in question.
Requires public bodies to assess all breaches of privacy to determine harm and notify individuals where the breach creates a risk of harm to the individual.
My department has engaged in consultations with all public bodies through the ATIPP Coordinators Committee, with the Department of Justice’s Legislation Division, with Tuttarviit, the interdepartmental group consisting of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit coordinators, and with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut.
I am pleased to say that all consultations were positive.
I am confident these amendments will address many of the concerns noted by the Information and Privacy Commissioner and by the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts.
I will be pleased to have the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have on this bill.
Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table? (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier, (interpretation) for the record, please introduce your witnesses. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
On my right is Daniel Vandermeulen, my Deputy Minister at EIA, and on my left is Jessica Bell, Manager of Access to Information and Privacy Protection of Privacy.
Welcome to the witness table. (interpretation) Does the chair of the standing committee have comments?
As Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I am pleased to make some brief opening comments as we begin consideration of Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The standing committee is pleased to note that the government has made progress in amending the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to address concerns and recommendations that have been raised in the annual reports of the Information and Privacy Commissioner and in reports of this Legislative Assembly’s standing committees.
The proposed new provisions in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act will provide clear legal authority for the Information and Privacy Commissioner to undertake reviews of potential breaches of personal privacy concerning information held by a public body.
Other provisions will require a public body that knows or has reason to believe that a breach of privacy has occurred with respect to personal information under its control to report the breach of privacy to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee looks forward to further amendments being made to this important legislation to address other matters that have been discussed in this House.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments. The standing committee recommends the passage of Bill 38 to all members.
Are there any general comments on Bill 38? Mr. Curley.
I just want to make a couple of comments and I have some questions.
Thank you for bringing this bill forward.
This will be beneficial to Nunavutmiut who are seeking information from the government.
Their privacy has to be protected.
During the in-camera committee meeting, a concern was that if a person requests information, they have 30 days to get the information from the government.
If they want further information and if they request information for the housing corporation or something or needs additional information, then I think that would be a delay because 90 days is quite a long time. I have a concern with the timeframe.
For example, even though we’re not dealing with it, if the Integrity Commissioner is given 90 days once they receive a complaint, maybe they can go up to 90 days if they didn’t word the complaint properly.
I wonder about the 90 days. Isn’t that kind of long? I wonder if they would have to pay first.
So if the people who requested the information received the information, they would have to pay first in order to get the information they requested.
Can this be answered?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier, (interpretation) if you wish to respond at this time, I’m giving you an opportunity. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
It was a request that it be extended to 90 days by the committee.
Perhaps the second part of it was… . My concern was that it could become a standard.
You initially had a 30-day provision to getting information and so on without an additional 90 days.
If the question arises that an official from the public body is seeking clarification or maybe looking for payment, could not paying the [fee] become part of the delay? If the payment is not received within 90 days and if the 90 days pass without paying a fee, does that mean the information originally requested by an individual through access to information deemed abandoned?
I’ll have Jessica Bell respond to that question if that’s okay with you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Ms. Bell.
Ms. Bell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the question. It’s a good question. I think it requires clarification.
With the 90-day time period, this is actually to allow the applicant more time to figure out what they’re trying to request.
When we’re going back to the applicant for clarification or requesting a fee payment pertaining to an ATIPP request, it is usually because we’re not sure where the information they are looking for is located. So we’re requesting more detail so that we can assist them in finding the information they are looking for.
As for the fees, there are often times when individuals are required to pay fees pertaining to an ATIPP request.
So when we know there are fees that need to be paid, we will go back to the individual and request that information.
The 90-day time period gives them time to decide whether they want to narrow their requests so the fees will be less or they can go back to the public body and request that we waive the fees for them so they won’t have to pay fees at all.
The 90-day time period assists the individuals and it assists us in communicating with them. It doesn’t allow us to delay responding to requests for 90 days. The 90 days is for the individual to be able to figure out what they’re trying to get from us.
So it doesn’t allow us to delay at all; it allows the individual more time to be able process their request.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Bell.
I appreciate that information. That’s good to know.
The second part of my question is, and I alluded to it, that non-payment of the information requested could probably go through the similar process. If the non-payment time limit required, for instance, in this case, 90 days, passes without paying a fee, it could be deemed abandoned. Am I correct in that?
The second part of my question that you can answer in both ways is: how many types of fees are we talking about? Is there a standard fee for requesting the information or is it at the discretion of the public body official?
I’ll let Jessica Bell respond to that again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again for the question.
There are fees that may apply to an ATIPP request. They’re outlined in the regulations of the ATIPP Act. For personal information, the individual is not required to pay any late fee.
For general information, there’s a base fee of $25. There’s a fee schedule that outlines other fees that may apply to requests, which include photocopying fees.
An individual, at any time, who feels like they cannot pay a fee, has the ability to request that it be waived by the public body or that the Information and Privacy Commissioner review our decision to apply fees. So there is that oversight as well.
The 90-day time period is when we have not heard from the applicant at all in any form.
So if the applicant is coming back to the public body and requesting more information, clarification, or that we waive the fee, then we cannot deem the 90-day time period to have begun.
It’s only from the last time we hear from the individual or the last time we send them clarification that the 90-day time period is…(inaudible)... .
General comments. I don’t have any more names on my list.
We will go clause by clause. Bill 38 is in your white legislation binders.
I only have the English copy, so I’ll read it in English. (interpretation ends) Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Reprint. (interpretation) We will start with clause 1.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I want this to be clarified.
We heard that when people request information, they have 90 days. Are they given notice just once if they want more information or would they wait 60 days?
Would the notice be given more than once instead of just the one time?
I’m sure that’s in the regulations, so I’m just asking for clarification.
I’ll have Mr. Vandermeulen or Jessica respond to that.
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Mr. Vandermeulen will respond.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Go ahead, Mr. Vandermeulen.
The 90-day period is just if we haven’t heard anything. If, by accident, an applicant has allowed that period to expire, all they need to do is to re-establish contact and we can continue discussions with them and provide them with the information. It doesn’t shut things off.
It doesn’t make them start all over.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that part, but what I’m trying to get at is whether or not… .
The onus is obviously on the applicant who is requesting information through the Access to Information Act. What I’m trying to get at is, when the 90 days start ticking, you initially sent a request for additional information, whether or not you are satisfied.
I believe it’s the obligation of officials in the public body to determine whether the correct information is received or not. Therefore, that would cause the ticking time bomb to 90 days.
Once you send in additional requests for information to make sure that you are clear what the applicant actually wants, how often can you provide notice to that individual before you slam the door on them in 90 days?
I’ll let Mr. Vandermeulen respond.
Chairman: Mr. Vandermeulen.
If I understand the question correctly, it’s a concern about “Does the clock keeps running?”
When the enquiry is made by an ATIPP coordinator in one of the departments for further information, that’s when the 90-day clock starts running.
At any time that the applicant answers or in any way indicates that they need more time, at any point of communication after that, the clock stops and goes back to zero. It isn’t like we keep sort of adding this up until we hit 90 days.
The clock stops and it goes back to zero, and then we wait for another 90-day period for any kind of contact. So even if the applicant says, “I’m sorry, but I can’t find what I’m looking for,” that’s communication, this file stays open, and the clock goes back to zero.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I appreciate that.
What I’m concerned with this is sometimes the information sent by the bureaucracy or the public body gets lost somewhere en route and the 90 days start ticking, and my friend from Sanikiluaq may have no idea that additional information was requested.
So it’s a two-way obligation in my mind. The onus is on the applicant, I know that, but it’s also the responsibility of the individual who is handling the access to information.
One way to solve that is: will the additional information required be sent by registered mail?
That way, you know when it’s received and when it isn’t. What is the rationale for how the factual information is obtained?
Yes, we have to let the applicant know what we are doing.
So it’s true what my colleague says, that the information is sent by registered mail.
Do members agree to Bill 38 as a whole?
Do members agree, pursuant to Rule 62(2), that Bill 38 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier, (interpretation) do you have any closing remarks?
(interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
There were good questions from the members and I thank them for that.
As well, the amendment to this bill is very important. The Act hasn’t had any amendments since 1999. It is a new bill and we will re-write it.
It’s very beneficial to the public out there.
I would like to thank Jessica Bell and Mr. Vandermeulen, especially Jessica because she was dealing with this bill. It’s clear that she was able to answer the members’ questions as she knows the bill inside out and I thank her.
Chairman (interpretation): Premier Aariak, I would like to thank you and your officials.
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan) (interpretation): Thank you. We will be dealing with Minister’s Statement 155 – 3(3).
Committee Motion 009 – 3(3): Minister’s Statement 155 – 3(3) Be Deemed Concluded (Enook)
As the mover of the motion to refer Minister’s Statement 155 – 3(3) to the Committee of the Whole for consideration is not present, I move that the item be deemed concluded.
Before we proceed with the motion, I have some comments as to procedures. (interpretation ends) Every member has a right to speak once to the motion for a total of 20 minutes.
For that reason, to the motion. Mr. Enook.
As the mover, my reasoning is that as Members of the Legislative Assembly, we represent the people of Nunavut.
I feel that we would like to finish the items that we’re discussing.
What I want to say to the members is that we wanted to meet on this Minister’s Statement. It has been on the order paper for quite a few days now.
If we’re going to bring up something to be dealt with in the House, we have to be present.
It’s delaying the session when the individual who wanted to deal with this is not here.
For that reason, I would like to take this out of the order paper.
If we’re going to bring up items to be discussed under Committee of the Whole, we have to be present in this House.
As the Government House Leader, we will be supporting the motion by Mr. Enook.
I would like to thank the minister who was ready to answer questions about his statement with his officials.
I have no more names on my list in regard to the motion.
The mover has a right to the last reply, if he wishes. Mr. Enook.
I just want to say that I encourage all Members of this House to support this motion.
I have no more names on my list. We will now vote on the motion.
I close the debate on the motion.
The motion is in order. (interpretation ends) All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. (interpretation) Thank you. (interpretation ends) All those opposed, please raise your hand. (interpretation) Thank you.
I don’t think there are any abstentions.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) What is the wish of the Committee? Mr. Rumbolt.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) We have a motion on the floor to report progress and the motion is not debatable.
Speaker: Thank you. Qujannamiik, Sergeant-at-Arms.
Your committee has been considering Bill 38 and would like to report that Bill 38 is immediately ready for third reading and that one committee motion was adopted.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation ends) There is a motion on the floor.
Bill 38 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act – Third Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 38, An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, be read for the third time.
The motion is carried and Bill 38 has had third reading and is now ready for assent.
This House stands adjourned until Friday, June 8, at 9:00 a.m.
>>House adjourned at 16:30
Friday, June 8, 2012
Pages 2802 – 2818
Opening Prayer 2802
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2802
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2816
Third Reading of Bills 2816
Assent 2816
Orders of the Day 2818
Friday, June 8, 2012 2802
010 – 3(3): Annual Report of the Nunavut Court of Justice (Oshutapik) 2814
Bill 39 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act – Consideration in Committee 2802
Bill 39 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act – Third Reading 2816
Bill 19 – Family Support Orders Enforcement Act – Assent 2816
Bill 21 – Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2011, No. 3 – Assent 2816