Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues, for the discussion. I think there’s been a lot of good and interesting points laid out here. I’d like to summarize by saying really this is the only merit-based program that we sponsor. I think it’s definitely appropriate that we have a merit-based program.

This motion acknowledges that we have an excellent Student Financial Assistance Program, possibly the best in the country, acknowledged right in the motion.

The motion seeks greatly reduced expenditures from our current level, essentially to the 2001 levels.

The motion seeks a transition to allow students to adjust rather than the sudden and without-consultation action that we have taken.

The motion seeks merit-based recognition to encourage students to work hard.

The motion seeks to provide a tool for students to be able to compete successfully for additional financial support to help their education.

The complaints I’ve heard: Should we reduce it to 2001, it should reduce our expenditures to 2001 levels, from Mr. Menicoche. In fact it does. I assume we’ll have his support.

Another complaint: We must achieve high marks in math and science. No, that’s not true. This is for recognition and merit for high marks in whatever courses you choose to take.

And finally: The regions do not benefit. In fact, we have called for a redesign for this program and there is no reason why it cannot be redesigned to make sure that the awards are on a regional basis. It’s merit-based, whoever it is and whatever program you’re looking at.

Finally, I appreciate this opportunity. Grand Chief of the Dene Nation Bill Erasmus showed up in support of the students at the demonstration today and said to me personally, this merit-based recognition is important. He acknowledged only 14 percent of the current recipients are aboriginal, but he said this is a responsibility of this government and even nationally. Do not worry about students not returning, he said. Recognizing merit and hard work is a value that we support.

I call on everybody to support this motion and I call again on the Minister to support it and get this done in a modest way that recognizes our financial situation.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Speaker, may I call for a recorded vote?

The Member is asking for a recorded vote. Mr. Clerk. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

All those opposed to the motion please stand.

All those abstaining from the motion please stand.

The results of the recorded vote: seven for, three opposed, seven abstentions.

---Carried

The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to read in a motion that refers to on-line petition issues to the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures.

WHEREAS the rules and practices of the Legislative Assembly do not allow the presentation of on-line petitions;

AND WHEREAS the population of the Northwest Territories is spread over a vast geographic area;

AND WHEREAS in this day and age many people are using on-line and electronic means for communications;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that this Assembly directs the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures to undertake research in order to determine the consequences of allowing on-line petitions to be used in its parliamentary process;

AND FURTHER, that the research and analysis pay particular attention to the concerns regarding security issues and identification challenges;

AND FURTHERMORE, that the research and analysis also look at the potential for increased participation in the democratic process and modernization of our parliamentary processes.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion doesn’t necessarily say we have to change our rules, but what it is is a chance to look at the fact of whether our rules need to be modernized through this method. It does not force the change, but it asks the question are we silencing democracy in our own way by not accepting that on-line petition.

Earlier today Member Bromley laid down a petition of 370 names, but they were all from Yellowknife, in regards to the concerns of the student cuts for their grants. But an on-line petition could have a broader

base of northern participants that could reflect the concerns of all Northerners in its own way.

This issue is about networking and it’s about raising concerns for issues. Do Members of this House want to silence that type of voice, that democracy? I’m not necessarily believing in one way or the other, but I will tell you that it’s a consideration we may want to ask ourselves.

This is about recognizing that the youth of our tomorrow need different ways to communicate. Often they’re criticized about not participating in politics, not engaging because they just don’t care. I often wonder, do we even ask them and do we even find ways to reach out in the ways they like to communicate best?

I’ll leave the motion open to hear comments from Members, but it is not forcing a change in rules. This motion is only about asking the question, could we consider this type of modernization in our process and what impact will it have.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m the seconder of this motion and I’m going to support it. It doesn’t mean actually that I agree that on-line petitions are a good idea. The reason I support this motion is because, frankly, I don’t know. Not enough research has been done into the fact and this motion talks about doing the research to determine whether or not this is appropriate.

As the way we communicate in society changes, as technology changes, we have to be aware of them and we have to move with the times. Ultimately without that information as to whether or not we could do these petitions without jeopardizing the value and the importance of petitions, I am unable to make a decision as to whether I think accepting them is appropriate. That’s why I support this motion; because I want them to do the research.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the motion. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move an amendment to Motion 23-16(3).

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Weledeh, that Motion 23-16(3), Referral of On-line Petitions Issued to the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures, be amended by deleting the sixth paragraph.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. The motion is being circulated. To the motion to amend. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make just a couple of remarks in regards to why I’m moving this motion. I do support the intent of the original motion, but in terms of the amendment, I feel that this paragraph, this furthermore, is far too broad.

I support the reduction of paper within the Assembly. I support an increase of electronic communication and practices within these walls. But what is being asked for here, the research that is being asked for is simply beyond the scope of anything that I think this Assembly can do or has the resources for. It’s asking to research into the potential for increased participation in the democratic process and the modernization of the parliamentary process. It sounds like we could probably have junkets to every Parliament in the world in order to look at what’s going on.

I think that without further definition to this particular aspect of the motion, it’s way too broad. It needs to be defined further and I cannot support the motion with that clause in there. That’s why I’ve asked for it to be deleted.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the amendment. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the spirit and the intent of the amendment, although I think the Member has it completely wrong. It’s about the reflection of the impacts it has on this change and as well as the reflection of how it will change going forward.

The issue is on-line petitions. Will it increase democratic process? Will it modernize our process? That’s what it’s all focused in on. I’m not sure where the Member for Frame Lake gets some idea that this is a blank cheque for travel. But I’ve heard more creative things since I’ve been here in the last six years. I can certainly try to imagine how she sees that, although I find it very difficult. But I will accept that if this is the will of the House, it still speaks to the fact that this motion, in my view, is only about research and consideration of this. And of course, ultimately, if it was to be supported by the Rules committee, it would still require the adoption of this House anyway.

So in my humble opinion, I don’t think this deafens the motion, but it certainly takes away from it in a small way.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion to amend.