Thank you, Ms. Lee. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures is pleased to provide a report on On-line Petitions and commends it to the House.

Introduction

A petition is a formal written request from one or more people to the sovereign, the government or to Parliament. The right of the subject to petition the Monarch for redress of personal grievances has probably been exercised since Saxon times. It was recognized in the Magna Carta. The Bill of Rights of 1688 restated that right in unambiguous terms: “...it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal." In times of limited political rights, the public petition was an important way for those who had little parliamentary representation to have their complaints heard. Today, public complaints can be brought to the attention of Members through the media and questions asked in Parliament. Petitions are usually a part of a broader campaign used by community groups to raise public awareness. Petitioning may not result in immediate action, but it can help to form a public opinion which may ultimately bring about change.

The rules of the Legislative Assembly in the NWT identify the formal requirements for petitions. The rules related to petitions are attached in Appendix A. These rules indicate that the signatures of at least three petitioners are needed on a page containing the petition statement. This has been interpreted to mean handwritten signatures. A Member presents the petition with a brief statement. The government tables its written response to a petition within a set time period.

Petitioning is also an activity associated with many nations and institutions, not just legislatures. Petitioning has also moved to the Internet, Facebook and other new media. Petitioning has become global, collaborative and not exclusively directed at Parliaments. Across the NWT, the use of computer and communication technologies has expanded significantly. Students text and blog from the Arctic Winter Games and Northerners use satellite telephones to report emergencies. Use of new technologies and new media are part of everyday life in the NWT. Petitioning, even in the NWT, has new possibilities.

In May 2009, the MLA for Yellowknife Centre made a Member’s statement about on-line petitions. In that statement, he advocated for the consideration of on-line petitions by the Legislative Assembly. On June 4, 2009, Motion 23-16(3) was proposed by the

MLA for Yellowknife Centre. During the debate on that motion, an amendment was proposed and carried. The motion was also carried. The following is the final wording of the amended and adopted motion:

Referral of On-line Petitions Issue to the Rules and Procedures Committee:

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.

This report is in response to that motion and the subsequent discussion among committee members. The review that our committee undertook was not a “technical” review. It was not a formal “needs assessment” or a “business case” analysis, or an evaluation of website applications. It was a review by non-technical people, who know how to use their BlackBerries and navigate the Internet and were asked to examine the use of on-line petitions by the Legislative Assembly.

Basic Features of On-Line Petitions at Other Legislatures

There are many on-line services and Internet websites supporting petitions. This review examined how other legislatures support on-line petitions. Many Legislative Assemblies now include on-line petitions among their supported activities. This includes some of the state assemblies in Australia and in a couple of jurisdictions in the United Kingdom (Wales, Scotland). The British Prime Minister’s website (10 Downing Street) is a very active on-line petition site.

The common features of the legislatures and their inclusion of on-line petitions were identified, as follows:

•

the petition is closely associated with the

Legislative Assembly website;

•

the service allows individuals to start and

encourage a petition that could be presented by a Member of the Legislative Assembly;

•

the service provides support and monitoring to the petition so that the petition wording meets the requirements of the Legislature;

•

often there are flexible timelines associated

with the length of time a petition can be shown on the website;

•

often there are more options available for

reviewers and signees, such as providing comments and feedback to the petitioners;

•

the

websites

provide

easy-to-use instruction

and information about petitions; and

•

Members then respond to these petitions in their normal manner for that Legislature, as if the petition were completed with original signatures on paper.

Security and Privacy

On-line petitions differ from a hard copy petition because of their ability to connect with many more people, including many people from outside of the NWT. The rules of the Legislative Assembly do not indicate any residency requirement, however, it is understood that the needs and wants of residents of the NWT would be most important to the MLAs.

•

The website would provide information that

Northerners are the primary, but not the exclusive audience of a petition;

•

The website would require the name and

address of every person who “signs” the petition. Only the name and community (if northern) or country (if outside of the NWT) would be displayed;

•

A limited number of entries for each “IP”

address would be permitted. This would prevent one person from signing the petition many times. "IP" stands for Internet Protocol. A computer's numeric address on the Internet is referred to as an "IP” address;

•

The support service to the petitions website would review the signatures in order to eliminate obviously false names and multiple entries; and

•

For the purposes of presentation in the House, only the number of northern “signatures” would be identified.

Technology and Support

The committee members learned that the technology used to support an on-line petition seems to be standard technology, included in many website applications. The committee members understand that the set-up of an e-petition structure could be managed by existing in-house skills. The function is not highly specialized and will not require

substantial new investment. Committee members have not discussed this activity with any representatives of the GNWT Technology Service Centre.

Some employees’ functions and assignments, such as the website administrator, may have to be modified. Some tasks might be managed in-house or some might be managed through a contract with a service provider. Legislative Assembly staff would have to develop some information material about the use of the website, such as how long a petition remains on the website and authorization and monitoring procedures. It should be noted that there is very little staff time assigned to the support of petitions at the present time.

Recommendations

Committee members cannot predict whether access to on-line petitions would create a significant increase in the number of petitions. This could result in a significant increase in the volume of work required to support petitions. There may be technical glitches that committee members cannot predict. For those reasons, committee members recommend the implementation of a pilot program to test the use of on-line petitions for the Legislative Assembly. This would allow staff to identify work changes, costs and implications for existing rules. There would also be time to implement some communications efforts to promote the awareness of the on-line petitions function. An evaluation prior to the 2011 General Election would be ready for the new Members of the 17th Legislative Assembly so

that they could determine whether to continue with this practice. Throughout the period of the pilot project, the normal rules of the Legislative Assembly would remain in effect and Members would continue to be able to present petitions that include handwritten signatures.

Recommendation 1

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Legislative Assembly approve the implementation of an On-Line Petitions Pilot Program to allow for the presentation of petitions from the on-line petitions’ website associated with the Legislative Assembly website to be operational during the period of October 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011.

Recommendation 2

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the Clerk’s office undertake the evaluation of the pilot program after June 30, 2011; and further, that the evaluation be provided to the Members of the 17th Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that Committee Report 1-16(5) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. There’s a motion on the floor. The motion is in order.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Mr. Hawkins.

I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and move Committee Report 1-16(5) into Committee of the Whole for today.

---Unanimous consent granted

The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures tabled Committee Report 3-16(3), Report on the Use of Laptop Computers and BlackBerry Devices, in the Legislative Assembly on February 11, 2009. This was the first report to examine a number of issues pertaining to the use of portable electronic devices by Members of the Assembly and committee staff in the performance of their duties. The report reviewed the practices in other jurisdictions as well as the purpose of portable communication devices. The report recommended that Members be allowed to use laptop computers during Committee of the Whole proceedings for the winter 2009 sitting of the House and that an evaluation of laptop usage take place at the conclusion of that sitting. This recommendation was accepted by the House, with Committee Motion 3-16(3) being adopted on February 19, 2009. Committee Motion 3-16(3) also stated that communication devices cannot be used by a Member who has the floor and that a Member who has the floor must have his or her laptop computer closed.

At the conclusion of the winter 2009 sitting, the committee contacted each Member of the Assembly to solicit their opinion on the use of portable communication devices. The committee tabled Committee Report 8-16(3) on June 1, 2009,

and on the same date Committee Motion 49-16(3) was adopted in Committee of the Whole. This motion allowed for the continued use of laptop computers during Committee of the Whole proceedings for the balance of the 2009 calendar year and called for a further evaluation in 2010. It should be noted that the use of electronic devices continued to be prohibited by any Member who had the floor.

On May 26, 2009, the chair of the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures, Mr. Robert Hawkins, introduced the matter at Caucus for further consultation. Direction from Caucus indicated that Members agreed with the use of laptop computers and other hand-held communication devices during Committee of the Whole proceedings. Members also agreed that portable communication devices were not to be used by a Member who has the floor and that a Member who has the floor must have his or her laptop computer closed.

Following the direction provided by Caucus, committee members then reviewed the rules governing the use of laptop computers and other electronic devices in other jurisdictions. The results of this review are attached as Appendix A to this report. In Canada, 10 of 13 legislatures allow the use of portable electronic devices during some part of their proceedings.

As a result of the reviews and consultations with Members, the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures respectfully makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that Members be permitted to use laptop computers and other hand-held electronic devices only during Committee of the Whole proceedings;

and further, that laptop computers and other hand-held electronic communication devices are not to be used by a Member who has the floor;

and furthermore, that a Member who has the floor must have his or her laptop computer closed and/or his or her hand-held electronic device turned off.

Recommendation 2

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that any electronic device used in the Chamber must be on silent mode at all times.

Recommendation 3

The Standing Committee on Rules and procedures recommends that the use of laptop computers and hand-held electronic devices continue to be administered through the sole

discretion of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or the Chair of Committee of the Whole and if the use of any electronic device is deemed to impinge on the decorum of dignity of the House, the offending Member may be ordered to discontinue use.

Recommendation 4

The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommends that the guidelines governing the use of laptop computers and hand-held electronic devices be set out in a document entitled “Direction Regarding the Use of Electronic Communication Devices in Committee of the Whole” and that the document be attached as an appendix to the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.

And that concludes the report, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that Committee Report 2-16(5) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question is being called.

---Carried

The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and move Committee Report 2-16(5) into Committee of the Whole for today.

---Unanimous consent granted

Item 13, reports of committees on review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following two documents entitled Businesspeople Working for Other Businesspeople, Northwest Territories Business Development and Investment Corporation Corporate Plan 2010-2011, and NWT Business Development and Investment Corporation Annual Report 2008-2009. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the following document entitled Northwest Territories State of Environment, 2010 Biodiversity Special Edition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the transcript of a CBC special report dated Tuesday, May 18th , 2010, at 7:40 a.m. on the

Supplementary Health Care Program, an interview between Steve Morgan, a health policy analyst at the University of British Columbia and Joslyn Oosenbrug of CBC.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three items I would like to table. The first item is a request for tendered goods issued by the Beaufort-Delta Health and Social Services and it has the detail I referred to today.

The second item, which is a package of two, is the NWTAC has their 2010 Adopted Resolutions Summary. There are 12 of them. I won’t bother to read each one in today.

And, the NWTAC 2010 Reaffirmed Policy Summary, and I have all their motions here as well as a package. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.