Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order under Section 23(i) where it speaks to imputing false or hidden motive by another Member. Section (h) makes allegations against another Member and Section (k) is abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to cause disorder.
I would like to draw Members’ attention to unofficial Hansard page 9 yesterday, where Mr. McLeod, Bob McLeod, in speaking in support of Mr. Miltenberger’s point of order in the House said: “I was offended, I guess, when Mr. Bromley lumped us all together as being somebody like Hitler or Pol Pot or General Radek because he doesn’t like our Greenhouse Gas Policy.”
It is possible that Mr. McLeod was influenced by similarly inflammatory language by Mr. Miltenberger who, on the previous day, according to unofficial Hansard, page 19, implied that I was trying: “to put us in the same category as Gbagbo and some of these folks from Serbia and other folks that have been charged over the years, Nazis and stuff...”
Mr. Speaker, surely it’s reasonable to use hard words in attempting to help this House to realize the urgency for action on climate change. Its rising impact on humanity is clear and not debated. The actions required of government to reverse this impact are also clear and not debated.
However, the Minister agreed this is so, in responding to my first oral questions on Wednesday. However, responsible governments around the world have failed to implement the required action, and thus horrific impacts of famine, drought, floods, storms and ocean surges caused by climate change now rise annually to include human deaths in the hundreds of thousands.
I have called attention to our role as one government in this clearly global situation, but this is a far cry from me calling government leaders war criminals such as Hitler, Radek, or Pol Pot. The clear implications of Mr. McLeod’s words that I was saying or implying that we are the same as these people is offensive and odious to me and, in my mind, an attempt to stifle debate and clearly cast false aspersions.
I can say it no better than in the words of an advisor. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a crime against humanity is an immoral or destructive act following from a sense of crime, meaning a shameful or regrettable act, an unfortunate situation, a bad thing, an evil or injurious act, an offence, a sin, especially of a grave character. Well, nobody likes to hear such words about his or her own actions. I, for one, agree that the GNWT’s lack of leadership on this issue constitutes crimes against humanity of the highest order, threatening the health, happiness and various lives of the millions or billions of human beings and the ecosystem they depend on. The fact that these crimes are being committed by other leaders around the world makes the GNWT no less culpable for them.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, my point was that if we continue these actions...
Mr. Bromley, I would like you to just stick to your point of order. It’s not for rebuttal. So, if you could get to your point of order, then we may proceed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That concludes my point of order.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I will allow some discussion on this. The honourable Premier, Bob McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can only speak to what I heard and the honourable Member is now changing his definition of a crime against society. He took a very broad brush and lumped us all in there, and now he’s trying to say there are different shades or different definitions of crime against humanity, and I think if you’re going to use inflammatory phrases like he did, I guess he should expect that he will get the same kind.
I think that to now try to change what he meant by using those very offensive words of “crimes against humanity,” to say he didn’t want to include war criminals and he only wanted to talk about people that were offended by how the governments are taking action on climate change is a whole different category. He did say “crimes against humanity,” and my interpretation of people who perpetuate crimes against humanity are dictators and warmongers who have killed millions of people. To lump us into that same category, to me, is very offensive.
I heard what he said and that was my interpretation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. On the point of order, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to rise and note the whole intent of our points of order is to bring order to the House and I believe that further discussion is not really helping our Assembly and our government as a whole. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the point of order. I will allow Mr. Bromley to close.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, this House has yet to rule on whether my use of “crimes against humanity” was indeed a wrong use of our language or not. But, obviously, Mr. McLeod believes it was wrong. I believe it was right, but he believes it was wrong and uses that to justify his using bad language or the wrong language as well. Do two wrongs make a right?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. On this point of order, I’ll take it under advisement and report back to the House at a later date.
I want to remind the Members, we’re put in these positions to work for the betterment of the people of the Northwest Territories in trying to move forward. This is the second point of order since we sat in the House and it’s only the fourth sitting day we’ve had. I want to remind the Members to try to work for the betterment of the people of the Northwest Territories. I’ll take your point of order under advisement and I’ll get back to the House at a later date.
