Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order under Section 23(k) where it speaks to the use of abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder. Section 23(l) speaks disrespectfully of Her Majesty, any member of the Royal Family, His Excellency the Governor General, the Commissioner, the Assembly, or any Member. Section 23(m) introduces any matter in debate that offends the practices and precedence of this Assembly.
Yesterday during the debate in this House during Members’ statements as well as during question period, Mr. Bromley used the term that I think contravenes those sections. I would like to draw Members’ attention to unofficial Hansard page 12, “According to our Greenhouse Gas Strategy, the GNWT is prepared to allow our emissions to surge by almost 100 percent above 1990 levels by 2020. Given what we know, such policy followed through by any jurisdiction would constitute a crime against humanity.”
In addition, during question period, on page 19 of unedited Hansard, Mr. Bromley in one of his questions said the following: “…what words does the Minister have to explain our policies, which essentially amount to a crime against humanity…?” I indicated in my response to him that I took some exception to that and I went upstairs and I got a definition of crimes against humanity. A crime against humanity is an international criminal justice offence, the perpetration of acts of war, a pawn, a civilian, a non-soldier populace, a term used by, within and so defined by the International Criminal Court Treaty and including any of the following acts: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, rape, persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic and religious grounds. The list goes on.
I believe that those words uttered by Mr. Bromley in this House contravene our rules; they bring disrespect to this Assembly; they bring this Assembly into disrepute; it lowers the level of debate; it casts egregious and invidious implications on this Assembly, this Cabinet, all of us Members present and past who have agreed to and supported the work of this government. It definitely calls into question and colours and brings disrespect to the members of the government, the thousands of good employees we have who work hard on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories.
I think these words are unacceptable. I find them deeply offensive to us, to myself personally and to all the Members of this House. I would ask that you review Hansard and that Mr. Bromley withdraw those comments and should apologize to this House.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I’d allow some debate on the point of order. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad to hear those comments from the Minister that are brought to the floor of the House. In fact, I was planning on tabling today a definition of the crimes against humanity as defined by the International Criminal Court. Indeed, as the Minister left off, there are other details to the definition. I’d like to just read into the record, if I may, some of those details on which my remarks were based.
The definition includes under Section (k) of the definition, “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” The Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum states: “The crimes against humanity are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity, or grave humiliation, or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy – although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy – or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or defacto authority.
The definition goes on to include: “Humane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.” It was within that context that I was saying this government, if we allow our greenhouse gas emissions to increase by 100 percent from 1990 levels or 66 percent above 2005 as stated in our Greenhouse Gas Strategy, that we are in fact participating in a series of events in a policy and actions that are equivalent to crimes against humanity.
It is well documented that if you look on the World Health Organization recent estimate was 150,000 deaths per year as a result of climate change. Other estimates are immediately available in the order of 300,000 to 315,000 in 2009 per year. Millions of people have died of government policies that have allowed, despite their knowledge, we know what is needed to achieve an end to this policy that is killing people, and species, and the future of our children and ourselves. It’s happening right now as we speak.
I also want to note that they have a clause in there that provided those offences are part of a consistent pattern of misbehaviour by a number of persons linked to that offender. I’ll leave it at that. I’ll look forward to your judgment.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the point of order. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll just be very brief. I understand that Mr. Bromley feels very, very passionately about the environment and this is something that we have come to know is very dear to his heart. I do applaud his efforts and representations on behalf of the protection of the environment.
Crimes against humanity, as they are understood by the average person without these extensive explanations, are things that we see that occur in countries where they have civil war and all kinds of very direct attacks on human people. There are sins of omission and there are sins of commission. Maybe this government and maybe the Canadian government has not done as much as they could, and been as proactive as they could, but to make the leap from not doing that to saying that this is crimes against humanity and targeting a specific government, vis-à-vis our government, I think is an exaggeration.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the point of order. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had heard the same words spoken in the House yesterday and it, too, did draw my attention to the concern of using the phrase “crimes against humanity.” At the time I actually reached for my trusty green book of Beauchesne’s Rules of Order to think is this proper language in this type of conduct.
I think Mrs. Groenewegen described the circumstances quite right: The everyday person would define crimes against humanity in the context of genocide and other types of horrific crimes that have happened in places like Rwanda that are terribly shameful and are a stain on humanity.
That said, I do agree with the assertion that this is offensive to the House under 23(k), in my opinion, and certainly under 23(m). I support the point of order.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 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. I think if he doesn’t like our policy, I’m sure he could have voiced his displeasure in other ways rather than likening us to some of these despots that have murdered millions of people.
On that note, I think that’s very inflammatory language and goes against the rules of this House.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the point of order. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity. The only thing I would add is that an important part of it is that we do so knowledgably. This government is a very educated government. We are a very privileged nation and a very rich nation and our emissions are obviously off the scale in terms of a global comparison. I hope that you will include consideration of the millions and millions of families who are suffering as a result of government policies that allow our emissions to cause such climate change, including our youth delegation in Durban.
On the comment about emission and commission, I think the most important point there is that we know exactly what’s needed to prevent climate change and yet our policy here is going in exactly the opposite direction. What I’m talking about is the deaths and suffering and the loss of our future for our people. If that is not a crime against humanity I do not know what is.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. On the point of order. Thank you, Members. I’ll take this matter under advisement and report back to the House at a later date.
