Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise at the earliest opportunity after reviewing unedited Hansard from yesterday to raise a point of order against Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Miltenberger said to me in my proposed amendment to a motion, and I quote from yesterday’s unedited Hansard, page 50: “…if it’s not outright duplicitous, it’s friggin’ double standard. And I withdraw the friggin’.”
Mr. Speaker, House Rule 23 states it’s against orders of the House, under (i), to impute false or hidden motives to another Member; under (j), charges another Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood; and, finally, (k), uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder, which, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself.
I am not on the warpath here and this is not about the use of the word “friggin’,” which the Member is known to use and then apologize for at the same time, something that’s apparently an acceptable practice in this House. It’s about the word “duplicitous.” The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines duplicitous as “deceptive in words or actions.” It provides the synonyms including “bent, crooked, deceptive, double dealing, dishonest, fast, fraudulent, guileful, rogue, shady, sharp, shifty, underhand and underhanded.” Rule 23(h) applies here.
Double standard is defined as: “a situation in which two people, groups, et cetera, are treated very differently from each other in a way that is unfair to one of them.” My amendment, which I had proposed to the motion and speaking to it, was accommodating to different views perhaps, but showing a double standard? I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker, and Rule 23(i) would apply here.
During debate, several Members, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Moses, for example, possibly others, suggested that the current planned date of the election was something we should stick to. Others wanted the longer period of change, but recognized the value of flexibility within the month of October 2015 to coordinate the NWT election with other elections planned for October 2015.
My intent was clearly honourable and meant to be an accommodating compromise between these two views, no matter how satirical or ironic a person might be listening to it. To call it duplicitous and a double standard is wrong.
I ask the Speaker to seek correction of this injustice for the dignity of the House and the people of Weledeh. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve looked at the Hansard and I, as well, looked up the definition of duplicitous and it says, “deliberately deceptive.” I do say that if it’s not outright duplicitous, it’s a friggin’ double standard. I withdrew the “friggin’” and I apologize for that once again.
I will give the Member the benefit of the doubt, even though methinks he doth protest too much, that it wasn’t deliberately duplicitous and I will withdraw that comment, that phrase. However, I do think the use of the term “double standard” is entirely within the acceptable bounds of parliamentary language. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, do you accept the apology?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to accept that. As I said, I’m not on a warpath here and I’m not going to worry about the colours the Minister wants to put on it. He can couch it as he wants, but I think he knows he was in error. We’re talking about the dignity of the House and I accept the apology. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Colleagues, before we go on, there was no point of order after the apology. We’re just moving on now.
