Good grief! #ElbowGate? Why do Canadians insist on using American terminology on these incidents?
Anyway, when I saw the South African parliamentary brawl, I was envisioning that this scenario played out on Parliament Hill. Or, I thought our MPs were trying out for the Blue Jays to replace all those suspended players from the Texas Rangers game this past weekend. You can judge the actions for yourself. Here’s the video: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-conservative-whip-1.3588407
Look, the PM doesn’t look great here. He elbowed a female MP in the chest. That matters. And she should be upset about it. The PM basically tried to usher the Conservative Whip through the crowd that was in front of him. PM Trudeau did what the Conservative Whip did not want to physically do himself. The Conservative Whip was right to refrain from pushing his way through. You just don’t do that.
A point of privilege was raised, and the Speaker found a prima facie breach of privilege, as he should have. However, in tabling the motion to investigate privilege, Conservative MP Peter van Loan calls upon an investigation of physical molestation of the Quebec NDP MP the Prime Minister elbowed. Physical molestation? He just torpedoed his own motion!
I am not entirely sure why the Conservatives are just going after the Prime Minister’s actions here. They are completely willing to ignore the fact that the crowd of NDP MPs were impeding the Conservative Whip’s movement, which stalled the vote for all members of the House. From a procedural perspective, this is not allowed. You cannot impede another member’s movement in the parliamentary precinct. The fact that there was clear obstruction, confirmed by the video linked above, means that the Whip should have been allowed to take his seat. This should have been a point of privilege, and I am quite surprised that it wasn’t one.
As it stands, the Conservative motion completely ignores the NDP’s behaviour. By focusing on this supposed “physical molestation,” an act that anybody at first blush would find hard to see, it ignores the idiotic behaviour that sparked the PM’s rage to begin with. The Conservative motion should have included its Whip’s movement being impeded, in addition to the PM immersing himself in the business of policing the House, which isn’t his job.
The entire overreach detracts from the seriousness of the incident – one that should never have taken place to begin with. Ruth Ellen Brosseau should not have been elbowed, but her colleagues should also not have blocked the Conservative Whip from taking his seat. The Conservatives could have risen from this mess to tell the kids to quit throwing sand in the sand box, but completely missed their chance to do so.
2 responses to “Why the hell is it called #ElbowGate?”
-
Just a quick reply on the wording of Peter Van Loan’s motion to have the matter referred to a committee, the word used has an older, jurisprudential meaning within the technical, parliamentary context – even if it comes across to our contemporary ears as out-of-place, just like how this issue also fell under the rubric of politicians’ “privileges”.
A few years ago, an MP was jostled at a strike picket line outside of the Wellington Building, and that, too, was a “molestation”. During the subsequent committee hearings into the incident, the committee chair and a senior House of Commons lawyer had a dialogue (https://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=36&Ses=1&DocId=1039345) which sounds quite similar to some reactions this week:
The Chairman: … Secondly, Diane, on the word “molestation”, which is used in this referral, I know it may be a current word for a lawyer, but in English it has a very strong connotation at the moment. It’s my understanding it means something quite specific in this case. It has some sort of history in jurisprudence.
Ms. Diane Davidson: Yes, it does. I believe it has an element of physically impeding a member from having access to a parliamentary proceeding. It’s a very specific—
The Chairman: If I molest someone now, it has a very current, very specific meaning. In this case it refers specifically to parliamentary privilege and the impedance you’re discussing.
Ms. Diane Davidson: Correct.
The Chairman: It doesn’t mean molestation in the more general modern way.
Ms. Diane Davidson: No, it would be restricted to the parliamentary sense.
Posted in: Latest News by: Rob 2 Comments