Roundup: Cullen’s silver-tongued swindle

Posted on by

It should not surprise me, but Nathan Cullen’s capacity for deceptive stunts continues to both amaze and gall me at the same time. Previously it was conning Maryam Monsef into his “proportional” electoral reform committee composition (which was not proportional, but a racket that was designed to merely look more “fair” but was in fact a calculated gambit to give the opposition a disproportionate say in the process), for which we got a report that was a steaming pile of hot garbage. With Karina Gould now in the portfolio again, Cullen now proposes that they “co-draft” an electoral reform bill.

No, seriously.

I cannot stress how bad of an idea this is for both of their sakes. For Gould, this is Cullen trying to swindle her like he did Monsef. He played her – and the public – in trying to push proportional representation and ended up recommending (along with Elizabeth May’s whole-hearted endorsement) one of the absolute worst possible electoral systems possible. And now he’s trying to ensure that she puts it into legislation for his party’s benefit. This has nothing to do with bills being drafted secretly “backrooms” (otherwise known as the Department of Justice under the cone of Cabinet confidence) or with the spirit of bipartisanship. This is about Cullen trying to manipulate the process.

If that weren’t bad enough, what is especially galling is that he’s undermining his own role as an opposition critic in the process. He is not a minister of the Crown. His role, therefore, is not to govern, but to hold those to account who do (–William Ewart Gladstone). This is an important job because parliament depends upon accountability. That’s the whole purpose behind having a parliament – to hold government to account. And it would be great if our opposition critics would actually take that job seriously rather than pretend they were ministers with their faux-bipartisanship and private members’ bills that cross the line when it comes to acceptable bounds of setting policy. It would be great if MPs actually did their jobs. Perhaps most troublesome in all of this is that Cullen is his party’s democratic reform critic. If he can’t grasp this most basic fundamental point of Responsible Government, then can we actually trust him on attempting to find a different voting system? I’m pretty sure the answer to that is no.

Good reads:

  • Trudeau started his big Canadian tour with smaller towns in Ontario yesterday, where he answered tough questions in town halls (that weren’t vetted).
  • One thing Trudeau promised during a town hall was to ensure that trans inmates are housed according to their gender identity.
  • Apparently, it may be an issue that Trudeau used the Aga Khan’s private helicopter to get from Nassau to his island. Mary Dawson will consider it. Maybe.
  • Both Trudeau and Karina Gould seem to be climbing down from the promise that any electoral reform will happen before the next election.
  • Liberal MPs and ministers tweeted ads for non-partisan board positions…with Liberal branding. Yeah, no. This shouldn’t be difficult, guys.
  • One of the trade irritants the Trump administration may target is our system of Supply Management.
  • A trade tribunal dismissed Shared Services Canada’s attempt to drop their investigation into a supercomputer purchase on “national security” grounds.
  • Supreme Court of Canada Justice Rosalie Abella was named Global Jurist of the Year by a Chicago law school.
  • Kevin O’Leary’s “exploration committee” reports that he has a pathway to victory, so he’s going to…mull it over for a few more days.
  • Andrew Scheer got the endorsement of four more Quebec MPs, while Erin O’Toole got the endorsement of the Also-Ran who already dropped out of the race.
  • John Geddes and Ashley Csanady each take a crack at whether or not Maryam Monsef was demoted.
  • Michael Den Tandt looks at the electoral math that Trump-style nativist Conservative leadership hopefuls seem to be ignoring.

Odds and ends:

The Maclean’s archives look back at the state of the Press Gallery in 1965.

The City of Ottawa wants to ensure that there is a “trompe l’oeil” wrap put around the Centre Block during renovations rather than scaffolding and grey tarps.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/819216690848247808

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/819216951444574208

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/819217193908846593

3 thoughts on “Roundup: Cullen’s silver-tongued swindle”

  1. Absolutely amazing! here’s one of the stoutest defenders of Westminster Parliament [you] criticizing an MP for working entirely within the rules of parliament. Private members bills are a perfectly acceptable method for suggesting policy to the government, and unless your memory is faulty, remember that one was passed with unanimous consent a mere few weeks ago. Multi-partizan efforts aren’t unknown either in our system, so Cullen’s suggestions, as one who has recent expertise in the area, is not only useful, but necessary when we are talking about changing the way parliament does business. This is the way parliament does business now, so get used to it. I’ve come to believe that your opposition to any reforms is due to the fact that in a proportional system, parties with strong regional representation, such as your beloved CPC, would get less of the pie.
    Your outright dismissal of the ERRE committee is particularly particularly inane, since you did not present any reasons for your belief. Just remember, the Westminster Parliamentary system isn’t written in stone. It has been evolving ever since it’s beginnings at the end of the dark ages, and we must allow it to evolve if we expect it to continue to represent a democratic system instead of allowing it to once again evolve back into its feudal beginnings. To continue to allow our parliament to be overshadowed by the power of the PMO is not only dangerous for democracy, but not in the best interests of the Canadian people.

    • My point is that Cullen is not actually working within the rules – he’s trying to subvert them. That’s a very different and more dangerous thing. There are some very legitimate PMBs, and some which are not so legitimate that the NDP have tried to push in the past. As for how parliament does business, mixing government and opposition is a problem because it confuses their roles. That’s actually dangerous in our system, which is why I’m warning about it.
      As for what is and is not written in stone about Westminster, Responsible Government and the roles of government and opposition are. Muddying those waters is not in anyone’s interests and is not a beneficial evolution – it’s a bastardization that weakens it for everyone.

  2. As much as I do not like Cullen, he is at least trying to present something on Elec Reform whereas all we got so far from PMJT is a dance around the pot and more of the same now with his tour of Canada, making promises he has no intention of keeping.
    You say MPs are not doing their job, I have known that since 1980 when I worked in Parliament, however some are doing a good job and take their responsibilities seriously but you will always have jokers who are there for the benefits. Westminster System does evolve with time if you read Samuel Pepys journal same things was happening in 1660.

Comments are closed.