Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Welcome to your new life, Mr. Fantino

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, December 16, 2010 10:03am - 34 Comments

Shortly after formally joining the House of Commons as the duly elected representative of the people of Vaughan, Julian Fantino was sent up to read the following into the official record.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Senate passed our bill to eliminate pension entitlements for prisoners. Our Conservative government stands beside victims and law-abiding Canadians in supporting this important reform, but we know much more needs to be done. We have introduced legislation to get tough on crime, but thanks to the Liberal-led coalition, victims continue to wait. Can the Minister of Public Safety update the House on the proposed pardon reforms that would put the rights of victims over the rights of criminals?

Tags: house of commons, Julian Fantino, Parliament, Question Period

More by Aaron Wherry

PeteTong

If the Liberal-led coalition would stop using committees to expose government wrong doings, and introducing and passing bills that go against the government's ideology, and didn't threaten to defeat it in confidence votes, then the Harper Conservatives wouldn't need to prorogue and the crime bills would be (one would hope) farther along in the legislative process, if not passed. But thanks to the Liberal-led coalition, criminals have rights in this country.

Not a PM but a KING

Are you refering to 2008 when PM Harper used/ABUSED non confidence votes to RAM/FORCE through over 35 of his BILLs when polls showed he could win a majority (he tried to force the Liberals to trigger an election when Canadians did not want one, he stole ALL OUR RIGHTS by making all votes for an election and not the important BILLS before OUR MPS, he basically rejected the minority Canadians had given him).

And when this failed to get the Liberals to trigger an election, Mr Harper called it himself claiming to the GG that Parliament was not working (true its was not working for Canadians but it worked quite well for Mr Harper RAMMING all his BILLs through with non confidence votes, over 35 times) and WE all saw what a FRAUD his 4 year election Law was.

Of course that killed all of HIS Bills.

And then less than two months later, PM Harper shut down Parliament to RUN AWAY to HIDE (his 1st illegitimate prorogation) when the Opposition publicly announced that they would defeat the PM/Government on a scheduled non confidence vote.

Once a PM can do that, it is really over (for the rest of us).

In my opinion, if you play by the sword (NC Votes), you should die by the sword (not RUN AWAY AND HIDE).

PS We no longer have a NC Vote mechanism in Canada since NC Votes will ONLY be allowed by KING Harper if KING Harper wants an election else KING Harper will do a PROROGATION.

Guy Smiley

Read Pete's comment again. Carefully.
PeteTong

God save the Prime Minister!

Dale D.

Fantino has really proven himself to be a phony.
Emily

Well, Fantino is colourful enough to be a parrot, so I guess he's finally found his calling.
Too Much Freedom

"we know much more needs to be done"

Oh, like maybe start EXECUTING Canadians found guilty of marijuana offenses, Julian ?

Blue

Tell us more about this scoop you have about the start of EXECUTING of Canadians.

Margaret

Fantino should not be allowed to say "Liberal-led coalition" if there is no such thing. Really, I don't think Milliken does a very good job. That's a false term, and it's inflammatory. There is no such thing.

sourstud

The coalition is as real as Harper's "super scary hidden agenda". Won't stop either party from running on those fictions.

http://twitter.com/jonatwitan @jonatwitan

sourstud, are you asking the above poster to use consistency in her judgments about the manner in which our political parties conduct themselves in parliament?

sourstud

Indeed. But I think the point is lost on her.

Guy Smiley

I believe Mr. Wells has a rule about parties auditioning for the role of opposition, and the tendency toward success in such endeavors.
Dave

Fantino has really proven himself to be a crap speaker. That was painful to watch (and hear)..
Amateur Hour

Given that the Conservatives are in government, it is up to them to set the legislative agenda for each session and move bills from introduction and through to debate, committee and voting. So far, the Conservatives have introduced a lot of bills and then walked away from them for the rest of the session (not just in this Parliament, but also the prior two).

If Mr. Fantino wanted to use his investigative acumen, he might direct his questions to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Mr. John Baird. That's the fella who's holding up the legislation, just as Jay Hill and Peter Van Load did before him.

But who expects a Conservative to be honest these days?
Patchouli Blessings

Ahahaha, the once great Fantino reduced to lobbing softballs to the likes of Vic Toews. Politics hurts. It can only get worse for him.
Blue

Amateur Hour——–I would also encourage you to reread the first comment on this page.
If the Liberals were truly interested in passing legislation then they would be more present in Parliament and more active in helping form new bills.
I think the Conservatives should be more successful in passing these bills but I do not see any credibility from the Liberals when they accuse the gov`t of being too slow. I do see hypocrisy from the Liberals. They appear to be more interested in attempts to make the gov`t look bad then doing anything constructive.
This morning Carolyn Bennett is arguing against the Democratic Representation Bill because it`s too close to Christmas—in Feb. it will be too close to Valentines—-in March, too close to St.Patty`s Day.
It seems the Liberal strategy is to firm up the 20% support of the voting public that they claim—-I guess if you are part of that 20% this strategy may make you feel good, but it`s a losing strategy.

Dave

There are 105 Private Members Bills from Liberal MP's on the order paper as of this morning.

And the gall of the opposition! Trying to make the government look bad! Scandalous! Outrageous!
Jenn_

Uh, Blue? Continuing our conversation from last night, I think we concluded that Liberals were not always present to vote against bills, thus allowing them to pass. They don't need to be there for Conservative bills to be passed by Conservatives, right? And, as with our elections, just because everyone doesn't vote doesn't mean that those that do don't count. In point of fact, they count more.

And you can't help form new bills when the Conservatives won't allow any amendments and don't give the opposition an opportunity before the bill is presented. If you feel the Conservatives are allowing opportunities for bills to be discussed before they are introduced, please provide links for me to follow along.

Where's that hypocrisy coming from? To complain because Carolyn Bennett wants the opportunity to do the very thing you complain about the Liberals for in the prior paragraph, particularly since it is the Conservatives who decided to sit on the thing since April 1 (I know, a foolish day) and yet you want to blame the Liberals because the passage is too slow? You are dangerously close to sucking and blowing at the same time.

Blue

I`m not sure you can blame the MIA of the Liberal MP`s on voting strategy—that would be fooling yourself. Many of them seem to be going through the motions—-no fire in their actions.
My point was that the morale of the Liberal Party will continue to suffer if their main strategy is to stay away from Parliament so the gov`t can win votes on Bills. Hanging out in the riding office helping out with Passport issues seems to me to be a demeaning role for an MP.

Jenn_

You've now gone past "dangerously close"

In the first comment you say, "If the Liberals were truly interested in passing legislation then they would be more present in Parliament and more active in helping form new bills."

Then you agree with me that their absence allows more bills to pass, but you say, "I`m not sure you can blame the MIA of the Liberal MP`s on voting strategy" and immediately follow that up with, "if their main strategy is to stay away from Parliament so the gov`t can win votes on Bills"

As discussed yesterday, yes, I do blame Liberals who are in town but don't show up for votes on Liberal voting strategy–that is the demoralizing part, which I am the first to say is demoralizing.

But I don't see how passport issues of real live citizens are demeaning, but enduring Question Period is a worthwhile endeavour for their hourly pay. See, as a Liberal, I think Parliamentarians should be working for Canadians. Apparently, as a Conservative, you think Parliamentarians should be getting in as many cheap shots as possible toward their opponents.

Blue

Jenn—It was you who implied that Liberals were staying away from Parliament so the gov`t Bills would pass. I don`t think that strategy is why many of them do not show up—-I think they are disillusioned with the opposition role under Iggy. And I still don`t understand how they can complain about prorogation when so many don`t show up when Parliament is sitting.

I won`t take the bait you offered in your last paragraph at this time—-maybe it`s the time of the year—-Merry Christmas.
Jenn_

Okay, well I'm straight out telling you, but you can think its something else if you like.

And Merry Christmas to you, too, Blue! In the spirit of the holidays, I'll offer, "because they want a place to not show up to!"

Amateur Hour

What Pete Tong said (below).

ZestyMordant

…he then proceeded to clap his flippers while balancing a beach ball on his nose.
PeteTong

Senator Cowan's letter to Justice Minister Nicholson

Dear Minister Nicholson,

I regret that I must write to you yet again to correct statements you have made accusing Liberal Senators of "stalling" your crime bills.

In your press conference of December 8, you accused the Opposition of "stalling" on "very important bills", and, when asked for particulars, you pointed to Bill S-10, the Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. You said: "That bill has been before Parliament for almost two years. The Senate has had it for about a year and a half."

This is incorrect and misleading.

As you know, Bill S-10 has not been before Parliament for two years.
Your government chose to prorogue Parliament last December in order to avoid difficult questions about the treatment of Afghan detainees on your watch. Parliament only returned on March 3, 2010. You then waited to reintroduce the bill for another two months, on May 5, 2010. That is seven months that the Bill has been before the Senate – contrasted to five months that your Government delayed its progress.

cont…

PeteTong

Seven months is an eminently reasonable period of time for the Senate to study this bill. The bill has been controversial. Yet again, you have opted to put forward illusory solutions to serious issues. Instead of devising thoughtful policies that could work to address drug abuse, this bill – like so many in your law-and-order agenda – amends the Criminal Code to apply mandatory minimum prison sentences.

The problem is, mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime. And this is a conclusion you yourself reached.

In 1988, you served as Vice-Chair of a Parliamentary Committee that recommended that mandatory minimum sentences not be used, except in the limited case of repeat violent sexual offenders. You said they are not effective and carry prohibitive costs. Your report also noted that they cause "distortions" in the justice process.

It is not "tough on crime" to impose ineffective solutions, especially those that you have noted could cause problems for the justice system. Frankly, it is irresponsible governing.

cont…
PeteTong

The costs of your crime agenda have been estimated to be in the billions of dollars – and this at a time when your government has already run up the largest deficit in Canadian history. Meanwhile, your government, which came to power promising a new era of openness and transparency, has refused to disclose the anticipated costs to Canadian taxpayers of this agenda. Most recently, you alleged "Cabinet confidences" prevent the disclosure.

I fail to understand how the costs of your policy program could be a Cabinet confidence, any more than any details of any policy reached by a government. One suspects that in fact, your government is hiding behind this spurious claim, because you are either unwilling to admit to Canadians how many billions this misguided prison spree will cost – or that you embarked on this folly of a crime policy for political and ideological reasons, and actually do not know yourself how much it will cost Canadians.

cont…
PeteTong

You attach titles to your bills such as "The Truth in Sentencing Act" – yet you are not being truthful with Canadians about your crime agenda. You are not being truthful about their ineffectiveness to deter crime – and you are refusing to be truthful about the costs that Canadians will have to pay for these ineffective steps.

As I wrote to you last February, justice above all depends upon truth.
As our country's Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it. Needless to say, I am once again disappointed that you do not concur with this very basic proposition.

cont…
PeteTong

It is a simple fact that the Liberal opposition – and in particular, Liberal senators – have not "stalled" your crime agenda. Once again, the facts speak for themselves:

Your government has introduced 17 crime-related bills in the House of Commons in this session. Of these:

- One passed both Houses and received Royal Assent; 4 sit at first reading in the House of Commons, all since late October or early November, without your Government having brought them forward for debate or further action; 8 are being studied in committees in the House of Commons;

- One is at report stage in the House of Commons;

- 2 passed the House of Commons in the past few days, and received 1st reading in the Senate on December 7;

- One came to the Senate on November 18, passed 2nd reading in the Senate, was referred for study to committee, and reported back to the Senate on December 8. It is now at 3rd reading. (It spent more than five months in the House of Commons.)

cont…
PeteTong

It is clear that Liberal senators have not "stalled" any of these bills. The overwhelming majority – 13 of the 17 bills – remain in the House of Commons.

Your government also chose to initiate five of your crime-related bills in the Senate: 4 of these 5 bills passed the Senate; one received Royal Assent. The 5th bill, Bill S-10, is currently being debated at 3rd reading. Fully 13 of these 22 bills had been previously introduced by this Government, some several times. They died on the Order Paper when Prime Minister Harper prorogued Parliament for his own personal reasons.

cont..
PeteTong

Minister Nicholson, you cannot expect Canadians to take responsibility for their actions, when you, the head of our justice system, do not. Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and acknowledge that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact "stalled" your Government's anti-crime agenda.

I look forward – once again – to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.

Yours very truly,
James S. Cowan
Cc: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate

madeyoulook

So, Fantino and Lamoureux are BOTH off to extremely regrettable, underwhelming, disappoint-your-constitutents starts.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/12/09/the-commons-th…

Jenn_

At least Mr. Lamoureux brought up a subject specifically relevant to his constituents. But you know, maybe we should give them both some slack since they are required on their first day to say something, whether they have some vital issue of concern or not.