Harper defends MacKay over VIP jets

[petros]

Harper defends MacKay over $3 million in VIP Challenger jet flights

OTTAWA - Peter MacKay opened his chequebook for inspection by the country's ethics commissioner, while the prime minister defended him in a growing political brush fire over his use of government aircraft as defence minister.

Mary Dawson told a House of Commons committee Thursday some rules may have been broken in the minister's 2010 summer vacation, some of which was at a Newfoundland fishing lodge where he was picked up by a Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopter.

The resort belongs to the federally appointed chairman of Crown-owned Marine Atlantic.

There "could be some contraventions," Dawson said in response to questions from the Liberals.

A copy of the personal cheque used to pay for his time at the lodge will be sent to the commissioner's office, MacKay said following question period, which was highlighted by calls to clip the defence minister's wings.

"I've taken that step to provide her that information. If she has any questions, she can contact me," he said.
The Liberals have mused about filing an ethics complaint, but have not yet done so. The NDP are also hesitating.

Over $2.9 million worth of flights aboard the government's Challenger jets have been logged by MacKay since 2008, according to access-to-information records compiled by CTV News.

New Democrats say the high-flying minister should be grounded.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, until now silent about the controversy, defended the embattled minister, saying MacKay has used the jet 70 per cent less than his Liberal predecessors.

He said use of the Challenger was justified because "half the time he does that for repatriation ceremonies" in Trenton, Ont., when deceased soldiers are returned from Afghanistan.

The intent, the prime minister said, was to meet the families of fallen soldiers
.
"He goes there to show that we understand their sacrifice, we share their pain and we care about them and that's why the minister of defence is so highly regarded," Harper told the Commons.

But NDP defence critic Jack Harris scoffed at the explanation, saying MacKay used the jet to attend government announcements rather than flying commercial, as other cabinet ministers do.

"When will the prime minister tell his cabinet that ethics rules apply to them too? When will he crack down on this out-of-control, jet-setting Conservative lifestyle?"

Harris accused the prime minister of hiding behind soldiers, saying the defence was "inappropriate."
Records show MacKay's office requested use of the Challenger for 35 flights and of those, only nine were to attend repatriation ceremonies.

Later, Harris said the bigger issue is whether Canada needs six Challenger jets, which are notoriously expensive to fly in a time of severe deficit reduction.

"Maybe we have too many of these jets," said Harris, who pointed out that the executive aircraft sometimes fly empty from various destinations.

"Should ministers fly on the Challenger jet at great public expense — or should they fly commercial as the prime minister of Great Britain does?"
News from © The Canadian Press, 2011

He doesn't like his nuts or tits being grabbed at the airport like the rest of us? He can safely fly coach can't he considering the screening process for us peons is thorough or is he afraid of being beaten by someone wielding a Quiznos California wrap on AC?

 

[mentalfloss]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, until now silent about the controversy, defended the embattled minister, saying MacKay has used the jet 70 per cent less than his Liberal predecessors.

Really?

That's his defense?

Voters will see through this sort of deflection logic and that will play into the hands of the NDP.

 

[petros]

It's too late to vote on it now.

 

[mentalfloss]

It's too late to vote on it now.

Of course, but the conservatives should care about the future of the party. This sort of belligerence hurts your own install base.

 

[petros]

Will anyone remember in 3.5 years while they are frothing at the partisan mouth?

 

[mentalfloss]

Will anyone remeber in 3.5 years when they are frothing at the partisan mouth?

With bulldogs as the opposition, you can be assured they'll add this to the bulletpoint list of criticism. Unless the conservatives actually do something markedly positive for the economy it will work against them.

 

[petros]

With bulldogs as the opposition, you can be assured they'll add this to the bulletpoint list of criticism. Unless the conservatives actually do something markedly positive for the economy it will work against them.

When does Harper go to Beijing next for more stimulus money and to sell our raw oil resources to their NATIONAL oil company CNOOC?

Make that prick fly Jazz and see how he likes it.

 

[earth_as_one]

In general I don't like the conservatives, or their policies. But in this case, I have to side with the Harper conservatives. This is a bogus non-issue.

This is a case where if you don't use it, you'll loose it.

The PM, senior cabinet ministers and Canada's top generals must have a mobility capability in the event of an emergency or disaster. This fleet must maintain an operational readiness at all times. The only way to maintain this operational capability is to keep using it. Every time McKay picks up the phone and says I want to go from a to b without a warning, is a test of the operational capability and opportunity to provide crew training.

If these planes sit mothballed in a hangar, then the operational capability to react quickly to a disaster or an emergency will be lost. (no trained crew, no ability to quickly pick people up and move them around). Every time this capability is used, it a test of disaster preparedness.

Now I'm not saying there should be no limits. On the contrary, the testing/training must have a budget. Once that budget is gone, then that's it for the year. How the senior people in Canada's government use this capability is their business. Its a perk that comes with the job.

 

[petros]

And when there isn't an emergency Jazz is there, Quiznos California wraps and all.

 

[mentalfloss]

Every time McKay picks up the phone and says I want to go from a to b without a warning, is a test of the operational capability and opportunity to provide crew training.

 

[earth_as_one]

Glad I amuse you MF.

Most of the cost of this fleet is simply having it. I can see debating how many planes in the fleet, who has right to access and control, budget for testing/training.... but using this capability regularly is part of maintaining operational readiness.

It might look better if testing/training involved using empty planes... but that would be even more wasteful than using to fly Canada's senior government/military wherever and when ever they want... and wouldn't really be a complete test, since the real thing would involve picking people up and dropping them off without a schedule. (you can't schedule disasters and emergencies)... which pretty much rules out using Jazz in place of a fleet of dedicated aircraft.

 

[mentalfloss]

Oh puhleeeeeze.

He could announced it was a test and it wouldn't have made any difference for its effectiveness.

C'mon now eao. Are you seriously telling me this has been standard practice so far?

 

[captain morgan]

Really?

That's his defense?

Voters will see through this sort of deflection logic and that will play into the hands of the NDP.

A pretty valid defense I'd say, especially in light of the previous administration's practices.

 

[Locutus]

It doesn't matter kids.





The Conservative Party of Canada knows that the politics of government plane usage is the low-hanging fruit of oppositional politics. Lord knows when the Tories were in opposition they loved teeing off on Liberal ministers who used the Challenger jets.
Turn about being fair play in politics, the Conservative government, and in particular Defence Minister Peter MacKay, are now being strongly condemned for using the same jets those scoundrel Liberals used. Whether you use the jet once or you use it a hundred times is irrelevant. The debate, if you want to call it that, is mostly about payback and comeuppance in a time when fiscal restraint is the mantra of government and the opposition has a limited arsenal of substantive contra policy arguments to make. It also makes entertaining copy and is much easier to understand than global fiscal policy challenges, which is where we should really being having a discussion.



It just doesn’t matter that Peter MacKay’s use of the Challenger is far less than the yearly average of any Liberal defence minister in the past 10 years. Or that the Conservative government has apparently reduced ministerial travel on Challenger aircraft by 80 per cent since the last years of the previous Liberal government. Or, as CBC reported last week, the jets are in the hangar 70 per cent of the time.


more calming, soothing words of wisdom:

The losing politics of ministerial plane use - The Globe and Mail


Now log off and go outside. :lol:

 

[mentalfloss]

A pretty valid defense I'd say, especially in light of the previous administration's practices.

Obama can't close Guantanamo, but at least there are less prisoners in there than during Bush's regime.

Therefore, according to you, I've just created a valid defence for Obama's incompetence based on the degree of severity as compared to the former administration.

Doesn't compute cap.

It doesn't matter kids.

It was wrong when the Liberals did it and it's still wrong when the Conservatives do it.

And dat's da bottom line.

 

[Locutus]

Obama can't close Guantanamo, but at least there are less prisoners in there than during Bush's regime.

Therefore, according to you, I've just created a valid defence for Obama's incompetence based on the degree of severity as compared to the former administration.

Doesn't compute cap.



It was wrong when the Liberals did it and it's still wrong when the Conservatives do it.

And dat's da bottom line.

Because stoned, cold and hungry flossman said so. *big wrasslin' flex* Rawr!

All I get from this knee-deep hoopla is that two wrongs make a politician.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must visit the neighbors' wife.

 

[earth_as_one]

Oh puhleeeeeze.

He could announced it was a test and it wouldn't have made any difference for its effectiveness.

C'mon now eao. Are you seriously telling me this has been standard practice so far?

Yes the Liberals played with these toys too. If the NDP was in power they would also take advantage.

How do you know your car works if its been parked in your driveway for a year? Would you expect that you could put the key in the ignition and drive away without any problems?

Its the same with these planes. The have to fly regularly in order to maintain proven readiness. Sitting on the ground, still costs money. The planes need hangars, a pool of pilots, regularly scheduled maintenance... Just having the ability to move senior government officials around in the event of an emergency or disaster costs millions each year, even if the planes never leave the hangar.

The problem is what appears to be an unlimited budget for testing/training. Senior government officials should be able to fly around on these planes without giving a reason.... within budgetary limits. Where the planes fly during these training/testing missions doesn't make any difference. Periodically they should fly to Northern Canada and to tropical countries to prove logistics. In the event of a real need for these planes, the pilots and planes better be ready to go within minutes.... 24/7. The only way to prove and maintain this operational capability is to fly the planes regularly. The minimum required flight time required to maintain operational readiness should be determined by the people responsible for providing the service. The maximum amount of time for testing/training should be set by a budget. When and where the planes fly... that's up to the people using them to decide. The less notice they give before taking a plane the better. Operational readiness problems should be identified during training/testing missions not during an emergency/disaster.

 

[petros]

Its the same with these planes. The have to fly regularly in order to
maintain proven readiness. Sitting on the ground, still costs money. The
planes need hangars, a pool of pilots, regularly scheduled maintenance... Just
having the ability to move senior government officials around in the event of an
emergency or disaster costs millions each year, even if the planes never leave
the hangar.

And that is why we have Jazz and AC...they do charters. If it's good enough and safe enough for you and me then it is for MPs too.

 

[earth_as_one]

That's not the same thing. I'm in agreement with most official government travel being on regularly scheduled flights or charters.

Jazz and AC cannot be expected to be able to provide a plane for senior government officials on a minute notice. If they did have planes sitting around for this purpose, it would still cost us about the same.

This capability is for events like 9/11, when all commercial planes are grounded and only the military and this fleet of planes are available. The pilots need special clearances and training. Some planes probably have special capabilities (speed, range, time aloft), communications, electronic counter measures....

 

[petros]

That's not the same thing. I'm in agreement with most official government travel being on regularly scheduled flights or charters.

Jazz and AC cannot be expected to be able to provide a plane for senior government officials on a minute notice. If they did have planes sitting around for this purpose, it would still cost us about the same.

This capability is for events like 9/11, when all commercial planes are grounded and only the military and this fleet of planes are available. The pilots need special clearances and training. Some planes probably have special capabilities (speed, range, time aloft), communications, electronic counter measures....

Charters are ready when needed.