Military warned of fallout from MacKay chopper ride
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
If you see nothing wrong then please do dip into your own pocket and pay the $153,000 bill for a day of travel from a vacation to a party. I personally could find much better ways for the government to spend that kind of cash.
Such a nice personal attack, not very inventive or even harsh but still an outright attack on someone who is obviously far superior in intelligence and reason than you as evidenced by you seeing nothing wrong with these events. Did I hurt your wittle feewings? Awwww, poor baby!
One more take on it from the left leaning (not) Ottawa Citizen.
They actually called a knucklehead a knucklehead. Go figure.
They do disagree with the Bear, so they are most likely wrong.
Anyhow, fer what it's worth:
Maher: MacKay up the creek, when he should have gone up the river
They actually called a knucklehead a knucklehead. Go figure.
They do disagree with the Bear, so they are most likely wrong.
Anyhow, fer what it's worth:
Maher: MacKay up the creek, when he should have gone up the river
Why MacKay's helicopter ride touches a nerve in Newfoundland
For centuries, families in Newfoundland and Labrador have grieved for those who went to sea and didn’t come home.
The risk continues. Fishing is among the most deadly jobs in the country, and the dangers inherent in travelling to the offshore oil rigs were made clear in the 2009 helicopter crash that killed 17.
Against this backdrop, search and rescue (SAR) is never just about dollars and cents for people in the province. There has been heated debate and raucous protests about the appropriate level of protection. All of which explains why the controversial helicopter ride by Peter MacKay, the ranking political minister in Atlantic Canada, touches such a hot button.
“In the context of cutbacks to basic [rescue] services, that’s pretty hard to swallow,” said Earle McCurdy, president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union. “Since 1973 there’s been 193 Newfoundlanders lost their lives in the fishery.”
Search and rescue for the province is handled out of a central location in Gander, where 103 Squadron gets twice the national average of distress calls. There, approximately 50 military personnel and 26 civilians, a unit that calls itself “Outcasts” and features on its badge a rescue dog named Albert, operate three Cormorant CH-149 helicopters.
Each of these choppers – the same type that fetched Mr. MacKay – can carry 12 stretchers and operate in icy conditions. A base spokesman could not be reached Friday afternoon, but the squadron’s website speaks proudly of covering “the lower Arctic, the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador and all offshore waters in the region,” with round-the-clock capability.
But dissenting locals argue that the base is too far from the busy waters off the southeast part of the province, and that overnight response time is sub-par.
Military standards require that SAR crews be airborne within 30 minutes of receiving a call that comes in on a weekday, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. But the rest of the time they have two hours to get in the air. The latter standard falls below international norms and, given that work at sea doesn’t necessarily align with office hours, has sparked much criticism about a two-tier system.
Also controversial are federal government plans to close a rescue sub-centre in St. John’s that assists with co-ordination and communication and provides local knowledge. Ottawa has said repeatedly that this is merely an efficiency, but locals fear a reduction of service quality.
Why MacKay's helicopter ride touches a nerve in Newfoundland - The Globe and Mail
For centuries, families in Newfoundland and Labrador have grieved for those who went to sea and didn’t come home.
The risk continues. Fishing is among the most deadly jobs in the country, and the dangers inherent in travelling to the offshore oil rigs were made clear in the 2009 helicopter crash that killed 17.
Against this backdrop, search and rescue (SAR) is never just about dollars and cents for people in the province. There has been heated debate and raucous protests about the appropriate level of protection. All of which explains why the controversial helicopter ride by Peter MacKay, the ranking political minister in Atlantic Canada, touches such a hot button.
“In the context of cutbacks to basic [rescue] services, that’s pretty hard to swallow,” said Earle McCurdy, president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers union. “Since 1973 there’s been 193 Newfoundlanders lost their lives in the fishery.”
Search and rescue for the province is handled out of a central location in Gander, where 103 Squadron gets twice the national average of distress calls. There, approximately 50 military personnel and 26 civilians, a unit that calls itself “Outcasts” and features on its badge a rescue dog named Albert, operate three Cormorant CH-149 helicopters.
Each of these choppers – the same type that fetched Mr. MacKay – can carry 12 stretchers and operate in icy conditions. A base spokesman could not be reached Friday afternoon, but the squadron’s website speaks proudly of covering “the lower Arctic, the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador and all offshore waters in the region,” with round-the-clock capability.
But dissenting locals argue that the base is too far from the busy waters off the southeast part of the province, and that overnight response time is sub-par.
Military standards require that SAR crews be airborne within 30 minutes of receiving a call that comes in on a weekday, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. But the rest of the time they have two hours to get in the air. The latter standard falls below international norms and, given that work at sea doesn’t necessarily align with office hours, has sparked much criticism about a two-tier system.
Also controversial are federal government plans to close a rescue sub-centre in St. John’s that assists with co-ordination and communication and provides local knowledge. Ottawa has said repeatedly that this is merely an efficiency, but locals fear a reduction of service quality.
Why MacKay's helicopter ride touches a nerve in Newfoundland - The Globe and Mail
Peter, War Minister, MacKay
In the Commons was noted to say
"My ride in the chopper
Was quite right and right proper;
From downtime I was rescued! Okay!"
In the Commons was noted to say
"My ride in the chopper
Was quite right and right proper;
From downtime I was rescued! Okay!"
Spade, my old chap
I must give a clap
For his adeptness in verse
Which could be far worse
And for now we'll call it a rap! :smile:
Looks like this one will end as a stalemate.
Harper government appears willing to ride out MacKay controversy
OTTAWA — The political furor over Defence Minister Peter MacKay's use of a military helicopter escalated Tuesday as the official Opposition demanded he be removed from cabinet, saying he is "no longer fit" to be a minister of the Crown.
"He's an embarrassment to the government, he's an embarrassment to the prime minister, he's an embarrassment to the whole country," NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel said in the House of Commons. "And what do you say to an embarrassment? You say 'good riddance.'"
But Prime Minister Stephen Harper continued to stand by MacKay, and analysts predict the government will settle into a waiting game in the hopes the issue will blow over in the next few weeks.
MacKay has acknowledged he used a Cormorant helicopter to leave a remote Newfoundland and Labrador fishing lodge in July 2010 to get to the Gander airport.
However, while the minister said the ride was entirely for government business and as part of a pre-planned military demonstration, Defence Department emails indicate the minister could have found alternative modes of travel, and that the demonstration was a "guise" designed to protect the minister from embarrassment should the pickup be discovered.
Since the emails became public last week, NDP defence critic David Christopherson had been demanding MacKay apologize. On Tuesday, he gave the minister what he said was a last chance.
"I want to give the minister one final opportunity to do the right thing," Christopherson said. "Will the minister now apologize for misleading Canadians in this House?"
When MacKay again said the helicopter had been used for government business, Christopherson followed Turmel in demanding the minister's removal.
"(MacKay's) continued misleading of the House and his refusal to apologize in spite of mounting, overwhelming evidence totally contradicting his version of events is proof that he is no longer fit to hold his high position of public trust," Christopherson said. "Therefore, it is more in sorrow than in anger that we demand that this minister either resign or be fired."
Liberal interim leader Bob Rae was more circumspect, asking instead for an explanation. "It's clear it was not a search-and-rescue mission," he said. "It was to take the minister from one place to another. So why did the minister say things in the House that were clearly not the case, not the truth?"
Despite the demands for MacKay's removal, Harper continued to support his minister.
"It is clear that it was used so the minister could do government business," he said.
Political analysts say Harper's support is important, and an indication the government believes the issue will pass.
"As long as MacKay retains Harper's support, he's home free," said Queen's University political science professor and parliamentary expert Ned Franks. "All the opposition can do is squawk."
Franks said a minister using government aircraft for personal use is "small potatoes" in the grand scheme of things. Misleading Parliament, however, is another matter altogether.
That being said, there are always allegations of misleading Parliament, and experts were hard-pressed to think of an instance where a minister who had been found guilty of the offence was forced to pay a price.
"It's a tough one," University of Moncton professor and Order of Canada officer Donald Savoie said. "How can you clearly demonstrate that Parliament was misled?"
Politicians almost always leave themselves wiggle-room when responding to questions, he said, and because censuring a minister in a majority Parliament is almost impossible, they hardly ever amount to anything.
Before the last federal election, International Development Minister Bev Oda nearly was found in contempt of Parliament after a memo was altered to deny development group KAIROS funding. However, experts said, that was in a minority government with a Liberal Speaker.
"(Former justice minister) Allan Rock, on the gun registry was accused of misleading Parliament," Savoie said, referring to the controversy that erupted during the Chretien government when it came to paying for the program. "Rock was asked to resign but he didn't step down."
Carleton University professor Christopher Waddell said with Parliament set to rise for the Christmas break in less than two weeks, the government is simply hunkering down and waiting for the issue to fall off the public radar.
The only way the issue is kept alive, he said, is if fresh revelations come out. The fact the prime minister has gone to bat for MacKay shows the government is confident that won't happen, Waddell said. "Obviously, if there's a continual drip of new information," he said, "the minister's position and the government's position will become more untenable as time goes on."
Harper government appears willing to ride out MacKay controversy
OTTAWA — The political furor over Defence Minister Peter MacKay's use of a military helicopter escalated Tuesday as the official Opposition demanded he be removed from cabinet, saying he is "no longer fit" to be a minister of the Crown.
"He's an embarrassment to the government, he's an embarrassment to the prime minister, he's an embarrassment to the whole country," NDP interim leader Nycole Turmel said in the House of Commons. "And what do you say to an embarrassment? You say 'good riddance.'"
But Prime Minister Stephen Harper continued to stand by MacKay, and analysts predict the government will settle into a waiting game in the hopes the issue will blow over in the next few weeks.
MacKay has acknowledged he used a Cormorant helicopter to leave a remote Newfoundland and Labrador fishing lodge in July 2010 to get to the Gander airport.
However, while the minister said the ride was entirely for government business and as part of a pre-planned military demonstration, Defence Department emails indicate the minister could have found alternative modes of travel, and that the demonstration was a "guise" designed to protect the minister from embarrassment should the pickup be discovered.
Since the emails became public last week, NDP defence critic David Christopherson had been demanding MacKay apologize. On Tuesday, he gave the minister what he said was a last chance.
"I want to give the minister one final opportunity to do the right thing," Christopherson said. "Will the minister now apologize for misleading Canadians in this House?"
When MacKay again said the helicopter had been used for government business, Christopherson followed Turmel in demanding the minister's removal.
"(MacKay's) continued misleading of the House and his refusal to apologize in spite of mounting, overwhelming evidence totally contradicting his version of events is proof that he is no longer fit to hold his high position of public trust," Christopherson said. "Therefore, it is more in sorrow than in anger that we demand that this minister either resign or be fired."
Liberal interim leader Bob Rae was more circumspect, asking instead for an explanation. "It's clear it was not a search-and-rescue mission," he said. "It was to take the minister from one place to another. So why did the minister say things in the House that were clearly not the case, not the truth?"
Despite the demands for MacKay's removal, Harper continued to support his minister.
"It is clear that it was used so the minister could do government business," he said.
Political analysts say Harper's support is important, and an indication the government believes the issue will pass.
"As long as MacKay retains Harper's support, he's home free," said Queen's University political science professor and parliamentary expert Ned Franks. "All the opposition can do is squawk."
Franks said a minister using government aircraft for personal use is "small potatoes" in the grand scheme of things. Misleading Parliament, however, is another matter altogether.
That being said, there are always allegations of misleading Parliament, and experts were hard-pressed to think of an instance where a minister who had been found guilty of the offence was forced to pay a price.
"It's a tough one," University of Moncton professor and Order of Canada officer Donald Savoie said. "How can you clearly demonstrate that Parliament was misled?"
Politicians almost always leave themselves wiggle-room when responding to questions, he said, and because censuring a minister in a majority Parliament is almost impossible, they hardly ever amount to anything.
Before the last federal election, International Development Minister Bev Oda nearly was found in contempt of Parliament after a memo was altered to deny development group KAIROS funding. However, experts said, that was in a minority government with a Liberal Speaker.
"(Former justice minister) Allan Rock, on the gun registry was accused of misleading Parliament," Savoie said, referring to the controversy that erupted during the Chretien government when it came to paying for the program. "Rock was asked to resign but he didn't step down."
Carleton University professor Christopher Waddell said with Parliament set to rise for the Christmas break in less than two weeks, the government is simply hunkering down and waiting for the issue to fall off the public radar.
The only way the issue is kept alive, he said, is if fresh revelations come out. The fact the prime minister has gone to bat for MacKay shows the government is confident that won't happen, Waddell said. "Obviously, if there's a continual drip of new information," he said, "the minister's position and the government's position will become more untenable as time goes on."
How can you guys say this kind of dish isn't newsworthy, lol
Btw, this is the first time I've seen McParland making downright derogatory comments against the CPC. Maybe he's having a change of heart.
Peter MacKay vs Bob Rae: Two helicopter rides, one big difference
The Conservatives are fighting back against the pummeling Peter MacKay has taken over his last-minute helicopter ride on a Canadian Forces Cormorant.
MacKay is threatening legal action against MPs who accuse him of lying about the reasons he gave for the flight. (Why stop with MPs? Half the country thinks he’s making it up). The defence minister has been airlifted out of the country after the government suddenly discovered he was desperately needed in Brussels. Best of all, the Tories have dug up an incident in which Liberal leader Bob Rae, then the Ontario premier, hitched a ride to his cottage on a police helicopter. Bob, how could you?
So is there a difference between Rae’s trip and MacKay’s? Not much in the circumstances, but certainly in the handling.
Rae fessed up immediately and explained the circumstances:
If MacKay had come clean right away and trusted Canadians to judge for themselves (who cares if the defence minister gets a ride on a Cormorant?), the issue probably would have died a quick death and we’d be on to other non-events. Instead he’s been forced to flee to Belgium.A lesson to be learned here, PMO people?
Peter MacKay vs Bob Rae: Two helicopter rides, one big difference | Full Comment | National Post
Btw, this is the first time I've seen McParland making downright derogatory comments against the CPC. Maybe he's having a change of heart.
Peter MacKay vs Bob Rae: Two helicopter rides, one big difference
The Conservatives are fighting back against the pummeling Peter MacKay has taken over his last-minute helicopter ride on a Canadian Forces Cormorant.
MacKay is threatening legal action against MPs who accuse him of lying about the reasons he gave for the flight. (Why stop with MPs? Half the country thinks he’s making it up). The defence minister has been airlifted out of the country after the government suddenly discovered he was desperately needed in Brussels. Best of all, the Tories have dug up an incident in which Liberal leader Bob Rae, then the Ontario premier, hitched a ride to his cottage on a police helicopter. Bob, how could you?
So is there a difference between Rae’s trip and MacKay’s? Not much in the circumstances, but certainly in the handling.
Rae fessed up immediately and explained the circumstances:
“Balancing time is a hard choice,” Rae told the legislature. “For my trips, I have a government car I use. It takes a significant period of time to get to my cottage. It was the long weekend. It was frankly the quickest and fastest way for me to do it.”
Given the environment of fiscal restraint, replied then-Ontario Liberal leader Steve Mahoney, it didn’t seem an appropriate use of resources. “I can honestly say that I think I’ve given as clear an account as I can to the House. I’ve given the answer that I can,” Rae replied. “I’ve given an explanation to the House, and that’s all I can say to the honourable member.”
MacKay, on the other hand, adopted the tried and true Harper government approach: deny, evade, threaten, obfuscate, attack the questioner. Never, ever admit a mistake of simply explain the circumstances.Given the environment of fiscal restraint, replied then-Ontario Liberal leader Steve Mahoney, it didn’t seem an appropriate use of resources. “I can honestly say that I think I’ve given as clear an account as I can to the House. I’ve given the answer that I can,” Rae replied. “I’ve given an explanation to the House, and that’s all I can say to the honourable member.”
If MacKay had come clean right away and trusted Canadians to judge for themselves (who cares if the defence minister gets a ride on a Cormorant?), the issue probably would have died a quick death and we’d be on to other non-events. Instead he’s been forced to flee to Belgium.A lesson to be learned here, PMO people?
Peter MacKay vs Bob Rae: Two helicopter rides, one big difference | Full Comment | National Post
The last two lines of the Defence Minister's revised nursery rhyme "Oranges and lemons."
"Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
And here comes a chopper to take you away on government business, so it will be said."
"Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
And here comes a chopper to take you away on government business, so it will be said."
How can you guys say this kind of dish isn't newsworthy, lol
Btw, this is the first time I've seen McParland making downright derogatory comments against the CPC. Maybe he's having a change of heart.
Peter MacKay vs Bob Rae: Two helicopter rides, one big difference
The Conservatives are fighting back against the pummeling Peter MacKay has taken over his last-minute helicopter ride on a Canadian Forces Cormorant.
MacKay is threatening legal action against MPs who accuse him of lying about the reasons he gave for the flight. (Why stop with MPs? Half the country thinks he’s making it up). The defence minister has been airlifted out of the country after the government suddenly discovered he was desperately needed in Brussels. Best of all, the Tories have dug up an incident in which Liberal leader Bob Rae, then the Ontario premier, hitched a ride to his cottage on a police helicopter. Bob, how could you?
So is there a difference between Rae’s trip and MacKay’s? Not much in the circumstances, but certainly in the handling.
Rae fessed up immediately and explained the circumstances:“Balancing time is a hard choice,” Rae told the legislature. “For my trips, I have a government car I use. It takes a significant period of time to get to my cottage. It was the long weekend. It was frankly the quickest and fastest way for me to do it.”MacKay, on the other hand, adopted the tried and true Harper government approach: deny, evade, threaten, obfuscate, attack the questioner. Never, ever admit a mistake of simply explain the circumstances.
Given the environment of fiscal restraint, replied then-Ontario Liberal leader Steve Mahoney, it didn’t seem an appropriate use of resources. “I can honestly say that I think I’ve given as clear an account as I can to the House. I’ve given the answer that I can,” Rae replied. “I’ve given an explanation to the House, and that’s all I can say to the honourable member.”
If MacKay had come clean right away and trusted Canadians to judge for themselves (who cares if the defence minister gets a ride on a Cormorant?), the issue probably would have died a quick death and we’d be on to other non-events. Instead he’s been forced to flee to Belgium.A lesson to be learned here, PMO people?
Peter MacKay vs Bob Rae: Two helicopter rides, one big difference | Full Comment | National Post
Why is this even an issue? Does Canada only have one helicopter. Without an emergency to go to, the only flights are training
flights. This flight carrying the defence minister is no different from a training flight. As much as I'd like to hold a torch to a Conservative minister's backside, I don't see what the issue is.
True.
Opposition is charging that he "misled the house" - which is parliamentary suicide for him if there is any closure to this in their favour.
You mean MacKay? You have to expect that sort of thing from MacKay. He has an overwhelming
sense of his own importance.