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.”
Origin
Source: National Post
No comments:
Post a Comment