Mackay busted in a lie about the helicopter of doom

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, MacKay wouldn't sue even if they said this outside of QP or the HOC

If he sued he'd have to swear to the queen (right? swear to somebody) and thats jail time if he lies..and the evidence is clearly there

you can mention those two potential witnesses all you want but who do you think told them to say that?

do you honestly believe they just came and said that stuff by themselves?

HAHAHAHA

This is MacKay backed in a corner..he should've done what Clement did and not said a thing

Are you suggesting that Members of the military would be involved in a conspiracy? But I thought you said:

oh so its a conspiracy by the military okayyyy

And for further clarification, Parliamentary privilege does have boundaries:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/House/compendium/web-content/c_d_limitationsprivilege-e.htm

Limitations on Freedom of Speech

The extent of the parliamentary privilege of freedom of speech is unclear. There is no doubt that statements made in the Chamber and in committees, and subsequently published under the authority of the House in Hansard or in a committee's evidence, are privileged. However, it is not at all certain that parliamentary privilege applies to versions of such statements published elsewhere, or to notes, letters, and communications by telephone and other electronic means. Statements made to the press are not privileged and even verbatim repetition or reproduction by the Member of statements made in the House can expose the Member and the publisher of the statement to allegations of slander or libel. The courts have determined that an accurate and fair reproduction of proceedings themselves by the press enjoys the same privilege as the House and its Members.

[olp1fan]

This is how scared the Cons are..sending MacKay to a NATO meeting at the last minute where Baird was supposed to attend instead...good strategy Harper..but he will be back

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/07/peter-mackays-get-out-of-ddoge-moment-draws-liberal-ire/

OTTAWA — A sudden change of plans that will see Defence Minister Peter MacKay representing Canada at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels this week instead of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has left opposition parties crying foul.

Baird’s attendance at the high-level conference had been confirmed late last week, and the foreign affairs minister has been touring Europe since Monday. He was to attend the NATO meeting on Thursday, then travel to The Hague on Friday for a conference on Internet freedom, before returning home.

But the government announced Wednesday morning that MacKay, who has been under fire for his use of a military helicopter last year, would be going to Brussels instead while Canadian Ambassador to the Netherlands James Lambert will attend the Internet meeting.

[olp1fan]

Yes Derek, the military lied as well in helping provide a cover story for MacKay

That is why there is panic

[Guest Derek L]

This is how scared the Cons are..sending MacKay to a NATO meeting at the last minute where Baird was supposed to attend instead...good strategy Harper..but he will be back

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/07/peter-mackays-get-out-of-ddoge-moment-draws-liberal-ire/

OTTAWA — A sudden change of plans that will see Defence Minister Peter MacKay representing Canada at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels this week instead of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has left opposition parties crying foul.

Baird’s attendance at the high-level conference had been confirmed late last week, and the foreign affairs minister has been touring Europe since Monday. He was to attend the NATO meeting on Thursday, then travel to The Hague on Friday for a conference on Internet freedom, before returning home.

But the government announced Wednesday morning that MacKay, who has been under fire for his use of a military helicopter last year, would be going to Brussels instead while Canadian Ambassador to the Netherlands James Lambert will attend the Internet meeting.

From your link:

A spokesman in Baird’s office said the foreign minister was needed in Washington, D.C., to meet U.S. President Barack Obama during the unveiling of the Canada-U.S. perimeter security agreement.

I can’t imagine the precedent set by sending a defence minister to a NATO conference

[olp1fan]

From your link:

I can’t imagine the precedent set by sending a defence minister to a NATO conference

why would the foreign affairs minister be needed at the white house for a perimetre security announcement when there is a NATO meeting? (hint; its his job description to be at the NATO meeting...thats his business)

Seriously Derek, take off the Con coloured glasses and think about this

Edited December 8, 2011 by olp1fan

[Guest Derek L]

Yes Derek, the military lied as well in helping provide a cover story for MacKay

That is why there is panic

I thought you suggested the military didn’t involve itself in conspiracy? So what is it? What does the retired Major have to gain?

[olp1fan]

I thought you suggested the military didn’t involve itself in conspiracy? So what is it? What does the retired Major have to gain?

Uh this whole time I've been saying the military was involved, I will go back in the thread and point them out to you

[WWWTT]

They can be sued if the remarks were said outside of the House, say in a media scrum…Like the Harper case, one can also sue the party and not name an individual(s)……Just watched the National (might have missed it though), and didn’t even see the story mentioned……..As for Airbus, I don’t know what you’re talking about, PM Harper’s legal action was response to the Chuck Cadman affair.

Brian Mullrooney sued or threatened to sue in the mid 90's

However after there was another inquirey into the case(post 08) it appears that the Liberals at the time should have called his bluff.

The same could happen now aswell.

I wouldn't be suprised to see a disciplined tactic to attack McKay in the house to push his buttons.

The threat of lawsuit shows weekness as far as I'm concerned

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

why would the foreign affairs minister be needed at the white house for a perimetre security announcement when there is a NATO meeting? (hint; its his job description to be at the NATO meeting...thats his business)

Seriously Derek, take off the Con coloured glasses and think about this

Why would the Foreign Affairs minister be needed at a press conference, in another nation, that just signed a historic deal with our country over sovereignty……….And now you’re suggesting that former Foreign Affairs Minster, now Defence Minster, isn’t qualified to attend a meeting of other defence minsters and military brass?

[Guest Derek L]

Brian Mullrooney sued or threatened to sue in the mid 90's

However after there was another inquirey into the case(post 08) it appears that the Liberals at the time should have called his bluff.

The same could happen now aswell.

I wouldn't be suprised to see a disciplined tactic to attack McKay in the house to push his buttons.

The threat of lawsuit shows weekness as far as I'm concerned

WWWTT

But, as my above link points outs, parliamentary privilege has it’s limits, and the opposition can clearly be sued for their statements to date….Said outside of the HoC

[olp1fan]

you're pretty lazy Derek the first two links are from the first fricking page

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737363

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737464

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737740

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737924

[Guest Derek L]

you're pretty lazy Derek the first two links are from the first fricking page

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737363

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737464

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737740

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19914&view=findpost&p=737924

Your ignorant opinions don’t make fact.

[olp1fan]

Your ignorant opinions don’t make fact.

A simple my bad would have been good

[olp1fan]

Why was this switch up done at the last second Derek? it would have made sense to leave Baird in Europe to do his duties and bring MacKay to Washington..but instead you have 3 people scrambling at the last second to fly across the Atlantic ..that is not efficient or well planned..which is unlike Harper..that man is a decisive planner

therefore this was to get Mackay as far away from Canada as he could

[WWWTT]

But, as my above link points outs, parliamentary privilege has it’s limits, and the opposition can clearly be sued for their statements to date….Said outside of the HoC

When did I say they would do that?

What I mean by "sitting mp" is an mp sitting in the house of commons!

Threat of lawsuit means weekness.In other words McKay feels threatened and vunerable and feels the opposition is harming the reputation of the conservatives eroding support!

Don't respond to this comment telling me that he can sue over comments made outside the house

McKay would have to prove that comments are untrue or false if mps made the comments outside the house.

Aswell I do not believe that the opposition will be pushed into a corner and may come back and say "Ok lets go to court and go ahead try to prove it"

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

Why was this switch up done at the last second Derek? it would have made sense to leave Baird in Europe to do his duties and bring MacKay to Washington..but instead you have 3 people scrambling at the last second to fly across the Atlantic ..that is not efficient or well planned..which is unlike Harper..that man is a decisive planner

therefore this was to get Mackay as far away from Canada as he could

The deal was reached recently…….Why would you send a Defence Minister to Washington, for a border deal?

[olp1fan]

The deal was reached recently…….Why would you send a Defence Minister to Washington, for a border deal?

They knew at least a week ahead

like you said..MacKay used to be the foreign affairs guy too..so why can't he be there

you just used that example for John Baird

[WWWTT]

But, as my above link points outs, parliamentary privilege has it’s limits, and the opposition can clearly be sued for their statements to date….Said outside of the HoC

From my experience if someone feels strongly that they have grounds for a lawsuit they usually procede with filing the paperwork.When they don't they usually talk big and threaten too

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

When did I say they would do that?

What I mean by "sitting mp" is an mp sitting in the house of commons!

Threat of lawsuit means weekness.In other words McKay feels threatened and vunerable and feels the opposition is harming the reputation of the conservatives eroding support!

Don't respond to this comment telling me that he can sue over comments made outside the house

McKay would have to prove that comments are untrue or false if mps made the comments outside the house.

Aswell I do not believe that the opposition will be pushed into a corner and may come back and say "Ok lets go to court and go ahead try to prove it"

WWWTT

Sure he can…..MacKay doesn’t have to prove his innocence, he’s assumed innocent (kind of a cornerstone of our legal system)….He has to prove said MP/Party slandered and/or libelled him outside of the HoC……Which with media transcripts would be easy to do.

What has the Opposition’s response been to MacKay bringing up the possibility of legal action….I would suggest it’s been rather muted……And I’ll assume that said Opposition is in consultation with their own legal team…..

[Guest Derek L]

From my experience if someone feels strongly that they have grounds for a lawsuit they usually procede with filing the paperwork.When they don't they usually talk big and threaten too

WWWTT

From my experience, as a member of the BC Bar (Granted my focus is on Conveyance/Real Estate), that is not always the case.....

[Bryan]

The threat of lawsuit shows weekness as far as I'm concerned

I'd like to see the CPC follow through with more lawsuits. I'd even donate specifically to that legal fund. The opposition has been allowed for far too long to make endless strings of baseless accusations against this government, and they should be made to pay for it. If you have a legitimate concern, bring it up by all means, but stop just making crap up.

[WWWTT]

Sure he can…..MacKay doesn’t have to prove his innocence, he’s assumed innocent (kind of a cornerstone of our legal system)….He has to prove said MP/Party slandered and/or libelled him outside of the HoC……Which with media transcripts would be easy to do.

Ya right buddy.

If McKay brought forward a lawsuit against whomever over this McKay would then be the plaintiff and the others would be the defendants!Does that mean anything to you?Plaintiff?Defendant?Am I going to fast for you?Do you know what those terms mean and what responsibilities belong to each?

In other words McKay has to prove there was damage caused by the others actions and that it was untrue.

Good luck McKay!

But you are right about one thing,the other parties will be moving on.

After all the conservatives can't go more than a couple weaks without starting more controversy!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I'd like to see the CPC follow through with more lawsuits. I'd even donate specifically to that legal fund. The opposition has been allowed for far too long to make endless strings of baseless accusations against this government, and they should be made to pay for it. If you have a legitimate concern, bring it up by all means, but stop just making crap up.

You are already donating,its called federal taxes!

WWWTT

[Topaz]

MacKay needs to answer the following questions truthfully...when was the London On trip made, the search and rescue made and when did he book his vacation time.

[Guest Derek L]

Ya right buddy.

If McKay brought forward a lawsuit against whomever over this McKay would then be the plaintiff and the others would be the defendants!Does that mean anything to you?Plaintiff?Defendant?Am I going to fast for you?Do you know what those terms mean and what responsibilities belong to each?

In other words McKay has to prove there was damage caused by the others actions and that it was untrue.

Good luck McKay!

But you are right about one thing,the other parties will be moving on.

After all the conservatives can't go more than a couple weaks without starting more controversy!

WWWTT

Yeah kind of does………and clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about

How do civil cases proceed?

The dispute may then proceed to trial. During the trial, it is up to the plaintiff to present facts to support the claim against the defendant. In a civil suit, the plaintiff must prove that it is probable that the defendant is legally responsible, or “liable,” as a civil case is decided on a balance of probabilities.

Mr MacKay only has to prove that the Opposition slandered/ libelled him……….If I sue you after I slipped on a icy step of yours, do you really think I need to prove that I hadn’t been drinking prior or had poor footwear?