CP: Mackay controversy flares anew

gerryhatrick · October 26, 2006

MacKay controversy flares anew - Speaker to re-examine alleged slur
Wed, 2006-10-25 18:09

National News

OTTAWA (CP) - First he was accused of making a sexist slur, now Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay is facing a far more serious allegation - lying to Parliament.

The latest charge from the Liberals came Wednesday after MacKay flatly denied referring to former girlfriend Belinda Stronach - a Liberal MP - as a dog in the House of Commons last week. "I made no such gesture," a defiant MacKay told the Commons. "I made no derogatory or discriminatory remark toward any member of this House."

Last week, Speaker Peter Milliken said he couldn't rule on the matter because the remark was not picked up by Hansard, the official record of the Commons. However, he agreed Wednesday to re-examine the issue after the Liberals said they had sworn affidavits from several MPs who insist they heard the remark.

The barely audible exchange in the Commons last week was caught on audio tape, with one MP asking "What about your dog?" and someone who sounded like MacKay responding: "You have her."

Opposition MPs have said they saw MacKay gesture to Stronach's empty seat as he made the comment.

"There is compelling evidence on the public record that the minister's assertions are plainly untrue," said Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale.

"The minister has . . . presented an assertion to this House that is false, and apparently is deliberately so. Such doubt about the minister's veracity cannot be allowed to persist."

http://www.cjad.com/node/428844

This is a new twist to this controversy.

I know there are many here who have taken the position that the comments by Mackay were not picked up on the record and so therefore they don't exist. The problem is though that they do exist. They were recorded on audio tape.

I work with some staunch Conservatives, and there's a weekly group meeting I attend during which we take a litle time to shoot the sh@t on politics and issues of the day. This Mackay thing has generated a lot of discussion....and we're all in agreement on one aspect of it: he should have immediately apologized.

It was foolish not to, and now that he stood in the house today and claimed not to have said anything he's really dug the hole almost too deep to climb out of.

The C's I work with don't think it's a big deal calling Stronach a dog..but they recognize that it was and not politically smart. After our discussions I have to agree that it wasn't the huge insult to all women that some have made it out to be, but my feeling tonight is that standing up in the house and lying about it is a huge insult to all Canadians.

October 26, 2006

This Mackay thing has generated a lot of discussion....and we're all in agreement on one aspect of it: he should have immediately apologized

What he should have done is not say it in the first place.

Harper has done a good job of keeping his socon zanies in check. He now needs to muzzle guys like MacKay whose mouth moves faster than his brain.

Canadian Blue · October 26, 2006

So is this how many topics is this for a politician saying no more than a three word insult. I mean, Bill Clinton did worse then that, and I don't think anybody really cared other then Republican's who thought it would be a great way to finally impeach a Democratic president that the majority of American's wanted to stay in the Whitehouse.

gerryhatrick · October 26, 2006

So is this how many topics is this for a politician saying no more than a three word insult.

It's not about the insult anymore, it's about the denial. And you better steel yourself because it's going to continue now that there are affidavits and the speaker is looking at it again.

Ricki Bobbi · October 26, 2006

It's not about the insult anymore, it's about the denial. And you better steel yourself because it's going to continue now that there are affidavits and the speaker is looking at it again.

It's only *about the denial* now because the Liberals saw that nobody was buying their offence to women crap. The denial is a much smaller deal.

I do find it very funny that you now *agree* it wasn't the huge insult to all women YOU made it out to be. You would think somebody making such an incredible about face would have the decency to admit the error they made.

But then again, it neverhas been about anything MacKay did in Parliament. It's all been *attack* *attack* *attack*.

A huge insult to all Canadinas? whatever :rolleyes:

watching&waiting · October 26, 2006

Lying to parliament, how liberal of him. No wonder the Liberals are mad he is using their tricks. O my oh my

gc1765 · October 26, 2006

You can view the video from the globe and mail website Here

I think that lying is much worse than the insult. Why would he lie about something that so many people, from different parties, swear they heard...and which is on videotape. Does he expect that Canadians will believe it's some sort of Liberal/NDP conspiracy? I just lost some respect for mackay. He could have apologized, or stood by what he said, either way I would respect that more than lying.

watching&waiting · October 26, 2006

For the slow learners if it is not in the Hansard record then as faras parliament is concerned it does not exist. The speaker has already ruled. So he can not be held to a lie about something that does not exist on the official record. This is just soooo dumb.

Canadian Blue · October 26, 2006

QUOTE(Canadian Blue @ Oct 25 2006, 07:17 PM)
So is this how many topics is this for a politician saying no more than a three word insult.

It's not about the insult anymore, it's about the denial. And you better steel yourself because it's going to continue now that there are affidavits and the speaker is looking at it again.

I don't know, after the previous government I'm not so worried about a spat that should be confined to the Maury show and not parliment. Their has been much worse said in the house of commons, and GH you should know who said "fuddle duddle". It's a non issue, and I doubt Canadian's really care. In the end it doesn't really effect them much, and they don't care about such an insignificant issue. Maybe if Mackay lied about something of substance, then I'd be concerned.

geoffrey · October 26, 2006

He should have apologised immediately I agree gerry. Apologised to his dogs.

People say stuff, I could care less what they banter back and forth, it's rather all meaningless in the big scheme of things. Lying on the otherhand, to parliment, hmm, it reminds me too much of Goodale and Brision saying they didn't leak the income trust decision... I think Mackay should disappear.

Either decision Harper makes will have the issue come up at election time. One conservative calling an ex a dog apparently describes the whole party... if anyone actually believes that, their stupidity will hopefully prevent them from finding the polling station. Having Mackay gone may cost more with support from the old PC's (despite Mackay fitting in more wtih the new CPC image)... maybe Harper is playing his cards wisely to keep him around knowing that dismissing him won't really cease the debate.

I mean, it's tough for Liberals to find anything wrong with the conservatives that they themselves have a positive record on. I don't think any Liberal has called someone a dog... so they must take this issue and run with it.

gc1765 · October 26, 2006

For the slow learners if it is not in the Hansard record then as faras parliament is concerned it does not exist. The speaker has already ruled. So he can not be held to a lie about something that does not exist on the official record. This is just soooo dumb.

Huh? Just because it wasn't recorded in Hansard means that he didn't lie? :blink:

A lie is a lie. What does that have to do with whether it's in the record or not?

Ricki Bobbi · October 26, 2006

Much ado about nothing.

Even the CBC doesn't think it's that big a deal.

They had a story on it tonight on the National, but it wasn't the lead.

That story about the clerks scamming the lotteries across the country was considered more important.

Yawn....

gc1765 · October 26, 2006

Much ado about nothing.
Even the CBC doesn't think it's that big a deal.

They had a story on it tonight on the National, but it wasn't the lead.

That story about the clerks scamming the lotteries across the country was considered more important.

Yawn....

It's been the lead story on the G & M website for most of the day now...not that I decide what is important based on what makes the headlines.

gerryhatrick · October 26, 2006

It's not about the insult anymore, it's about the denial. And you better steel yourself because it's going to continue now that there are affidavits and the speaker is looking at it again.

It's only *about the denial* now because the Liberals saw that nobody was buying their offence to women crap. The denial is a much smaller deal.

Lying in Parliament is a small deal?

Ricki Bobbi · October 26, 2006

Lying in Parliament is a small deal?

Just typical histrionics on your part in attacking the Conservatives. Now you don't think what MacKay said was such a big deal, at the same time the Liberal 'braintrust' changed their mind. You have changed your tune significantly since last Friday. You have no credibility on this issue because of statements like this...

A man who cannot handle the end of a relationship without this kind of nastiness is not fit for office.

geoffrey · October 26, 2006

Lying in Parliament is a small deal?

I'm with you here, he should resign his cabinet post.

Ricki Bobbi · October 26, 2006

I'm with you here, he should resign his cabinet post.

What is the lie?

MacKay denied calling Stronach a dog.

He 'implied' it ..... maybe. It was 'clear' what his intentions were ..... maybe.

But he never called her a dog.

gc1765 · October 26, 2006

What is the lie?

“I made no such gesture. I made no derogatory or discriminatory remark towards any member of this house, Mr. Speaker,” Mr. MacKay replied.

"I made no comment," he told reporters. "It's not there. It's not there. I said nothing about a dog,'' he said.

From Globe and Mail & CTV

geoffrey · October 26, 2006

I'm with you here, he should resign his cabinet post.

What is the lie?

MacKay denied calling Stronach a dog.

He 'implied' it ..... maybe. It was 'clear' what his intentions were ..... maybe.

But he never called her a dog.

I thought the reason people like you and I voted CPC was to end that kind of 'implied' grey language in politics now. Don't be so partisan, if it were Goodale or Graham, you'd be asking for a resignation.

Mackay f'ed up, and it's a black eye to the party with him lying in the HoC. Like Clinton, I struggle with a politican that can't live up and defend his statements. Someone prone to acting in such a manner is hardly one I have confidence in leading our country on the foreign stage.

Ricki Bobbi · October 26, 2006

I thought the reason people like you and I voted CPC was to end that kind of 'implied' grey language in politics now. Don't be so partisan, if it were Goodale or Graham, you'd be asking for a resignation.
Mackay f'ed up, and it's a black eye to the party with him lying in the HoC. Like Clinton, I struggle with a politican that can't live up and defend his statements. Someone prone to acting in such a manner is hardly one I have confidence in leading our country on the foreign stage.

I voted Conservative to bring an end to corrupt Liberal government and having our elected government act as if they were there by divine right. The Conservatives have delivered so far.

Don't be partisn? This issue is all about partisan games. By taking resigning MacKay would be playing right into the Liberal's hands. Moral victories are for chumps.

Yes, MacKay f*cked up. Should he resign for it? No way. That is far too strong a response.

The way MacKay won the PC leadership then reneged on his promise to Orchard tells us much more about his character. Everybody knew that when he was put into Cabinet.

Look at the way Chretien blew off scandal, after scandal, after scandal. That was shrewd politics and Canada is much better off with the Conservatives being just a little shrewder.

MacKay apologizing formally to the House is far more than any Chretien-era cabinet minister would have done. That is the appropriate reponse in this situation.

blueblood · October 26, 2006

I'll just pose this question, if Mackay did an outstanding job as foreign affairs minister, good enough to be accoladed in a history book, was a mover and shaker on the world stage, hell even prevented a war, overall got the job done, and done well, (as you can tell, pure speculation) but he made his potshot at his ex and tried to cover it up (which in my opinion is minor)

what would anyone rather have a minister like i described, or an utterly incompetant minister, but he is honest and a nice guy?

I'd take the lesser of two evils myself. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to get at.

Ricki Bobbi · October 26, 2006

I'll just pose this question, if Mackay did an outstanding job as foreign affairs minister, good enough to be accoladed in a history book, was a mover and shaker on the world stage, hell even prevented a war, overall got the job done, and done well, (as you can tell, pure speculation) but he made his potshot at his ex and tried to cover it up (which in my opinion is minor)
what would anyone rather have a minister like i described, or an utterly incompetant minister, but he is honest and a nice guy?

I'd take the lesser of two evils myself. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to get at.

That's the key here. Is MacKay a perfect man? No. Did we know that before he was put into cabinet? Yes.

Is this indescretion big enough for him to seriously consider resigning? No.

gc1765 · October 26, 2006

I'll just pose this question, if Mackay did an outstanding job as foreign affairs minister, good enough to be accoladed in a history book, was a mover and shaker on the world stage, hell even prevented a war, overall got the job done, and done well, (as you can tell, pure speculation) but he made his potshot at his ex and tried to cover it up (which in my opinion is minor)
what would anyone rather have a minister like i described, or an utterly incompetant minister, but he is honest and a nice guy?

I'd take the lesser of two evils myself. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to get at.

If someone did an outstanding job as President, but got a blowjob and tried to cover it up, would you want someone like that as president?

(hypothetically speaking of course, Clinton may not be ioutstanding but neither is mackay)

jefferiah · October 26, 2006

I'll just pose this question, if Mackay did an outstanding job as foreign affairs minister, good enough to be accoladed in a history book, was a mover and shaker on the world stage, hell even prevented a war, overall got the job done, and done well, (as you can tell, pure speculation) but he made his potshot at his ex and tried to cover it up (which in my opinion is minor)

what would anyone rather have a minister like i described, or an utterly incompetant minister, but he is honest and a nice guy?

I'd take the lesser of two evils myself. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to get at.

If someone did an outstanding job as President, but got a blowjob and tried to cover it up, would you want someone like that as president?

(hypothetically speaking of course, Clinton may not be ioutstanding but neither is mackay)

Hmm. What do you all think? Did Belinda Stronach support the republican attempt to oust Clinton when he "did not sleep with that woman?"

Canadian Blue · October 26, 2006

They want this to be brought before a commons committee. Surely their must be something of more importance then this. I heard North Korean has the bomb, the new Clean Air Act is flawed, and genocide is happening in Sudan. Why don't our politician's start spending more time on the real issues, instead of this BS. We saw what happened in the US in regards to Clinton, I don't want to see something like that, especially over a three word sentence.