Ben Gelinas, Edmonton, AB (Edmonton Journal) – An emotional RCMP commissioner on Friday vehemently denied reports that the director general of the national firearms program was removed due to Conservative government political pressure, calling such claims “fiction.”
“Marty Cheliak has been removed as part of a normal staffing action by the RCMP. He was in the job on an acting basis. There is absolutely, positively nothing to the suggestion that there was any political role or interference with respect to this,” RCMP Commissioner William Elliott told reporters in Edmonton said after a Criminal Intelligence Service Canada news conference.
It was announced on Wednesday that a new director general — RCMP Chief Supt. Pierre Perron — had been named to replace Mr. Cheliak.
Critics charged that Mr. Cheliak was ousted because he was a vocal champion of the long-gun registry, which is supported by a number of police associations, such as the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, but unpopular with many Canadians, especially those living in rural areas.
The Conservative government is backing a private member’s bill that would scrap the registry. The bill is expected to be debated when Parliament returns in September.
“(Mr. Cheliak) is on leave. He’s going to French-language training, a requirement of the job. We have put in an excellent officer to replace him,” Mr. Elliott said.
“He will build on the work that Marty Cheliak did running the firearms program. . . . Marty did a great job. Pierre Perron will be at least as good. I am confident. Nothing has changed except a regular change in personnel.”
When asked about allegations that Mr. Cheliak was moved out because of pressure from the government, Mr. Elliott went on the defensive, calling the reports fiction.
“They are absolute and positive fiction. Fiction. There is not one iota of truth in that. The media and others just made this up. It’s not true. It’s not true. It’s not true.”
Why would Cheliak be placed in an “acting” capacity in a Chief Superintendent’s position when he’s already a C/Supt.? He wasn’t “acting” – he was appointed to that position. Wasn’t he already on french language training when he left “V” Division (he was the CO there) and then placed in this position. Is the newly appointed officer “acting” as well – I note he’s a C/Supt. too?
Well-liked comment. Do you Like or Dislike:
15 
7