28

Judge Pierre


 

From this afternoon’s Question Period.

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, dramatic allegations of attempts to bribe former MP Chuck Cadman raised very serious questions and led to unprecedented actions. Now it seems questions about the scandal will not be answered because Conservatives and Liberals have huddled together in the cone of silence. However, there is another victim. According to an expert hired by the Conservatives, journalist Tom Zytaruk was falsely accused of tampering with his audiotape of his interview with the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister and the government withdraw their allegations that he doctored the tape and apologize to Mr. Zytaruk?

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is clear, in fact, that the tape was tampered. The matter is now settled and both parties are pleased with that settlement.

Before Mr. Poilievre offered that answer, Mr. Harper could be seen leaning over to have a word with him.

Asked about this matter yesterday, James Moore told the Globe, “I don’t have any comment on that.”


 

Judge Pierre

  1. Mr. Speaker, it is clear, in fact, that the tape was tampered.

    Lie some more, Poilièvre.

  2. I’m fairly sure that that is not at all clear.

  3. Once these guys decide on a target to smear they just never stop. It was the same way with Riddell. Riddell sued Harper, which eventually put an end to it, but I’m sure it took a huge chunk out of his life.

  4. It’s curious that there isn’t a backbench NDP MP who wouldn’t want to make a name for themselves by calling Harper out by doubling down – repeat Dion’s words verbatim (or make up your own,) and say that the evidence seems to suggest that he’s guilty of certain criminal offenses, and that he’s ignored every opportunity to fully explain what’s on the public record.

    If Harper wants to launch a new suit, then you’ve bought yourself fame and earned media. If he doesn’t, then that can be a new narrative, and you’ve still got the prominence and earned media.

    Both outcomes hurt the Liberals for looking ineffective, and both obviously hurt the Tories (and all of this is presumably amplified out in those tight BC ridings.)

    • The NDP previously blocked having the Cadman affair investigated by the ethics committee. The Liberals were the only party who pursued this, and they initially pursued it aggressively. Look what it got them – voters didn’t care and Harper slapped them with a lawsuit which dragged on for 10 months. While I think it is deplorable that this affair seems to be just left hanging – we almost certainly have a sitting Prime Minister who behaved dishonorably, perhaps even criminally – I also can understand that, given the Liberals experience, there is not much incentive for the opposition to pursue this.

      It could go back to committee, I suppose. I wonder if there is any chance of that.

  5. I truly don’t know who i have more comtempt for, Harper or the liberals. The libs wont be getting any of my money unless they come up with decent exlpanation. Pathetic!

    • er… explanation.

  6. Mr. Poilievre, it is clear, in fact, that Canadians don’t believe Harper is guiltless. The matter is not settled and all parties will be talking about this in the upcoming 2009 election if the Conservatives haven’t thrown out Harper by then.

    —————————————————————————–
    CAITI Online Poll:
    In an interview with journalist Tom Zytaruk, Stephen Harper stated:

    “But the, uh, of the offer to Chuck [Cadman] was that it was only to replace, uh, financial, uh, considerations, he might lose due to an election.”

    In your opinion, do you believe the offer that Stephen Harper was describing, constitutes an attempt to bribe an elected Member of Parliament, Chuck Cadman?

    Yes 95%

    No 5%

  7. Mr. Speaker, it is clear, in fact, that the Pierre Pollièvre should be tarred & feathered.

    On the other hand, I’ve never seen the verb “tampered” used intransitively before, so I could be misunderstand his point.

    • I mean, used transitively. Gad, I hate correcting myself.

      • That’s ok Jack. 99% of us wouldn’t have known the difference.

        • Well, I can’t blame you. The problem is the ambiguity of the Latin prefix “in-“. It can mean “into,” as in “inflammable,” or (more often) “not” (cognate with our “un-“). So it’s not immediately obvious whether an intransitive verb is something that effects transitive motion (“into”) or doesn’t feature it (“un-“). The latter happens to be the case, but it’s hell trying to explain it, much less remember it.

          • Well, to be frank, I misunderestimated the subtleties. Still, I appreciate greatly your brilliance in areas of my ignorance, often demonstrated.

          • George W. Bush was well known for misunderestimating subtleties.

          • You mean UNtransitive :)

          • : ) Sorry for the drive-by pedantry, guys. There’s not many topics I can really take in my teeth.

      • That’s depressing.

        • If only Poilievre’s infamies were primarily grammatical in nature, eh?

  8. Poilievre is contemptible.

  9. Ah, but PPPoilievre didn’t say WHO doctored them did he. Experts say they weren’t so when did Poilievre become an expert on such matter? isn’t he still wearing short pants? I mean, really, this guy is so immature.

  10. So can’t Tom Zytaruk sue Harper? After all, Harper most certainly slandered him as a journalist.

  11. Two audio experts said the tapes were fraudulent. Not only did they make the accusation, they filed sworn affidavits with the Ontario Superior Court saying the tapes were doctored. They are experts, and they said publicly, in court, that the tapes are doctored. If the tapes weren’t doctored Mr. Zatyruk would be suing the two audio experts. He isn’t. That says it all.

    • “If the tapes weren’t doctored Mr. Zatyruk would be suing the two audio experts. He isn’t. That says it all.”

      No. Your assertions are false; in several respects.

      Who-the-hell do you think you are? Pierre Poilievre?

      http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090213/cadman_suit_090213/20090213?hub=Canada&s_name

      When asked whether he might sue to defend his reputation, Zytaruk said he couldn’t afford the legal fight but would like to find someone to bankroll it, or a lawyer willing to work pro bono.

      “If there’s anybody out there with sacks of money who are interested in funding such a thing, I’d certainly like to speak with them.”

    • Absolute bs. Harper’s own expert testified that the tape was not tampered with!

Sign in to comment.