The testimony of Paul Dewar -

The testimony of Paul Dewar


After QP today, Paul Dewar, who can be seen on the video walking over to intervene, explained to reporters what, from his perspective, happened between Peter Van Loan, Nathan Cullen and Thomas Mulcair.

It was very simple. Mr. Van Loan was saying some things at his desk and then he started across the aisle and he was looking very aggressive and he was wagging his finger and continued to say some very aggressive things and threats and that was unprompted and unbecoming any member of the House, let alone a House Leader and he continued to do that.  I saw him coming across. I could see in his face that he was very upset and in a very aggressive kind of mode and so I’ve seen that before in men and I know it’s the best thing to do is to get people away from each other and that’s what I did. 

In terms of his apology, frankly, I think it’s unbecoming a minister or a House Leader.  And I’m not sure if I was the Prime Minister I’d still have him as a House Leader. I just—yeah, I don’t know how you can have your House Leader, you know, after a point of order is made, behave like that.  And that was entirely something he did. No one else did anything.  No one said a word to him. It was totally unprompted. He did it all by himself. So the only person who should be apologizing and maybe taking a timeout for a while is Minister Van Loan, no one else.

He was then asked if Mr. Mulcair said anything inappropriate.

He said something that I think most people would say and is that don’t threaten my House Leader and that was totally appropriate.


The testimony of Paul Dewar

  1. Paul Dewar explained, but what was the question asked to which he answered his explanation? Context please.

    • Still, no answer as to what the question had been. But knowing the question asked is the first thing to know about.

  2. Paul Dewar,

    Unfortunately the immutable laws of physics contradict the whole premise of your account. Allow me to reconstruct this if I may for Mr. Wherry as I’ve heard this story a number of times.

    Yeye cat fight! T-t-t-t…

  3. To the degree it even matters at all, Dewar might have a little more to say on the subject? If you watch the video it could be construed that he was taunting VL[ not that he didn’t deserve it. But w/o audio it’s only guess work anyway] You can see that VL has to be restrained from going back out there near the end of the fracas.
    VL’s the worse kind of bully. I guarantee you if had been Mulcair he was mad at -or Angus – someone scappier than NC anyway, he would not have crossed the floor like that; he’d have yelled insults from the safety of the Con bunker.

    • The first half of you post deals with facts. Thank you for sticking to the facts for at least half of your post.

      The second half is all about your personal opinion. Those are not the facts and adds little to trying to figure out what really happened. Why is it so difficult to stay with the facts.

      • Are you for real? Most of what any of the regular commenters post here is just opinion – some informed, some not so informed. But apparently only you deal in facts. Do you have any capacity for self analysis at all?

        You’re just happy that i seemed to be dissing Dewar in the first half. What’s more i was giving my interpretation of the “facts” as i saw them. Someone else might just as well see those “facts” in a slightly different light.

        • Yes, I am for real, just as much as you are for real. The difference between us is that you, time and again, try to heap falsehood upon falsehoods by creating more falsehoods, whereas some of us like to stay with the fact, as in: trying to unravel what really happened in the House yesterday.

          Your comments about PVL being the worst kind of bully is based on nothing other than your personal opinion. I could just as easily say that Elizabeth May is the worst kind of bully, because such would be my opinion, and what would that add to the conversation? Nothing!

          Furthermore, you cannot guarantee us anything, so why insist on trying? Strange that you do not understand the difference. There is nothing to guarantee, don’t you understand that?

          • I shouldn’t have guaranteed anything. But it’s clear you just don’t get the diff between giving one’s opinion based on observation and a factual statement. I didn’t state any “facts” about Dewar’s behaviour, i merely speculated. Can you grasp that “fact”?
            So if i understand correctly, my opinions are falsehoods, yours are facts! Oh boy! You are an original, i’ll grant you that.

      • Actually, his whole comment deals with opinion. It’s just that you like the first part, which apparently makes it “facts”.

  4. Of course Dewar neglects to mention the part where VanLoan dropped down on his knees -a clear effort by Van Loan to carry on the conversation and not carry out some sinister attack.

    • At best VL recovered some kind of control before getting to the opposition bench.[ and we we no idea if the abusive language stopped then either] He should never have been there in such a mood in the first place. It’s pretty obvious he said something, something that provoked Mulcair to tell him to take a hike, in pretty much the same language that VL used initially. So he fell to his knees. The damage was done by then.
      Now it looks like all sides are playing politics with this. But nothing absolves VL. He should have known better.

      • I certainly agree with you that PVL should NOT have done what he did and handled the situation poorly. However what I also find troubling is to the extent that certain media ignore the facts of what really occur and try to sensationalize this into something it never was. I also find it troubling the degree to which they ignore one of the key elements to the story and that of course is what the core issue was…in this case the clerical error of Joe Comartin and the NDP’s attempts to politically capitalize on that.

        It is also interesting how all of the so called defenders of democracy disappear when it is an NDP transgression unless of course we think ALL parties should try and politically capitalize on clerical mistakes made by Speakers of the House. Had this been a Conservative ploy to try and make political hay over a clerical error the howls of outrage and cries of “attacks on democracy” would of course be rampant….

        Good thing Nate Cullen is trying to bring more “decorum” into the House…..

        • “It is also interesting how all of the so called defenders of democracy disappear when it is an NDP transgression…”

          Perhaps you could link to the video of a comparable situation, in which an NDP member gets all aggressive with a government member.

        • The original trigger did get lost. Understandably imo.

          And what evidence do you have that the original mistake was known to Cullen? Not even VL could have known that for sure.

          • As I understand it, Nate Cullen’s point of order argument was based on the motion that was attributed to Flaherty who of course was NOT in the House to move. However in reality, (again as I understand it) the motion was moved by PVL but Deputy Speaker Joe Comartin incorrectly recorded it as coming from Flaherty hence the “clerical error” that the Speaker referenced in his ruling against Nate Cullen and the fact that the motion in question could be introduced by a Government member other then Flaherty.

            Obviously “Mr. Decorum” Nate Cullen either didn’t bother to research the issue with the Speakers office first to investigate the reasons for the discrepancy or he just didn’t care. We of course will never know because the media continues to ignore that side of the story and Cullen certainly only comments on PVL’s actions and does not at all mention his role in that. I don’t blame Cullen for that by the way – this is politics after all and we all know that Nate Cullen is of course “Mr. Decorum” so long as the media is not looking…or at least looking at certain members.

            I do find it interesting how so many are willing to completely overlook the attempt at political capitalization on a clerical error so long as it is the NDP who are the author of the transgression. And we wonder why fewer and fewer Canadians care about the “debate” that occurs in the House of Commons. Oh wait, it’s all the Conservatives fault, I forgot.

            I submit that it is precisely poorly reported media manufactured “brawls” (that all keen political observers in this forum know never really occurred) that turn more and more Canadians off what occurs during debate in Ottawa. I have said many times that if we continue to turn a blind eye to poor media reporting and politically motivated media shilling we do so at our own
            peril. And yes, I realize as long as
            the shilling is against the side of the House you don’t like the majority of
            you will also turn a blind eye.

          • Cullen’s attempt to capitalize on a clerical error in no way justifies the actions of Van Loan. That was a new low, even for this government in QP.

            If Cullen’s motion is worthy of the kind of reaction it got from Van Loan – esp. after having been overruled – then the opposition should be clearing the benches on a regular basis to throttle certain government Ministers.

            Get real; there is nothing you CPC spin doctors can do to make this screw-up look right.

  5. No matter, not a MP-like way to address another.

  6. Dewar’s testimony is as credible as testimony from Homolka and Magnotta. You can believe it, but you’re more gullible than Aaron Wherry if you do.

    • Oh please!!!!!!

    • Possibly one of the most stupid remarks ever posted here….and there have been some dillies.

      • So says the author of most of those “dillies “.

        • Obviously you haven’t read the pieces from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or talked to the Cat or seen the PJ O’Rourke quotes a thousand times.

          Just disagreeing with someone doesn’t make them crazy Andrew…..crazy is quite distinct. Comparing Dewar with Homolka and Magnotta….is crazy

          • Oh, I know crazy when I see it, and some of what you mention qualifies–but you gotta admit—some of your stuff is pretty high up on the crazy meter.

          • No Andrew it’s not…it’s just disagreeing with you.

  7. Dewar is an NDP Politician who gave a pro-NDP answer, that in itself is not shocking. I of course point out that he neglects to mention that VanLoan dropped to his knees – What was very interesting was watching Rex Murphy on CBC last night….it was amazing how the CBC video shown literally went into slow motion frame by frame detail but they also did NOT show the part where Van Loan went down on his knees, clearly a universally recognized act of non violence. But of course that does fit the media narrative so let’s ignore it.

    There is currently a very high profile face before the courts where an RCMP officer ordered an individual to get down on his knees….the individual complied and the RCMP officer kicked him in the face anyways and is now up on charges. Point being, ALL of the court evidence pointed to the individual being on his knees as being non threatening so it is clearly a very relevant point and it is disturbing to see that the CBC deliberately edited this out of CBC video footage and made no mention of it while singing terms like “brawl” And yet many of you support these media tactics so long as they favor your chosen political side..