Video: Tensions flare at Harper event

With Nigel Wright in court in Ottawa, Stephen Harper faced questions in Toronto. Not all those in attendance at his rally, appreciated those queries.


OTTAWA — Tensions bubbled over at a campaign event in Toronto today when Conservative supporters interrupted reporters during the prime minister’s press conference and hurled expletives at them as they were leaving the event.

Stephen Harper stuck to his main line, that Duffy and his former chief of staff Nigel Wright were to blame for the affair — despite emails at the trial indicating others in his office were discussing the matter.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says Wright may be in the witness box but that it is Harper who is on trial for Canadians.

Mulcair was addressing supporters in a sedate setting in Nanaimo, B.C., where he spoke about forest fire prevention.

Meanwhile, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is opening his day in Sudbury, Ont., where he is promoting his plan for clean technology jobs.


Video: Tensions flare at Harper event

  1. I’m only surprised this didn’t happen sooner.

    It is pretty clear that the Canadian “journalists” aren’t really looking for any answers to any questions; as Harper has clearly answered them repeatedly. Instead, this is just another case of biased journalists trying to keep the story alive using whatever methods they have available. When it came out that Harper was telling the truth and that he was kept in the dark about these actions of Duffy and Wright….it disturbed the narrative. Harper was honest, and the canadian media hates him for it (especially the CBC and Canadian Press).

    One simply has to watch the leaders tour on CPAC to see this is true.

    Sample Questions:

    to Harper – “Mike Duffy, Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy..etc..etc…..”

    To Trudeau today, “Who is your favouritie Avenger?” (comic book character – which, to be honest, is about as difficult question he can answer)

    There are no questions about the amount of tax increases to the wealthy (hint: you could double the taxes to the top 1% and it woudn’t even come close to paying for trudeaus promises, but a carbon tax would)

    That’s what happens when people who don’t understand economics or finance are given the opportunity to ask a question to someone else who doesn’t understand economics or finance, “Who is your favourite comic book character”

    Is it any wonder that people put Canadian journalists below Car salesman in the “trust” category?

    Frankly, given that this has become the story of the moment is proof of what I wrote above. Can’t nail harper on DUFFYGATE…..well, no problem. We’ll try and damage the Conservative brand by going after Harper’s supporters.


    • I guess when you’re used to controlling the media (remember “only 5 questions a day”), it really gets your gander up when they stand up on their hind legs and ask what they please.
      In hindsight, maybe it would have been wiser for the PMO to form a relationship with the press that wasn’t so damned adversarial

      • Maybe it would have been wiser to form a relationship with environmentalists that wasn’t so damned adversarial.

        The Supreme Court? Kevin Page? Veterans? Are you with us or with the pedophiles?

        I see along string of adversarial relationships.

        Maybe Nigel Wright might remember Galatians 6:7 – “you reap what you sow?”

        • Daman,

          the only pedophiles in the news lately was Kathleen Wynn’s hand picked education czar. He’s the one who gave ontario the gay-sex-ed, transgender agenda.

          But hey…….better to have unionized workers teach our 10 year olds about fisting and rimjobs right?

      • One would think that having only 5 questions would convince the reporters at the events to ask 5 different questions, as opposed to the same question 5 times.

        particularly, when the reporters already know the answer.

        • Yes, they already know that Harper was ‘good to go’ with Duffy paying. That he was ‘good to go’ with the fictitious narrative. That Harper held the responsible parties accountable when he found out. That he praised Wright when he found out. That Wright resigned. That he was fired. That everyone involved would be held responsible. That only Wright was involved. That not only Wright was involved. That Ray Novak wasn’t involved. That Ray Novak was involved.

          • Tresus,

            You will note that Harper has answered the same each time. You are confusing what the reporters are ASKING, not what harper has answered.

            to be frank, I wouldn’t care if harper did know. I’d rather have a PM that ordered someone to PAY BACK money to the taxpayers, as opposed to someone trying to bilk the taxpayers.

            Just a matter of perspective I suppose.

          • Ah, no.
            I just noted that Harper has answered differently.
            Try reading again.

          • You “noted” incorrectly.

            You’re mixing up the voices in your head again.

          • No.
            I’m 100% sure we’ve been told all of these contradictory things, many of them by Harper. If this is news to you, you have my sympathy.

          • Tresus,

            If you are asked the same question in a different manner multiple times, one would expect the answer to be somewhat different; though the message is the same.

    • “We’ll try and damage the Conservative brand”

      This whole mess is about the Conservatives damaging their own brand. There would be absolutely no problem with Harper repeating his version of events (paraphrase: “it’s between Duffy and Wright, and it’s been repaid. Case closed.”) if that is actually all that happened.

      Unfortunately for the PM, there were denials, lies and then denials about the lies, now obfuscations about the denials and lies. Harper is disgracing the country and his office – the highest public office in the land and the face of the nation to the world – by trying to pretend like nothing is wrong.

      • Point out the “lies” you describe above. I’m pretty sure if there were people who had lied, it would be in the news.

        Just because you don’t believe what you are being told doesn’t make them lies; much as you wish they were.

    • “…as Harper has clearly answered them repeatedly.”


      Harper has repeatedly ‘rejected the premise of the question’. Premises that have have been established in a court of law.
      Harper has repeatedly contradicted himself – Nigel did a good thing! Nigel did a bad thing! Nigel resigned. Nigel was fired. Nobody knew. A bunch of people knew. ‘Good to go’ was with the payment. ‘Good to go’ was with the BS narrative.

      No, it’s no wonder Canadians don’t trust politicians, who are way below journalists on that list.

      And no surprise that a Harper supporter thinks that a Harper senate appointee charged with crimes is “nothing”, “zero”.

      • On the contrary,

        the Senator charged with crimes is a big deal; though I don’t think it is as serious as the media would have you believe. What happened is pretty clear.

        As for rejecting the “premise” of the questions, I would agree. When reporters ask a question implying that somoene is lying when they clearly are not, then it is correct to reject the question. It’s one of those “when did you stop beating your wife” questions.

        If the PM answer the question as posed, he is agreeing that it is a correct question. Most of them have not been correct questions as they are clearly designed with a biased narrative in mind. Frankly, I would just stop answering that question. I’d simply say, “same answer as yesterday” next.

        • Yes, clearly Ray Novak isn’t lying. He doesn’t read emails from the PM’s Chief of Staff, ducks out of conference calls before they’re done without ever following up, and of course, the PMO’s lawyer just perjured himself.
          Why would the media even ask a question that doesn’t imply that Benjamin Perrin is lying?

Sign in to comment.