When “sure” doesn’t mean sure

After QP this afternoon, the Speaker reported to the House on the case of the “sure” deletions. According to Speaker Scheer, the word was deleted from the official transcript at the discretion of Hansard’s editors, without input from Tony Clement or anyone in Mr. Clement’s office.

Due to stringent timelines and the voluminous amounts of text, the technical task of editing is frequently parcelled out to multiple editors whose collective work for a given meeting is then reviewed by a Senior Editor. These Senior Editors look at the full context of the preliminary verbatim transcript, including the intonation of the person speaking, in order to accurately convey the intended meaning in the final transcript.  Thus, they routinely authorize the removal of redundant words, false starts, hesitations, words that might lead to confusion as to the true intent of the statement, and so on. Sometimes entire sentences are restructured for clarity. Even within the testimony of a single witness or Member speaking, it is not unusual for words to be removed in one place and retained in another if the editors judge that, in the latter case, the words do not lead to confusion or convey an unintended meaning.

Mr. Clement duly demanded an apology from the NDP’s Charlie Angus and, speaking with reporters, attempted to explain the realities of human speech patterns that caused him to answer in the affirmative when no such indication was intended.

It’s a hesitation as you formulate your response. It’s common in the English language or indeed any language and Mr. Angus knows that. He knows how Hansard works. You can check the record. I have verbal types of speech that I use like everybody—every other human being on the face of the planet. And for him to try to jump to that conclusion and to go beyond that and to assert that I myself was involved in some conspiracy to change Hansard has proved to be a lie. And a liar should apologize.




Browse

When “sure” doesn’t mean sure

  1. And remember, today it is……

    No animal shall sleep in a bed… with sheets.
    No animal shall drink alcohol… to excess.
    No animal shall kill any other animal… without cause.

    And tomorrow it will be…
     ”All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”, and “Four legs good, two legs better!”

  2. synonyms: “eerrr…”, “uhm”, “uuuh”, “mmmmm”, “nnnoooo”, “yes”.

  3. Give it up Tony.  You’re weasel words just outed you.

  4. “And a liar should apologize.”

    Explains Tony’s silence in the House during all those rounds of questioning on Gazebogate. He didn’t want to be put in a position where he’d have to apologize.

  5. The NDP and the rest of us wouldn’t have to assume Tony Clement is lying if he would tell the truth or even actually answer a direct question occasionally.

    Note for instance he still hasn’t answered the question that was posed in that committee room. Is he going to provide copies of the application forms his constituency office sent out to municipalities or not? If not, why not?

  6. Has Charlie Angus apologized to Tony Clement for falsely accusing Tony Clement of changing the script. Mr. Angus may want to start acting like an adult.

    • You are 100 per cent right, he should apologize. But, since we’re in an ‘apologizing’ mood, I hope you’ll join me in calling for an apology to Irwin Cotler, the subject of partisan-driven rumour-mongering, and an apology from John Williamson to the people of his riding for allowing the Conservative Party to use him as a nonsense-spewing mouthpiece in QP today.

      Let’s all demand better from all our MPs and their partisan underlings.

      • Why should any apology be attached to other apologies? If Mr. Clement deserves one from Mr. Angus — and that is the topic of this blog post — then so be it. Period. Right?

        • You’re asking if we believe Tony is innocent in all this?

          sure …

          • I’m asking you to read my bloody post again. lol. Next.

        • You did read my bit about Clement deserving an apology, right? He does deserve an apology. All I’m saying he’s not the only one. He should get in line.

          • Dennis_F is known for his inability to take “yes” for an answer.

          • Lol.  Next.

          • And I’m saying, if you’re serious about the apology Clement deserves, in a blog post about Clement, then why even bring other topics to the table? It doesn’t make you very sincere, in my opinion. You’re placing conditions on the apology he deserves, aren’t you?

          • Not at all. I’ll give full marks to anyone who apologizes for any of the above offences… doesn’t even matter who apologizes first. No conditions whatsoever. I’d love for somebody to take some bleeping responsibility for their actions. Anybody. Conservative, NDP, Liberal, anybody.

          • Put it another way… I’m usually upset at the Conservatives. Today, I’m very non-partisan in my disgust. If you’re an MP right now, chances are I’m disgusted with you.

          • Does Tony Clement deserve an apology, period? Yes or no.

          • Yes.

  7. In what world is “sure”, used in that context as a response to a formal query, not intended as an “affirmative” or “positive” response, signifying clear acceptance??

    Not in Tony’s slimy dark world i suppose.

    Tony is one of the disinformation police of Canada’s dark era… history will remember him and the rest of the Harper regime as the architects of destruction by deceit…

    What he has done and what he is doing is DECEIT… he continues his deceit by demanding apology as acknowledgement of his innocence, like the murderous husband would weep for his beloved dead wife…. 

    Tony, and the rest of the disinformation police are used as cannon fodder to choke up communication and lay a smoke screen of conflicting disinformation, everyone that is part of the political system is complicit either actively, or passively as a bureaucratic cog-in-the-machine that must respond with the anticipated response when tapped with the expected stimulus… (ie: any NDP ‘apology’, the speaker’s acceptance of the findings, and Hansard’s role).

    Harper is deconstructing Canada, and lying every step of the way, because what real Canadian would truly allow that to occur? You see, the Harper regime thinks of Canadians like frogs in a pot of water over a fire… if they just throw us in the boiling water we might jump out, and we’ll definitely be angry… BUT if they place us in a pot of cold water and bring it up slowly to a boil, we will sit there and get cooked…

    Are we gonna let these double talking, deceitful, anarchists cook Canada and Canadians?  So far Canadians are allowing it…. OPEN UP YOUR EYES.

  8. It must be very frustrating for Mr. Wherry and the Conservative-bashers on here to be stymied once again. I might even have some sympathy, but you never seem to learn, or even have any inclination to do so. Oh well. Next.

    • F_Dennis: Card carrying ‘conservative-bashers’ are not required, the Harper gov is doing an excellent job of bashing its own future and the future of Canada and young Canadians totally to death… all on its own.

      Ideology will paint a target on this regime’s head, as history shows it has done to corrupt regime after corrupt regime, time and time again. e

      A sane and happy human will ignore the failure of misguided ideology because they are sane and happy…. make the same humans angry and test our patience and sanity, and we will look for the cause of what went wrong, and we will blame that cause and hold it accountable… because we will be angry enough to take it that far and crazy enough to not let it drop…

      Harper is ensuring his downfall, by acting on blind ideologies and angering EVERYONE to the eventual point of action, with no turning back…

      …see? Conservative-bashers need-not-apply. Have a wicked day.

      • I wonder if someone like you is in any way capable of realizing that you’re exactly what I’m talking about. On the one hand, there are ideologues like you who hate Harper no matter what he does. On the other hand, there is the Canadian people who have elected him three times now.

        • Of course my original, very articulate comment still applies.

          I offer logic AND reference the annals of history as example of the outcome
          of his regime, to further this debate…

          …and you, spin tautology and illogic into a barely pertinent response, as
          the next line of the debate.

          If we are comparing ideology to ideology, i prefer the ‘ideology’ that is
          based on logic and rational awareness of reality, as opposed to circular
          meaningless arguments… (ie: “…who hate harper no matter what he
          does”, we don’t hate harper no matter what he does, we are growing to hate
          him because of what he is doing and how he is doing it).

          The people elected him because, for the most part, they were happy and sane
          at the time, and wanted further improvement on that… Harper has not delivered
          further improvement, to the contrary, and increasing dismay of all Canadians.

          So yes i believe i am capable of understanding such arguments as those you
          make, but I wonder, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

          I would guess not.

          • Harper has been re-elected twice, just recently with a majority, and you have the gall to suggest Canadians are now unhappy? You also have the gall to consider yourself intelligent and smarter than others? lol. Keep it coming, buddy. Keep proving my point, dude. lol

          • Actually, thankyou for continually proving my point with your lacking responses. And i keep coming and have such ‘gall’ because i’m angry and i must… and i wonder what you have done to be so happy and content with the general state of Canada and the struggle of Canadians at the moment… i think you speak from your ivory tower of comfort and disillusionment. I think most Canadians would have a difficult time relating to you… including an increasing amount of those who voted for harper in the past.

          • I am precisely addressing your nonsense. You keep saying Harper is a disaster that Canadians can’t stand, yet you can’t explain how he’s been elected three times, and just recently with a majority. I must be missing the kind of brilliance that, based on this basic evidence, draws the conclusion that we’re living in some kind of war zone. God. Next.

  9. F_Dennis: Card carrying ‘conservative-bashers’ are not required, the Harper gov is doing an excellent job of bashing its own future and the future of Canada and young Canadians totally to death… all on its own.

    Ideology will paint a target on this regime’s head, as history shows it has done to corrupt regime after corrupt regime, time and time again. e

    A sane and happy human will ignore the failure of misguided ideology because they are sane and happy…. make the same humans angry and test our patience and sanity, and we will look for the cause of what went wrong, and we will blame that cause and hold it accountable… because we will be angry enough to take it that far and crazy enough to not let it drop…

    Harper is ensuring his downfall, by acting on blind ideologies and angering EVERYONE to the eventual point of action, with no turning back…

    …see? Conservative-bashers need-not-apply. Have a wicked day.

    • Oh my gawd.
      You think your anti-Harper partisan wisedom was worth repeating.
      Einstein, sure

      • You’re a sorry fool, wilson. Einstein was right, more right than you’ll ever be…

        Piss-ant.

  10. “Does Tony Clement deserve an apology, period? Yes or no”

    An analogy:

    “Yes, the defendant should never have gotten the citation for the broken headlamp; unfortunately he is still accountable for running the red light and hitting a pedestrian, which is what caused the headlamp to be broken”

    • —trying to follow your analogy—-So you think because Clement found himself as a witness at a Committee hearing, then it is to be expected that people who question him at that hearing would then have the right to accuse him of changing the script of that hearing ?

      • Not at all.

        The point is that this particular item is trivial when compared to reason Clement/Baird was (might as well classify them as a unit) testifying in the committee.

        In any case, when you eliminate the “Sure” from his response, his response to the question in no way provides an answer.  How about it, can Tiny Tony (thanks Rick!) provide an honest and relevant answer the question that was posed?

        The only good thing you can say about Clement is that he didn’t schlep his own backdrop into the committee to enhance his testimony, but probably only because he doesn’t have the intellectual acuity of Jason Kenney (which sadly I don’t think is setting the bar high) to have thought of doing so.

  11. “I have verbal types of speech that I use…”

    We all do, Tony.  Except the telepaths, of course.  Dirty telepaths.

  12. In this one instance Tory Tony is right.  His use of “Sure” in this instance was like saying, “I have heard and acknowledge your question.”  It doesn’t mean his eventual response was any more or less truthful the the “Sure” did not confirm the positive affirmation of what had been said directly before by the other party.

    … Adn I hate this government so if I am willing to accept this case then it must be pretty solid.

  13. “Theres no apologies in politics “Its no comment ” and” media event proposals”Actually Teflon Tony is an apology of a politician and could we get an apology from those who elected him!

Sign in to comment.