tom zytaruk

Dona Cadman, Feb. 2008. “In an interview with CTV News yesterday, Dona Cadman stood by her story, outlined in the book, that the Tory officials had met with her husband to woo his vote. ‘Two gentlemen had visited him, offered him a million-dollar life insurance policy and a few other things,’ said Cadman, who is the Conservative candidate in the Surrey North riding once held by her husband. Asked whether she considered it a bribe, she responded, ‘Yes, in a way.’”

From the Hill Times.

Courtesy of the Hill Times, we now know what Tom Zytaruk thinks about the is-it-or-isn’t-it-a-gag-order settlement agreement that ended the Prime Minister’s lawsuit against the Liberal Party: 

.. in today’s edition of Surrey Now:

The NDP’s Joe Comartin raised the matter of the Cadman tape in QP today, focusing his efforts on Pierre Poilievre’s privileged statement of a day ago.

After QP today, Liberal house leader Ralph Goodale was asked to comment on Pierre Poilievre’s assertion, repeated in the House this morning, about the veracity of the Cadman tape.

From this afternoon’s Question Period.

It will come as no surprise to ITQ readers that  we concur entirely with Colleague Wells that Tom Zytaruk deserves a full public apology, and the sooner the better. We also find ourselves nodding in enthusiastic agreement with the words of Former Colleague Radwanski over at the Globe and Mail, who points out that the lawsuit that the Prime Minister filed against the Liberals, and the resulting libel chill, led the rest of us to “let it slide” — with the end result that, more than a year after the allegations first surfaced, we’re no closer to knowing what actually went down during that chaotic week in May 2005.

Tom Zytaruk on the demise of the Prime Minister’s lawsuit.

Calling all law-talking guys (and girls) – actual, amateur and armchair alike:

I finally managed to track down Dona Cadman’s second affidavit, which was sworn last Wednesday. I was going to say that there are no real surprises in it, but actually, that in itself was a bit of a surprise. I’ll admit that I was expecting a little more in the way of context – maybe a more detailed description of how — and where — Zytaruk and Harper met, since that appears to be the most significant disagreement between the two versions of events. Then again, it is billed as a supplementary affidavit. The exhibits might be helpful, though. I’m trying to get hold of them, and will post them if I do.

Okay, so I wish I could say that, after typing up the various eyewitness accounts of that fateful September afternoon encounter between Stephen Harper and Tom Zytaruk, I’m a little less confused over what, exactly, happened, but sadly, that’s not the case. Oh well, it was worth a shot — and who knows, maybe someone else will be able to tie this mess of loose ends into a pert little bow.