Sunday, June 05, 2005

The smoking transcript

As everyone knows, the Conservatives have released two versions of Grewal's meeting with Dosanjh and Murphy. The first (tm-ud meeting.mp3) was altered somehow, with large sections cut out. It was accompanied by a transcript (2Conversation-TimMurphy-UjjalDosanjh-GurmantGrewal.pdf), which has been widely circulated. When it became clear that the first tape had become adulterated, it was removed from Grewal's site, and a new (presumably unadulterated) tape was made available there instead (GWTM.mpga).

Below I compare half a page of the transcript (a scan has been mounted here--thanks, Ryan!), with the equivalent time markers: "[transcript 35'53]" indicates the point on the tape that went with that transcript (tm-ud meeting.mp3). I have also given time markers for the new tape, where (42:20) indicates the minute and second in the new tape.

I give these time markers so anyone who wants to check my work can. Italics mark what was missing in the transcipt and the original tape, but cut out of the original. xxx mark words that I can't make out, with xxx marking one word; xxx xxx, two; etc.

[transcript 35'53] (new tape 42:20)
UD - I think that suits. Do you want us to spell out? Are you happy with the kind of understanding that Tim has given me you?

[transcript 35'53]
GG – If you Asking about happy -- NO -- but I do understand what he is saying. Happy I will be when I know, not exactly, but some sort of nature of what kinds of things happen after that. (42:46) What's the time frame? what will happen? Those sorts of things, you know. I will, I may not sit independent for very long, and it will be in my best interests to be there where I wanted to be

TM – Yeah.

GG – It will be in your best interests, too. (43:00) Sitting independently, in xxx while I’m there – I, I don't think that I'll stay there comfortably

TM. But you know… but that makes sense.

UD Actually, Belinda has given you an opportunity to not go independent

GG Yeah, exactly. (43:14) If we're going to do it, let's do it properly.

TM Yeah.

UD I don't have a problem

GG I will not do anything half-heartedly, I have not done so ever and I won't do it. (43:21)

TM And that's fair

UD That's right, I think that
[transcript 36'10] Belinda has opened that door. If you were going to do it without Belinda. The other scenario for your credibility would have been better.

GG Tim, I was telling Ujjal that Belinda being leadership candidate, being with high profile. In my situation, two of us are the only Sikh people; the xx, very active. Ethnic communities, BC-wise, Ontario-wise, it will have impact on other ridings too. (43:49)

TM I know that a little bit…

GG The benefit will be much, much, much different than Belinda.

TM Yes, I agree with you. I know that a little bit. (43:56) You may not know this, and I'm not even sure Ujjal does. I used to be a Liberal party organizer in my history. In 1990 in the Liberal leadership for our party between Martin and Chretien, I mean, obviously, one of the communities that was very _active_ was the Sikh community. And I got to know a little bit about the connections that were across the country in the community. And so I accept what you're saying. (44:19)

GG - (44:20) If you go to anywhere in Canada, and the call goes out, people will give you a reception.

UD - Do you two want to talk? Do you want me to leave for a few minutes so you two?

TM - No
, no it doesn’t matter.

UD - (to TM) I mean, he want things spelled out and its pretty difficult to do.

(44:30) GG. Let, let, let's. I will not argue over things like that, but Tim ... Ujjal, I'm contradicting your advice a little, uh, but the understanding is that (if possible), um, my wife would get a preference? for that adjustment?, possibly in the, in the senate. So that the, that’s the understanding. But Ujjal told me not to, you know, mention like this. I understand why he's, you know, doing that.

[transcript 26'25]
GG That is one thing, but clarity is always better. It does not harm either of us.

TM That’s right

[transcript 36'30]
GG When you review that understanding -- how you communicate -- will be up to you. I don’t want to be either left in dark or perceiving something which may not be the situation actually. So what we know what we are doing then we are -- it makes it more comfortable to say yes or no.

GG (in Punjabi) xxx xxx? (pause) OK. (45:29). So, (pause)

TM (45:30) And for you?

GG. For me, uh, whatever you think is, uh, reasonable or appropriate. (pause) Uh, (pause) I may be eligible for pension soon, in about 8 years, 9 years, (45:23) but if this is some–, um, my xx has been informed that I will want credit ever since I’ve got elected, and until recently. So that will need some verification?

[transcript 36'56]
TM - Well I have to there is a challenge around the senate per se, that is not to say other options are not possible. I mean in truth we have a single BC vacancy with some potentially -- we don’t literally have a vacancy after that year and a half, I think.

UD - a year?

[transcript 36'56]
TM – in that range. It’s Jack Austin, the next retiree, and, I mean our problem is that we have already talked to someone about the existing vacancy. We haven’t appointed the person as it is a bit unseemly to do so when, you know, when literally the government, you know, could fall, it just felt like the wrong time so we didn’t proceed. Um, but it's, um. Now, I understand what you are saying in terms of wanting some sense of security and that’s, uh, you know, for your wife, and that is understandable. And so that, so security is the kind of thing you can look at.

GG - (47:08) I do not want to be rude or anything, but I thought that it’s a, it's a sense of security. It could be, it could be a question, you know, in decision making.

TM – Yeah, no, I understand. (47:21)

(cross-talk)

UD – xxx xxx the important thing, that will be considered. That’s what he’s saying. Security is something that, um, that must be considered.

[Transcript 38'34] (47:34)
TM: No, I understand what you are saying, you're saying that security matters.

GG: The reason is, that in my party we are the only two Sikhs, ethnic-minority, woman, from BC.

TM: Yeah

GG: So, the work that I've done. I've not burnt any bridges in my party. (47:53) My party does appreciate the work that I have done. My leader does appreciate -- took the bullet for me for this case, which nobody really does want. You know that.

TM: Yeah.

GG: And Joe Volpe … as my leader told me to, you know, be quiet and he will take the bullet for me, and he did. And normally it doesn't happen that way. So I'm having brighter future if we have a government. You know that. So, I think, if I'm doing it, then its kind of what I may be accomplishing where I stay. (48:25) I stay where I am. So if I cross the floor and then have some sense of equivalent security.

TM: Yes

GG: Anyway, so we leave it there

UD: (48:35) And his wife is not going to win her seat, if she's a Liberal?

TM: Yeah, no, I understand that

GG: I may; she may not.

TM: Yeah

GG: If I'm Liberal in my riding, I'll win, easily (with emphasis),

UD: If he decides to run… if he decides to run…

TM: Yes

GG: That is, hypothetically, if I'm in cabinet

TM: Yes

GG: and I'm running as a Liberal in the next election. Not a problem. (pause) (49:04) Anyway, so we'll leave it there. I'll leave it up to you, but I think the Joe Volpe thing needs time (pause) and principle, I'd say. If it's done sooner than tomorrow, then we're making -- if we're to make an announcement tomorrow, I'm prepared because this was done the day before.

TM: Yeah

UD: Do you want to talk, are you comfortable with what Tim has said to you, then?

GG: What's that?

UD: That security matters.

GM: Yeah

GG: Yeah

[transcript 38'53] (49:29)
UD: You
agree security matters, he agrees security matters.

----

[Ed. some minor corrections for clarity]

P.S. For the last half page of the transcript, there are about five minutes of unedited transcripts left. If anyone wants to edit them, please do. (Mrs. Buckets is getting a little pissed about how much time I've been spending on this.)

6 Comments:

Blogger Mike said...

That's pretty obvious. Grewal was most certainly fishing for a senate for his wife and a cabinet post for himself, but Murphy and Dosanjh wouldn't say so explicitly or guarrantee anything...

Our pet theory of how this came about is getting stronger. I wonder if ther is a technical way to isolate voices to see what was said in the cross talk?

4:59 PM  
Blogger buckets said...

Actually, there's not much there. I could probably sort it out if I spent a little more time with this.

5:07 PM  
Blogger buckets said...

The place that needs improvement is where Grewal is talking about his pension. I'm sure a fresh set of ears would help.

5:09 PM  
Blogger Mark Francis said...

Has the media covered this segment yet?

5:20 PM  
Blogger buckets said...

Not that I know of. (I'm kind of surprised that no reporter has done what I did: listened to the new tapes and took notes.)

6:25 PM  
Blogger Mike said...

sorry buckets,

I've been re-reading so much of this and it's changing so often, that even when its new it looks "obvious" to me.

Ugh.

I have to agree, though. Why hasn't any reporter, who supposedly gets paid to do what you did, do it?

6:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home