Buckets was right: Harper told Grewal to stop taping on the morning of the 17th

Update: Actually, Buckets was wrong. Harper was incorrect when he said that he told Grewal on the 17th to stop taping. It was the 18th. (See here).

Hi all. You may have noticed my long post yesterday here, in which I deduced that Grewal's offer to Harper to tape the Prime Minister must have been made before his conversation with Dosanjh and Murphy since it is relatively clear from that recording that Grewal expected to speak to Martin at the beginning of the conversation, but that this possibility had become remote by its end.

Looking through old material I found Harper's original statement to the media about what and when he learned about the tapes. His comments of June 1 (the day after the Conservatives had released the edited version of the tapes) were rebroadcast on the CBC radio show, the Current the next day. (The episode page, with a link to the audio, is here; a direct link to the audio here). This is Harper's statement from 5'29 of that clip

Harper: Gurmant approached me at our caucus meeting on Monday, May the 16th, and told me—it was just the end of the meeting--he had something important to tell me about his discussions with the Liberals. I didn’t have time to talk to him then because I was on the way to the airport. I said I’d call him the next morning. And at that point he told me that, uh, he had the option of meeting that evening with—he and Nina--of meeting that evening with the Prime Minister to discuss Liberal offers. Mr. Grewal, Gurmant, said to me in his conversation, when he told me that he taped these, uh, conversations, he said to me that, uh, he had the option of meeting that evening with the Prime Minister. And, I think, the tapes make clear that that offer was on the table, even though the Prime Minister said that’s not the case. I think it’s up now to the Prime Minister to come clean on that or explain why he hasn’t been telling the truth on that. But I believe that and I’ll just mention one other thing, Gurmant did ask me if I wanted him to meet with the Prime Minister and I said no. Thanks.

This clears up the question of whether Grewal had spoken to him on the 16th or 17th that we we raised yesterday (here). They spoke, it seems, on both the 16th and the morning of the 17th, though to judge from Harper's description of the exchange, the discussion on the 16th was very fleeting.

This means, however, that Harper's instruction to Grewal to stop taping came before he had made any of the tapes of his conversations with Dosanjh and Murphy.

(It probably also means that Grewal misled Harper: it is clear that he did not yet have a firm date to meet with Paul Martin, as becomes clear from the conversation with Dosanjh and Murphy.)

[edited slightly for clarity]

Who approached whom (revisited)?

Grewal claimed from early on that the Liberals had approached him and tried to lure him into changing parties. Contact started, apparently, with Sadesh Kalia, a prominent member of the Surrey Indian community and a Liberal. Grewal says that the Liberals contacted him through Kalia; Dosanjh and the Liberals claim the opposite. Who is telling the truth?

Sadesh Kalia, the go-between, says that the Liberals are telling the truth, and that Grewal approached him (see here for the archived CBC story).

Kalia's version of the story has been corroborated by Amrik Sangha, whom Kalia had to contact in order to get Dosanjh's cell phone number, something that both Kalia and Sangha have publicly affirmed (see here and Maritime Liberal's transcript of the story on CBC National).

If it were Grewal's word against Dosanjh's, we could flip a coin. As it is, it is Grewal's word against Dosanjh's, Kalia's, and Sangha's. It was probably Grewal, then, who initiated the negotiations.

To this may be added another point. Consider what Tim Murphy had said to Grewal on May 17th (p. 5):

TM - The second thing is and I want you to know this and again that remains in this room that this discussion we only have. I don't even know if Ujjal knows this, there are others in your caucus who have asked “I will do this if you will do this or that or the other thing,” and we have said no, period. Right? In truth, I don't think that actually serves us or that individual well, right. Because, it has been a kind of, you know, they have asked for a reward outside of politics and I just don't think that's--the Prime Minister does not think--that's the right thing to do. I want you to know, you might say there is an element of trust in what's been happening here, but there's a reason for that, because frankly it's better for us to be honest with you, frankly it's better for someone like you to work on that basis. I don't know if you agree with that, Ujjal. I don't even know if you knew that, and I ask that you not talk to your other caucus members about that. That there, some of them are getting close to retirement or less interested in battle and are looking for a way out and we have said no to them.

Here is the point. When Murphy says other Conservatives had approached the Liberals with offers to cross the floor that the Liberals denied, isn't he assuming that Grewal had done the same thing?

By the same token, consider what Dosanjh says to Grewal over the phone on evening of the 17th (here):

as I said earlier, no Prime Minister would ever want to compromise himself with that kind of, um, appropriate approach, um, because he want to be able to say, you know, ‘I didn’t make a deal with anybody, there was no deal’. You came and we accepted you, if that happens. (my emphasis)

Again, isn't Dosanjh talking as if both he and Grewal know that it was Grewal who was approaching the Liberals?

Technical difficulties

Which tapes did Grewal make after Harper told him to stop?

Update: My argument below is probably wrong. Harper was incorrect when he said that he told Grewal on the 17th to stop taping. It was the 18th. Thus it is not absolutely clear whether any of the tapes come after Harper's instruction. (See here).

The last few days have coughed up a little bit of extra detail about Grewal's tapes and Harper's approval (or--as is more likely--lack of approval). Reviewing the evidence, I think that the likeliest explanation is that Harper and Grewal spoke on the morning of the 17th, shortly after the news of the Belinda defection but before meeting with Dosanjh and Murphy at 1 pm. Grewal offered to get tape of the Prime Minister; Harper told him to stop taping; Grewal went on to tape about an hour-and-a-half of discussions. Here is why I think that.

Several days ago Grewal said this in his interview with the Surrey Leader:

Once he began taping the conversations, he says, he informed Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who approved the ongoing efforts. He said he stopped short of trying to tape prime minister Paul Martin. "We didn't want to damage the reputation of the country, so we decided not to tape the prime minister," he said. "Mr. Harper said, 'Gurmant, I think we end it there now.' "

This was contradicted by the Conservatives' office, as is reported by the Edmonton Sun:

Harper's office insisted yesterday the leader only learned about the taping when Grewal offered to tape the PM, not before. Harper instructed him to stop immediately after he learned of what was going on, said spokesman William Stairs. "Harper said 'No, I think that would be a very bad idea and I think we should put an end to this,' " Stairs said.

Grewal then issued a clarification that we discussed yesterday that says that Harper did not approve (here).

So, pulling together our few scraps of in formation:

• Grewal had already made some tapes when he informed Harper (at least the Kalia phone calls, and maybe more)
• Grewal mentioned to Harper the possibility of taping Martin
• Harper told him not to.
• This may have been on the 16th or 17th (see here)

One approach to the question might be to consider whether this phone-call came before or after the meeting with Dosanjh and Murphy at 1 pm on the 17th. When he spoke to Harper, Grewal offered to tape a conversation with the Prime Minister, and a conversation with the PM is a subject that comes up in the Dosanjh-Murphy tape. The context, I think, is suggestive. Grewal and Dosanjh are waiting for Tim Murphy to arrive; they've already discussed the day's big story, Belinda's defection, which was announced less than four hours ago, and how it affects their negotiations (it makes it easier). They had met to discuss matters the night before for pizza, and now, 2'37 into the conversation , they return to where they had left off the night before (p. 1 of the transcript, here or here):

GG - Anyway, let's talk

UD - I talked to the PM moments ago. He said he is going to Regina right now and he said he will be happy to talk to you over the phone tonight or in person if you want to move. I think you should have thorough conversation with Tim.

GG - OK

UD -Tim is the Chief of Staff, it's just like talking to the Prime Minister

The way this is brought up, I think, suggests that the prospect of a conversation with the Prime Minister had been mentioned the night before, Dosanjh is confirming the necessity of such a discussion, and restating the involvement with Murphy as a necessary pre-cursor.

A little bit later (at about the 4 minute mark, p. 2 of the transcript: here or here) ,

UD - But you will do the right thing. I will push as far as I can. At the end, I don't control those things. That is why it is important for you to meet him and, after, the PM. He just told me now that he will talk to you after the discussion if everything is alright.

GG - Ask who?

UD - If it appears there is some understanding. If there is no understanding, there is no use to talk to him.

The red, by the way, marks what was edited out of the May 31st tape and transcript, and it contains what I think is the vital point. Before this point, Grewal could have expected a conversation with Martin. After this point, he knows that he can only talk to Martin once there is an 'understanding'--that is, after Grewal commits to crossing the floor.

If there was any ambiguity about this, Murphy repeated not long after he arrived (p. 5 of the transcript):

TM: That's why I wanted to come 2 reasons - one is, PM was quite happy to do this, but literally he is going to get a plane to meet the Queen, but he is prepared, depending on how the conversations go, to talk to you directly both by phone and subsequently in person as you, as we see it fit.

Later, after complaining bitterly about Volpe and demanding an apology as a precursor to further negotiations

GG - We don't have much time.. if the apology...-work it out today, for example, Tomorrow I may be talking to the big guy and the road will be clear for us to make any decisions.

Which Dosanjh picks up on and corrects

UD - I think you should really focus on - my sense usually is and Tim correct me if I'm wrong, that much of the discussion is carried on generally with you, and then when you see the big guy that we are close to an understanding.

TM - Ya, that's right.

The negotiations reach an impass when Grewal won't negotiate further without an apology, and Dosanjh and Murphy say they can't arrange an apology before an understanding is reached:

UD - May I say this? I never bargain about these things, you guys. I am not a good negotiator. But that we would be able to prevail upon him to do that if we know we have an understanding and you're coming. Then I think Tim or I or anyone else will talk to him and say do this, we need it.

And

UD - Can I say something, what Tim is saying to you and what I understand is Tim is saying, is that we can make him do that [i.e., make Volpe issue an apology] if there is a deal and he will do it before the deal is public.

TM - Yes

UD - So that I'm using very simple language

GG - I understood that. My point...

UD - So, I think that before we talk to him, to do that, we need to have a deal in place. We should have a deal in place here and with the Leader you simply, actually formally... [inaudible]

In rest of the conversation, however, no understanding is reached: Grewal asks for a senate seat for Nina and is rebuffed, and his open hints at a cabinet post for himself are not picked up. (Again, you can read the whole thing here).

What this means, however, is that the prospect of a meeting with the Prime Minister was dimmer at the end of the meeting than at the beginning. In light of this, Grewal's offer to Harper to tape the PM came before this discussion. But with Grewal's offer came Harper's order to Grewal to stop taping.

But Grewal continued taping. Why? That is something that is unclear. But the fact that he defied Harper is noteworthy and (I think) yet another sign of how unreliable and dangerous Grewal is to his own party.

Martin: Grewal tapes story different every day

Tories change story on Grewal every day: Martin

TIMMINS, Ont. (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin says he's not concerned by new reports surfacing on the Gurmant Grewal secret tape scandal. Martin says the Tories have never been clear on the unsavoury affair, in which Grewal secretly recorded a cabinet minister and the Liberal's chief of staff as they supposedly offered up a plum position to switch sides.

Grewal now says he made the tapes against the instructions of Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper.

Grewal made the statement Thursday to clarify an interview with a B.C. newspaper, which reported that Harper had approved the taping.

Martin dismissed the comment while visiting Timmins, Ont., saying the Tories have contradicted themselves repeatedly on the issue and that he'll let them handle "their own problem."

Harper would not comment on what position he had taken on the taping.

Martin gave little weight to Grewal's attempt to distance Harper from the scandal.

"The Conservative story changes every day, it's impossible to follow what they're saying," Martin said.

"There's no consistency in it, they contradict themselves virtually within their own statements."

"I think I'll just let them handle their own problem," Martin continued.

Grewal claimed that Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, Martin's chief of staff, had offered him and his wife Nina, also an MP, positions if they joined the Liberals just before an important budget vote May 19.

Grewal issued the statement Thursday to clarify an interview he gave to a B.C. newspaper, which reported Harper had approved the hidden tape recorder.

"When I told Mr. Harper that I had an opportunity to meet with and tape the prime minister, Mr. Harper told me to end the taping process," Grewal said in the statement.

Harper has defended Grewal in the past, saying Liberal staff members should know all conversations are on the record.

The RCMP and Ethics Commissioner are investigating the taping.

More questions about Harper's knowledge and Grewal's credibility

We have a cluster of apparently contradictory stories today. The central questions are:

1. When did Grewal tell Harper about the tapes?
2. When did Harper tell Grewal to stop taping?
3. Did Grewal continue to tape after Harper had told him to stop?

The story broke because Grewal said this in his interview with the Surrey Leader:

Once he began taping the conversations, he says, he informed Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who approved the ongoing efforts. He said he stopped short of trying to tape prime minister Paul Martin. "We didn't want to damage the reputation of the country, so we decided not to tape the prime minister," he said. "Mr. Harper said, 'Gurmant, I think we end it there now.' "

The Conservatives quickly contradicted this when contacted by the Edmonton Sun:

Harper's office insisted yesterday the leader only learned about the taping when Grewal offered to tape the PM, not before. Harper instructed him to stop immediately after he learned of what was going on, said spokesman William Stairs. "Harper said 'No, I think that would be a very bad idea and I think we should put an end to this,' " Stairs said.

This led to a new statement (if anyone sees a copy of Grewal's clarification, could they email me at bucketsofgrewal@mac.com) that is mentioned in the same Edmonton Sun article:

Grewal issued a statement late yesterday, clarifying that he did not seek or obtain Harper's approval for the secret taping.

And in today's Globe and Mail story:

In his clarification yesterday, Mr. Grewal said he informed Mr. Harper of what he was doing, but that "no approval was sought or given."

Clearly someone in central office caught the interview and forced the quick retraction.

Some, of course, will use this to cast doubt on Harper's version of events. It seems likelier to me that this is another example of Grewal's tendency to embellish one he's given center stage.

Grewal press release: Grewal considers legal action against Dosanjh

Mr. Grewal has uploaded a new press release on his website (you can see it here). Apparently Grewal feels his interveiw with the Parliamentary ethics commissioner went well. But there is a bit of a surprise at the end of the press release. Dosanjh (according to Grewal) is considering suing for libel; Grewal threatens a counter-suit:

Press Release

Grewal meets with Ethics Commissioner Shapiro

Newton-North Delta MP - Gurmant Grewal today announced that he has concluded his in - depth interview with Ethics Commissioner Dr. Bernard Shapiro related to the tape recording of Liberal efforts to buy his critical budget vote in May 2005.

Mr. Grewal reports that the detailed interview went very well in every respect. Grewal also indicates that he is satisfied with the process being undertaken by both the Ethics Commissioner, and the RCMP regarding his recording of attempts by Liberal Cabinet Minster Ujjal Dosanjh, and Tim Murphy, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, to purchase his Parliamentary support in May of 2005.

Grewal fully expects that the conclusions of the investigation into the Dosanjh-Murphy taping will support his claims related to this affair.

In a related matter, persistent rumours are circulating that Ujjal Dosanjh might be planning to mount a legal libel suit against Mr. Grewal. While Mr. Grewal is himself seriously considering legal action against Mr. Dosanjh, he is nonetheless committed to allowing Commissioner Shapiro to conclude his work and report unhindered. He hopes this will occur as expeditiously as possible.

Edmonton Sun: Harper told of tape sting: Grewal

The Edmonton Sun:

By KATHLEEN HARRIS, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA -- Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal has dragged his leader into the ongoing tape scandal, suggesting Stephen Harper was advised of his covert activities.

The B.C. MP told his local Surrey newspaper he informed Harper about the secret taping, and that the boss instructed him to stop only after he raised the possibility of recording Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The article said Grewal told Harper when he began taping, and that his leader "approved ongoing efforts" but later did not want to damage the reputation of the country by involving the PM.

Grewal has been embroiled in controversy for recording his private discussions with Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, the PM's chief of staff, about possible rewards for crossing the floor to the Liberals. Grewal insists he had no intention of leaving his party and that it was a scheme designed to expose the Grits for offering bribes.

Harper's office insisted yesterday the leader only learned about the taping when Grewal offered to tape the PM, not before. Harper instructed him to stop immediately after he learned of what was going on, said spokesman William Stairs.

"Harper said 'No, I think that would be a very bad idea and I think we should put an end to this,' " Stairs said.

Grewal issued a statement late yesterday, clarifying that he did not seek or obtain Harper's approval for the secret taping.

Grewal ignored Harper order

The Globe and Mail reports that Grewal has issued a clarification to his interview with the Surrey Leader:

By BRIAN LAGHI
Friday, July 29, 2005 Updated at 5:00 AM EDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa — Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal continued to secretly tape talks with a Liberal Party official over the possibility of switching parties last May even though he says his own leader told him to stop.

In a statement released yesterday, the British Columbia MP said that Stephen Harper told him to stop the taping after Mr. Grewal said he had the possibility of taping Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"When I told Mr. Harper that I had an opportunity to meet with and tape the Prime Minister, Mr. Harper told me to end the taping process," Mr. Grewal said in the statement.

According to the dates of conversations on his own website, Mr. Grewal met with and taped a conversation with Tim Murphy, Mr. Martin's chief of staff, the next day.

Yesterday's admission suggests that Mr. Harper has continued to keep Mr. Grewal in the party even though the MP appears to have disobeyed him.

Mr. Grewal issued the statement yesterday as a clarification to an interview he gave to a B.C. newspaper.

The newspaper story said Mr. Harper had approved the efforts to tape Mr. Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh over talks that would have seen him move to the Liberal side of the House.

In his clarification yesterday, Mr. Grewal said he informed Mr. Harper of what he was doing, but that "no approval was sought or given."

Mr. Harper himself told the media earlier this year that he spoke with Mr. Grewal on May 17, the day before the last Murphy taping, when the Conservative Leader was in Regina meeting the Queen during her visit to Western Canada.

Mr. Harper did not say at that time whether he forbade Mr. Grewal to continue to tape.

He said he did not know that Mr. Grewal continued to make recordings, but defended Mr. Grewal all the same, saying Mr. Murphy should have known that all conversations are on the record.

He also said he was not aware that Mr. Murphy had been recorded subsequent to his May 17 chat with Mr. Grewal.

"My view in this business is that you assume you're on the record at all times," he said.

Asked yesterday if Mr. Grewal had broken the rules set down by the leader, a spokesman for Mr. Harper said that would be up to the party's MPs to decide.

"That's a decision that he and the caucus will have to make -- what to do," William Stairs said. "I can't speak for him."

Mr. Stairs said the real story is the role Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Murphy played in the drama, and their discussions of a possible reward for Mr. Grewal should he cross the floor. Mr. Grewal could not be reached for comment last night.

Meanwhile, the Conservative caucus meets next week and the Grewal affair is almost certain to continue to be among the discussions. Some MPs have quietly expressed concerns that Mr. Grewal has become a drag on the party in British Columbia.

The RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner are investigating the taping matter, which led to Mr. Grewal leaving the Commons for a short time on stress leave.

The B.C. MP has been involved in a number of controversies over the past few months, which he says are attributable to a Liberal smear campaign. In the B.C. article, he said he has every intention to run in the next election.

What did Harper know and when did he know it (revisited)?

One of the questions that was raised at the height of the Grewal circus was whether Harper knew about the taping, approved of it, or had been involved in any way in the editing of the tapes (or some combination of those three). I have generally been sceptical of any suggestion that Harper knew an awful lot about Grewal's antics--partially because I thought he was smarter than that.

In this recent his recent interview with the Surrey Leader, however, Grewal's openly admits that Harper knew of the taping, approved of it, and decided when to bring the taping to an end (here):

Once he began taping the conversations, he says, he informed Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who approved the ongoing efforts. He said he stopped short of trying to tape prime minister Paul Martin. "We didn't want to damage the reputation of the country, so we decided not to tape the prime minister," he said. "Mr. Harper said, 'Gurmant, I think we end it there now.' "

This made me go back through the old stories (collected and posted here by Bear of Blankout Times) and noticed a small report that I had missed. In a story about reactions to the Grewal affair, the Hill Times reported on June 13:

Mr. Harper in a scrum after a caucus meeting on June 1 told the reporters that he became aware of the existence of the tapes on Tuesday, May 17 when he had a telephone conversation with Mr. Grewal. According to the dates of the tapes released, Mr. Grewal kept on recording the conversations with the senior Liberals on May 17, 18 and 19.

Geoff Norquay, director of communications to Mr. Harper last week refused to comment whether Mr. Grewal had permission from his leader to record those conversations after he was informed on May 17. "No comment,"said Mr. Norquay.

Another report, however, reports a slightly different date. On June 1, the CBC (archived here) reported:

Harper said Grewal informed him of the tapes on May 16, three days ahead of the crucial vote, and asked whether he should take a meeting with Prime Minister Paul Martin to discuss crossing the floor. The Conservative leader said he told his MP no.

So, did Harper approve of Grewal's taping on May 16? or May 17?

If the question, as Kevin Michael Grace has put it (here) is what did Harper know and when did he know it, then we may be a little closer to knowing something that he knew and roughly when he knew it. (Grace, by the way, is the topic of an interesting exchange in the comments in Zerbisias' blog here.)

But the 16th or 17th? That one day is not a triviality. If Harper OKed Grewal's taping on the 16th, that would mean that he approved of all of the taping of his parliamentary colleagues. (Grewal's tapes from the 15th and 16th are his phone calls with the go-between, Sadesh Kalia.) If the approval came on the 17th, the degree of Harper's complicity is less clear: did he OK the taping of the conversation of Dosanjh-Murphy (which took place that day), or was he presented with a fait accompli, then approving of the rest of the exercise? [Update: Grewal has now retracted his statement that Harper knew and approved of the taping, see here]

This is, of course, not the only question about Harper's involvement. We still need to know (as (KMG asked) how much he knew about the editing of the tapes. Approving Grewal's recordings was just bad judgment. Approving of their fraudulent editing would be a serious breach.

Whoever allowed this picture should be fired.

I can see the Liberal flyer already.

Grewal interviewed by The Now

Another interview by Grewal, who is sticking to his talking points.

Libs called MP '35 times'

Tom Zytaruk

"They will say anything and do anything to discredit my reputation," the embattled Conservative MP for Newton-North Delta told the Now. "All the whistleblowers go through this."

Gurmant Grewal says the recent blizzard of negative news reports about him highlight the federal Liberals' determination to deflect public attention away from "their own sordid and corrupt political standards and political actions."

Grewal has so far weathered a political and media storm unparalleled in recent history after he made tapes of conversations he claims reveal the Liberals tried to bribe him in exchange for his vote, prior to the nail-biting confidence vote in the House of Commons in May.

"Very unfair treatment has been inflicted upon me by my political opponents and the less-than-diligent mainstream national media over these couple of weeks in the past," Grewal told the Now.

He claims the Liberals are trying to "divert the attention away from the fact that they were caught on tape offering rewards or incentives in exchange for our vote."

The RCMP is reviewing the tapes. Grewal said he wanted to put the taping issue into proper context.

"For the last nine years I have been approached by the Liberals many times," he said. "On two or three occasions it was a very serious offer and I ended that discussion by thanking them, 'Thank you very much, I'm not interested,' end of the matter. I didn't do any recording, I didn't report in the media or anything like that. But I told my leader, I told my board members."

But that, he said, would change after Conservative MP Inky Mark was allegedly offered a diplomatic post if he changed his vote. This alleged incident wasn't taped. So, Grewal says, he got prepared. Grewal claims the Liberals called him 35 times in three days - strange behaviour, he says, for someone not making an offer and wanting to say no to any overture Grewal might make.

"Why would it take the Liberals so long to say no?" he said. "Why would they have meeting after meeting after meeting with me, and telephone calls - three dozen calls made to me, as the record will show - why would they do that? How long does it take to say no, when they wanted to say no? So that itself reflects that they were the ones who were making the offer."

Grewal says he handed over the original tapes to the Conservative Party right away. "I didn't have any input on what should be released and when it should be released, but the fact of the matter is these tapes are very damaging to the Liberals," he said.

On stories concerning whether the tapes were doctored, Grewal notes, professional audio engineer Randy Dash found them to be clean and unaltered and said he couldn't conclude there'd been any editing.

Jim Abbott, Conservative MP for Kootenay-Columbia and chair of his party's B.C. caucus, stands behind Grewal. On Monday, Abbott said he considers Grewal to be among the top 10 of all MPs "in terms of dedication."

"I am standing by him because I have taken a look at all the evidence," Abbott said. "It really bugs me," he added, that Grewal is being sidetracked by "unnecessary garbage." Any "fair-minded" person, he added, can see that "basically this is nothing more than a smear job by the Liberals."

Since the taping incident two months ago, Grewal has been implicated in six scandals; the first involving his practice of requiring constituents to agree to post bonds in exchange for his help in obtaining visitors visas for their relatives, to guarantee their return. An inquiry by federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro found no bonds were purchased, no fee was charged and no attempt was made to redeem the personal guarantees. Shapiro found "Grewal's intention was not to benefit personally but rather to implement some due diligence measures."

Grewal noted that "the story simply disappeared after the ethics commissioner cleared me of any wrongdoing."

The second scandal involved an incident at Vancouver International Airport. He said the media reported he had multiple packages and was going from person to person asking them it they were going to Ottawa. "That was not the case. Nothing happened at the airport, no one complained, no one had any issue."

He said he resents that the Richmond RCMP cleared him in less than 48 hours but it took Transport Canada nine days to do the same. He questions how the story broke so quickly after Air Canada presented him with a "personal and confidential" letter concerning the matter.

He also claimed the media failed to contact him or his party for his side of the story.

Meanwhile, old allegations surfaced concerning immigration investments issues - allegations Grewal says are false and ones he plans to sue over.

And recent stories about "new tapes" are bogus, Grewal said. "I don't have any new tapes."

Grewal said the RCMP simply wanted his personal copies of the tapes he'd already given them, and he had his lawyer turn them over.

But stories about Grewal's "new tapes" gave the impression he'd been hiding something, said Dane Minor, who ran Nina Grewal's election campaign.

"What they reported is, Grewal turns over more tapes, and then it's kind of, 'What could be on those tapes? Could it be the famous missing_could it be so-and-so on the grassy knoll_," Minor said.

Some media reports concerning missing donation receipts failed to note the complainants had Liberal ties, Grewal told the Now, and that non-receipt cheques payable to MPs complied with the rules in 2003.

In all this, Grewal claims, the national media "was manipulated by the Liberal spinmasters to publish rumours, innuendoes and even lies rather than digging out for the facts."

Brian Archer, who sits on the Conservative Riding Association Board for Newton-North Delta, says the taping was an "unprecedented event" and adds "it doesn't take much to figure out there's a pattern here - to discredit the messenger."

Grewal noted the CBC national news had a four-minute segment "slamming" his ethics for taping the Liberals while later in the same newscast they ran a story praising someone else in a similar situation.

Said Archer, "The lead story is Gurmant and taping, and how improper and untoward it was for a member of parliament to be doing this to expose corruption in government. Two or three segments later, they're praising an Ontario government employee for outing corruption within the OPP, using tapes."

Grewal was beside himself. "Can you believe that?" an exasperated Grewal asked. "Unbelievable."

"The next story will say that when I was in high school I didn't pay my library fine on time," he laughed. When this reporter inquired if that's true, he chuckled, "Maybe, I don't know.

"When I am exonerated I will be able to stand up again, with my chin up," Grewal said.

Grewal: Conservatives released the tapes in order to prevent other MPs from crossing

As noted, Grewal has given an interview to the Surrey Leader, a community paper serving Surrey and North Delta. For the whole story, see here.

In the course of the interview, Grewal makes a rather surprising admission:

But Grewal also revealed that the Conservatives hoped the revelation of the vote-buying tapes would put the brakes on any further Conservative defections after Stronach's stunning departure.

The Tories heard the Liberals were in talks with more in their ranks and both parties were scrambling to shore up support ahead of the critical confidence vote.

"We had a political crisis also taking place," Grewal said. "If we had not done it the way we did, maybe three or four other MPs could have moved to the Liberals like Belinda Stronach has done."

This is, I think, the first time that this has been offered as an explanation for the tapes--that they were meant to make it impossible for other Conservatives to follow Belinda across the floor.

It is interesting that we've had two new explanations added to the record within a few days: that the Conservatives felt that there were other defections coming, here, and Grewal's need to avoid the fate of Inky Mark (see here.)

Grewal: tapes backfired because 'we were short of time'

As noted, Grewal has given an interview to the Surrey Leader, a community paper serving Surrey and North Delta. For the whole story, see here. One interesting section alludes to the tapes backfiring:

But instead of shining a spotlight on Liberal corruption, the Grewal tapes soon backfired. The Tories released selected segments and transcripts - fuelling a perception that they were hiding damaging material.

"We were short of time," Grewal said. "When you do this kind of thing, admittedly errors do happen."

They ultimately released all the recordings, posting them both on the web and providing them to the RCMP. But Grewal says that created an incorrect impression that he hoarded a full set of tapes he only released later.

Everyone will have to decide whether this makes much sense. It seems to me, however, that a review of the chronology casts doubt on this explanation:

• Grewal tapes meeting with Dosanjh and Murphy (May 17)
• Grewal tapes meeting with Murphy (May 18)
• Conservatives release first 8-minute segment (May 19)
• Conservatives release edited version of the tapes and transcripts (May 31)
• Conservatives release full version of the tapes (June 2)
• Conservatives release full version of the transcript (June 5)

It took the Conservatives less than a single day to identify, prepare, and release the 8-minute segment of the tapes that was most embarassing to the Liberals. Why did it take them two-weeks to release the rest? Because they were editing the tapes. Once the edits had been exposed, they were able to release a full version within two days and a transcript in another three. (For the differences between the edited version of the tape and its full version, see the slide show).

So, they were 'short of time'? They wouldn't have been short of time if they had not set out to mislead the public by doctoring the tapes a preparing a version that cut out:

• Embarrassments to Grewal personally, such as things that make him sound vain (here), or whinging (here), or too calculating (his statement that he is 75% ready to make a deal, but that "the other 25% depends on what happens next" (p. 11, here).
• Anything that show him requesting that he and his wife were offered a cabinet post and a senate seat, respectively, or the Liberals saying that they wouldn't grant one or the other (here);
• Politically inconvenient admissions, such as Grewal's statement that even staunch conservatives in his riding were not keen to have an election (here), or that there were good things in the federal budget for BC (p. 4), or that recent news about the economy was reasonably good (p. 5).
• Things that reflect positively on Murphy or the Liberals. The public should not hear a Liberal praise an honest man for being an honest man here, or display his obvious affection for the Sikh community, or declare that the Prime Minister will not make certain kinds of rewards because he "doesn't think it's the right thing to do" (p. 6)

If they had not spent so much time editing these things out, they wouldn't have been short of time. Mind you, unedited tapes wouldn't have accomplished the desired objective.

Grewal: Harper approved of taping and orchestrated its end

As noted, Grewal has given an interview to the Surrey Leader, a community paper serving Surrey and North Delta. For the whole story, see here

Perhaps the most striking new point in the interview is Grewal's statement that Harper knew of the taping, approved of it, and decided when to bring the taping to an end.

Once he began taping the conversations, he says, he informed Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who approved the ongoing efforts.

He said he stopped short of trying to tape prime minister Paul Martin. "We didn't want to damage the reputation of the country, so we decided not to tape the prime minister," he said. "Mr. Harper said, 'Gurmant, I think we end it there now.' "

Grewal interviewed by Surrey Leader

Thanks to Al, who emailed me to point out this story at the Surrey Leader. There are several new points here that I will address shortly.


Voters 'will appreciate my guts...'

CHUNG CHOW/THE LEADER
Newton-North Delta MP Gurmant Grewal says he will seek re-election next spring and predicts voters will see through the torrent of allegations against him.

By Jeff Nagel Black Press
Jul 27 2005
MP Gurmant Grewal will run again despite political damage

Gurmant Grewal says he will trust his constituents to see through what he calls the "lies and spin" about him opponents have fed to an either willingly partisan or incompetent news media. The Conservative MP for Newton-North Delta predicts he will emerge clean from ongoing investigations since he secretly taped conversations in which he alleges top Liberals tried to buy his vote.

And he says voters will then pass the final judgment as to his character when they go to the polls in the next election.

"I am going to run," he told The Leader in an interview Monday. "After the positive resolution of these issues I am sure my constituents will appreciate my guts and courage."

"They will appreciate my honesty and integrity. And they will reward me for my hard work."

Confident words for a man many observers have written off as political road kill. Grewal denies his career has been mortally wounded. "I have been cleared from so many so-called investigations already," he said. "On Air Canada, I'm absolutely cleared. The bonding immigration issue I am cleared. The cheques issues is now cleared."

And he predicts the investigation arising from his secret taping will also exonerate him and instead put the Liberals on the hot seat. "It is the mother of all my troubles," he said.

The tapes scandal - in which Grewal in May recorded a series of phone conversations and meetings with health minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, the prime minister's chief of staff about possible rewards if he and his wife MP Nina Grewal crossed the floor to join the Liberals - has triggered investigations by the RCMP and the federal ethics commissioner.

The explosive revelation came just after Tory MP Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to join the Liberals, and just before she and Surrey North MP Chuck Cadman helped the Liberals narrowly win a crucial May 19 budget vote and stave off an election. But instead of shining a spotlight on Liberal corruption, the Grewal tapes soon backfired. The Tories released selected segments and transcripts - fuelling a perception that they were hiding damaging material.

"We were short of time," Grewal said. "When you do this kind of thing, admittedly errors do happen."

They ultimately released all the recordings, posting them both on the web and providing them to the RCMP. But Grewal says that created an incorrect impression that he hoarded a full set of tapes he only released later.

In fact, he says he gave the Conservative communications office everything he had immediately.

Grewal says the RCMP's later request for tapes were for personal copies identical to the ones he had already provided.
"There are no 'new' tapes," Grewal said, calling it one of the elements the national media in particular has most persistently misreported.

Since then a series of other allegations against Grewal have emerged - often from Liberal-connected complainants - questioning the legitimacy of his immigration status, political contribution cheques and his behaviour at the airport one day in June. The nine-year MP says his foes are motivated by a desire to keep the public focus away from both the sponsorship scandal and the taped evidence that the Liberals engaged in vote-buying.

"It's an attempt to smear and destroy the messenger in the hopes that by destroying me the public will forget the real story is about bribing a Member of Parliament," he said. "I didn't break any law by taping - they broke the law by offering a bribe."

Grewal denies he ever contemplated crossing the floor to join the Liberals. He says this occasion is just the latest of three or four attempts by the Liberals to lure him across since 2003.

Once he began taping the conversations, he says, he informed Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who approved the ongoing efforts.

He said he stopped short of trying to tape prime minister Paul Martin.

"We didn't want to damage the reputation of the country, so we decided not to tape the prime minister," he said. "Mr. Harper said, 'Gurmant, I think we end it there now.' "

Grewal said he was already performing a delicate dance to keep Liberals convinced of his interest and keep the talks going, and trying to implicate the prime minister would have been more complex.

"It would also have been risky," he said. "The prime minister would have his security. It could have blown up in my face that I had a tape recorder. I was playing with fire."

Publicly exposing the sting ended any chance to involve the RCMP or other authorities.

But Grewal also revealed that the Conservatives hoped the revelation of the vote-buying tapes would put the brakes on any further Conservative defections after Stronach's stunning departure.

The Tories heard the Liberals were in talks with more in their ranks and both parties were scrambling to shore up support ahead of the critical confidence vote.

"We had a political crisis also taking place," Grewal said. "If we had not done it the way we did, maybe three or four other MPs could have moved to the Liberals like Belinda Stronach has done."

Grewal maintains the Liberals will face serious repercussions as a result of the tapes. It is an affront to democracy when someone is trying to buy a vote of a Member of Parliament by bribing that Member of Parliament."

Exposing the practice, he said, is why he has been under fire on so many fronts.

Still, Grewal doesn't believe he has passed a point where it is impossible to recover and remain electable. "The public opinion is going to change," Grewal predicts. "I am quite confident that with the right information they are going to make the right decision."

VISITOR VISA PLEDGES

What he did: Revealed in March he has accepted pledges from constituents to put up money guaranteeing overseas visitors didn't overstay their visas. Immigration minister Joe Volpe called for an investigation of the unauthorized practice.

Outcome: The ethics commissioner found in June no actual money ever changed hands and largely cleared Grewal. Although the MP claims he was fully cleared," the report called his actions an error in judgment that created some appearance of possible conflict-of-interest.

Unfinished business: Grewal's private members' bill, which would legitimize the practices, is to come back to Parliament for a vote.

VOTE BUYING ON TAPE

What he did: Secretly taped top Liberals, including health minister Ujjal Dosanjh and PMO chief of staff Tim Murphy, during talks in May about what might happen if he crossed the floor. They discussed possible cabinet or diplomatic posts, but the Liberals were cautious not to guarantee an explicit trade for his vote.

Outcome: RCMP and the ethics commissioner are investigating.
Unfinished business: Findings of the two investigations. Possible legal action between Grewal and Dosanjh.

AIRPORT SECURITY INCIDENT

What he did: Passed through airport security at YVR June 4 and asked another passenger to carry an envelope to Ottawa for him.

Outcome: RCMP quickly cleared Grewal but it took Transport Canada another nine days to issue a finding that no contravention occurred" - a delay Grewal says kept the non-story" in the media.

IMMIGRATION INVESTMENT

What he did: Entered Canada as an immigrant investor by buying into a business in Surrey in 1992. The ex-partner claims the money was kicked back. Grewal says he sold his shares legally about 10 months later. Complainant is a business partner of Grewal's Liberal challenger in the last election.

Outcome: Even if the claim could be verified, so-called transient capital schemes weren't technically illegal at the time.

Unfinished business: Grewal plans legal action against his accusers and a formal complaint against CBC to the Canadian Broadcast Standards board.

CHEQUE CONTRIBUTIONS

What he did: Accepted cheques in 2003 outside election campaign period addressed to him personally without supplying a receipt. Grewal endorsed the cheques over to pay for a hall rental. Key complainants are active workers for Ujjal Dosanjh.

Outcome: Elections Canada said the law at the time did not require receipts be issued outside campaign periods. But some receipts were either issued by the party or Elections Canada or are being issued after the fact.

Notes on The Now's interview with Nina Grewal

As I noted, Nina Grewal has granted an exclusivve interview with the Now, which I've quoted in full here.

First, it is worth noting Nina's choice of venue. The Now is a bi-weekly free paper serving Surrey, White Rock, and North Delta. Hence we can assume that the primary purpose is to reach out to local voters. A similar purpose seems to lie behind Jim Holt's letter to Conservative party members in Gurmant's riding (as I noted here). In itself this is unremarkable. The question remains how well this can be expected to work--an interview in a local paper will not sway locals as much as a single item on the nightly news.

Second, the tone is similar to the Holt letter. Both complain about unfair treatment at the hands of the media and hint darkly at a conspiracy against them:

In an exclusive interview at her constituency office Thursday, Nina Grewal complained of media bias and Liberal spin-doctoring. The result, she said, is that people "are focused on stupid things" and not on the real issues.

Nina defends Gurmant's actions as courageous, and (again like Holt's letter), mentions Inky Mark:

"This time, since they had come and talked to numerous MPs, and they had talked to Inky Mark, a member of parliament, and he didn't have any evidence, so this time we wanted to catch them red-handed, so that's what he (Gurmant) did."

Since the Inky Mark episode was, as far as I can remember, first cited as a motivation for the taping in Holt's letter, we should probably assume that they are co-ordinated.

Third, the story mentions a recent interview with Shapiro about the tapes:

Both MPs appeared Thursday before ethics commissioner Dr. Bernard Shapiro in New Westminster to testify about the tape recordings.

I take that to mean that this took place on July 21st.

Fourth, Nina restates her non-involvement in the taping: she was out of town.

Grewal said she wasn't at the meetings between her husband and the Liberals and had nothing to do with the tapes. "I didn't participate in the conversations," she said. "I wasn't there at all." In fact, she added, she was in Ottawa at a training session when Gurmant met the Liberals in Vancouver.

I assume that she's gotten this backwards and that she was in Vancouver while the meetings were taking place in Ottawa--or perhaps the reporter's gotten in wrong.

Fifth, Nina mentions coming nominations:

Despite this "nightmare," as she puts it, Grewal says she and her husband still plan to seek re-election. Even if Gurmant Grewal decided not to, she said hypothetically, " If he wants to do that, let him do that. I'm doing my own thing."

Exactly what this means is unclear--that Gurmant is thinking of not running? (But if that were the case, the Holt letter would hardly have been a wasted effort.) Or perhaps this is meant to rally supporters--'no, no, Gurmant, don't quit!'. (Frankly, however, I suspect it is more likely to be local Liberals who will be making that plea.)

Sixth, an argument from Grewal's campaign manager that we've heard before:

"The big mistake in this is there's too much. We've got a guy who for eight years was flawless and all of a sudden he releases tapes and there's six scandals in less than two and a half months? It's too much, and I think what eventually will happen is once he does get cleared the public is going to take a look and say 'All those stories that quick? Something was wrong.'"

The number 6 is again repeated from the Holt letter. (It is, I have to say, a strange argument: "Your Honour. The fact that my client is charged with six offenses not one is proof that he has been framed.")

Nina stands by her man

From the Now comes an interview with Nina Grewal. (There's a few new things here.)

Nina stands by her man

Tom Zytaruk

The Surrey MP on whom the Globe and Mail newspaper bestowed a degree in "political silence" last month is coming out loud and swinging in an exclusive interview with the Now, over the media storm swirling around her husband and fellow MP, Gurmant Grewal.

Nina Grewal, Conservative MP for Fleetwood-Port Kells, has been targeted by the national media for not speaking up on behalf of her husband - who's been at the centre of a political perfect storm since May - after he made public taped recordings of conversations between himself and Liberal officials in which he claims attempts were made to coax him across the floor.

The MP for Newton-North Delta went on stress leave after becoming front-page news for secretly taping conversations with Liberal Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, the prime minister's chief of staff, in May. The tapes are being reviewed by police to determine who offered what, if anything, in exchange for Grewal's vote.

Since then, Gurmant Grewal has made national headlines in connection with no less than six scandals, some of which have proven to be bogus. Grewal himself maintains he's the victim of a campaign to discredit him because he blew the whistle on the Liberal government.

Both MPs appeared Thursday before ethics commissioner Dr. Bernard Shapiro in New Westminster to testify about the tape recordings.

In an exclusive interview at her constituency office Thursday, Nina Grewal complained of media bias and Liberal spin-doctoring. The result, she said, is that people "are focused on stupid things" and not on the real issues.

"It's just been a roller coaster for us, just a nightmare," she said of the past couple of months. "It's so difficult to stand by and watch people destroy the reputation of someone you really care about, who you love so dearly. It's really scary."

Grewal said her husband "did the right thing" in the taping incident. "You need someone with guts and courage. I highly admired him for that, what he did. Everyone is worried about their job and here Gurmant, he has the guts. And all of us do admire him - especially his sons - that dad, he did the right thing."

Since her husband was first elected in 1997, she said, the Liberals have approached him "three or four times," trying to get him to change parties. But with the confidence vote coming up last May, which would determine the fate of the Liberal minority government, the stakes were suddenly much higher.

"This time, since they had come and talked to numerous MPs, and they had talked to Inky Mark, a member of parliament, and he didn't have any evidence, so this time we wanted to catch them red-handed, so that's what he (Gurmant) did."

But when Gurmant Grewal dropped his taping bomb, he couldn't have known how big a hole it would make. In the aftermath, the national media has had a Mordor-like eye on the couple ever since, coming to their Surrey home and "looking through windows as if we are murderers out there."

"We haven't done anything wrong," Nina Grewal said. "All we did was we caught them (the Liberals) red-handed." She appeals to people to use their "common sense" in examining the taping scandal.

"Why would Gurmant go through a third party - an insurance agent?"

"He's been a member of parliament for almost eight, nine years now. He's got better people so that he can tell 'I want to join the Liberals.' He could have gone to the Prime Minister straight."

Asked how the stress of the media and political onslaught has affected their marriage, Grewal couldn't hold back the tears. "As you know, marriage is that you have to go through thick and thin. We are a united family," she cried. "It's really very tough on us, especially my children and my family."

"When you haven't done anything wrong and the people are after you day after day, writing such unfair stories which have no legs to these stories, it is terrifying." The result has been many sleepless nights. "We are going through hell, that's for sure," she said.

The couple is unique in Canadian political history in that they are married MPs representing side-by-side ridings. She realizes she's a "pioneer," still, she wants people to know she's her own woman and resents being treated like Gurnina.

Grewal said she wasn't at the meetings between her husband and the Liberals and had nothing to do with the tapes. "I didn't participate in the conversations," she said. "I wasn't there at all." In fact, she added, she was in Ottawa at a training session when Gurmant met the Liberals in Vancouver.

But that didn't stop the media's relentless pursuit of her, she said.

"They tangled Gurmant in that web, they also wanted me to be tangled in that web."

She's "particularly troubled" about a story that appeared in the Globe and Mail on June 11, headlined "Nina Grewal's degree in political silence." The story, she said, claimed "I'm just a silent person not talking on anything. Why would I, when I was not part of this controversy?"

"The Globe and Mail did that hatchet story on me _ I'm such a silent person out there, I don't speak, I'm a dummy MP, and I won't let them do that to me."

Asked what she considered to be the worst day in all of this, Grewal replied, "the whole thing was the worst for me."

Still, one incident particularly came to mind: "The CBC, they chased on me, I was in the washroom and they just put the cameras on the washroom that Nina's going to come out_they were after me all the time."

Despite this "nightmare," as she puts it, Grewal says she and her husband still plan to seek re-election. Even if Gurmant Grewal decided not to, she said hypothetically, " If he wants to do that, let him do that. I'm doing my own thing."

What has she learned through this process? "One should not shy away. Somebody should be there to show people what's going on behind the scene. You need the guts, that's all."

Darlene Bowyer, president of the Conservative Riding Association for Fleetwood-Port Kells, hopes the RCMP investigation into the taping is finished before an election is called. If not, she said, "we don't have enough time to clear their names because they (the media) have reported all this stuff."

Dane Minor, Nina Grewal's campaign manager, expects a reckoning in all this. "The big mistake in this is there's too much. We've got a guy who for eight years was flawless and all of a sudden he releases tapes and there's six scandals in less than two and a half months? It's too much, and I think what eventually will happen is once he does get cleared the public is going to take a look and say 'All those stories that quick? Something was wrong.'"

Notes on Holt's letter 8: new Grewal tapes and the RCMP

As everyone now knows, Jim Holt has written a long memo to local conservatives defending their MP. (You can read the whole thing here; to download a copy of the circulated Word file, go to Bound by Gravity.) Holt believes that the media has seriously mis-reported six aspects of the Grewal story, much to his disadvantage. One of these has to do with a National Post story that Grewal had surrendered new tapes to the RCMP in mid- to late June.

According to Holt,

"More Tapes Released: In a continued effort to keep the spotlight on Gurmant, and AWAY from Ujjal Dosanjh and PMO staffer Tim Murphy, the media released a story last Friday that our MP had released "new tapes". This of course, in the absence of any sort of even minor investigation by the media, led to all sorts of speculation that there was something that was being hidden. Nothing could be further from the truth!! All Gurmant did, via his lawyer, was forward to the RCMP his personal copy of all recordings, likely so that they could compare that set to the official set already in their hands. Given the lack of substance in this story, it didn't seem to have much national exposure, and it died a rapid death in about one day. But some additional damage was done. This story also raises serious questions regarding just how the media found out that the RCMP had requested this extra set of recordings from Gurmant's lawyer. "

What Holt doesn't mention is why people might suppose that there are tapes that have yet to be made public.

To review. Grewal originally claimed to have made 4 hours of recordings. On May 31st, the conservative party released one hour and fifteen minutes of them (see here). After these were shown to have been altered, the conservatives issued a press release of June 2 (the so-called suicide note) and released longer versions that brought the tapes to one hour fifty minutes (see here).

The conservative press release identifies two passages as being inadvertently omitted from the Grewal-Dosanjh-Murphy recording. One of these can be found there (only after much difficulty: see here). But the press release quotes another section that found in the updated transcript of that meeting:

I've combed over this recording many, many times, but can find nothing that is remotely similar.

Now, given

• that Grewal claimed to have recorded more than has been released to the public, and
• that the Conservatives themselves have quote part of a conversation that seems never to have been released,

it is not surprising that news that Grewals had submitted other copies of tapes to the RCMP might cause people to assume that this is something that has not been released to the public.

Notes on Holt's letter 7: Grewal's visa-bond scheme and the Ethics report

As has been well publicized, Jim Holt, president of Grewal's riding association, wrote a lengthy memo to riding Conservatives defending Grewal that was released last week. (You can read the whole thing here; to download a copy of the circulated Word file, go to Bound by Gravity.)

One paragraph in Holt's letter concerned the controversy surrounding a system that Grewal set-up to before he'd help contituents get temporary visas for visiting relatives. Holt's writes

In spite of a flood of negative press and completely unfounded accusations by Liberal Immigration Minister Joe Volpe [Buckets: for Volpe's letter see here], it is now a matter of public record that Gurmant Grewal did absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, or unethical regarding his practice of obtaining a pledge from residents hoping to sponsor offshore visitors on a short term Visitors Permit. …. As the Ethics Commissioner outlined in a detailed report dated June 22, our MP was completely cleared of any and all charges that were improperly advanced by our political opponents, or perhaps of even greater concern, reported in the national media.

Like any political communication, of course, Holt's letter has 'spin'. This does not necessarily mean that it is not true or partially true. In itself 'spin' can cover a wide spectrum of communicative acts--anything from telling your side of a story to being deliberately misleading. Where in this spectrum does Holt's act fall? I encourage you to make up your own mind. Here is a scan of the conclusion to Shapiro's report (pp. 7-8, with a slight formatting error at the page break):


Holt insists that "Grewal did absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, or unethical" in this affair and the Ethics Commissioner "completely cleared [him] of any and all charges". I encourage you, of course, to make up your own mind. But on my reading at least the Ethics report is not uncritical of Grewal and can hardly be characterized as 'clearing' Grewal. Here is my summary of the conclusions:

1. There is no real conflict of interest.
2. Grewal's scheme created an apparent conflict of interest and made the immigration politicies in regards to temporary visas less clear to constituents. "MPs must be careful not to develop unsanctioned supplmental requeirement to statutory regimes."
3. Grewal did not aim to benefit personally
4. Grewal's behaviour, therefore, falls under the "mitigated contravensions", that is, he has breached the code through inadvertence or poor judgement.
5. "Mr. Grewal has not fully complied with an obligation under the Code, but I believe that his actions were an error in judgement …. [H]is intentions, however misguided, were reasonable.

Finally, I note the concluding sentence: "I recommend that Mr. Grewal find a way to inform his constituents of the change in his practice." This presumably remains to be done.

Harper willing to fight for little except for Grewal: senior Tories

From Maclean's, Paul Wells reports on the Calgary Stampede and what he heard there:

The love affair between Paul Martin and Calgary -- remember that? -- has faded. For the first time in four years, he didn't show up at the Stampede. But that's old news. The new news is that Stephen Harper is a disappointment too. Over dinner, some senior federal Tories mourned their leader's willingness to fight for very little except Gurmant Grewal. "The sad thing is that the party's looking past Stephen now," one said. "There's no appetite for trying to remove him before an election, but who thinks we can win?"

The opinion of these 'senior federal Tories' confirms my earlier suggestions that the true significance of the Holt letter is that it implies serious Conservative concerns about the way the Grewal affair was handled.

An introduction to Quellenforschung (source criticism)

One of the posts in which I take the most pride is An Introduction to Textual Criticism, in which I demonstrate that at least five different versions of the Murphy-Grewal recording have existed. The post was for me a nostaglic moment, since it brought back memories of my happy days as an undergraduate when  I studied this stuff.

Although I enjoyed writing that post greatly, it went over like a lead-balloon. In those happy days in which Buckets' posts seemed to race up the 'charts' at Progressive Bloggers--I once had five of the top six, iirc--'Introduction' sank like a stone.

So it is great trepidation that I try to apply another research tool that I learned at the U. of S., Quellenforschung (lit. 'source-research') or 'source criticism'.

The basic principle here is that the credibility of a historical source is only as good as its source. If x reports that y did something, and z repeats the claim relying solely on x, only the value of x's opinion that needs weighing. No matter how many times this particular piece of datum is repeated, its historical value is only as good as that of the original report--a point that the blogging world would do well to remember. To put it another way, statements must be weighed, not counted.

This may seem like an obvious point, but its place as an axiom of historical method was first recognized by Barthold Niebuhr in the 19th century, revolutionizing the study of history, turning history from a branch of literature into a social science.

Anyway, there are some places where this principle can be profitably applied in two recent documents, both written by Jim Holt, president of Grewal's riding association, one to Terry Milewski, a reporter in the CBC (see here), and one to Holt's fellow conservatives (here).

Take, for example, this piece of information from Holt's letter to riding Conservatives assuring them that there was nothing to the story that Grewal had handed new recordings to the RCMP(here):

…the media released a story last Friday that our MP had released "new tapes". This … led to all sorts of speculation that there was something that was being hidden. Nothing could be further from the truth!! All Gurmant did, via his lawyer, was forward to the RCMP his personal copy of all recordings, likely so that they could compare that set to the official set already in their hands.

Quellenforschung (source criticism) demands that the historian asks how Holt knows this. Clearly, there are only three possible sources: the RCMP (not likely), Grewal's lawyer (impossible without Grewal's permission), and Grewal himself. Only a moment's reflection is needed to recognize the obvious: Holt's source must have been Grewal. But Quellenforschung also requires that those who want to rate the believability of this report remember that they are not evaluating Holt's credibility, but Grewal's. And that is for many a problematic proposition.

There are other places where the same principles apply. Sometimes, the source is easy to spot--Holt tells us as much. Writing to Milewski about this cheque, Holt says:

Further, Mr. Grewal is adamant that the words "For Fund Raiser" which appear on the memo line of this cheque must have been added at a later date (which would be ever so easy to do, and with the actual cheque in the right formal investigative hands, would also be ever so easy to verify).

What is Holt's source? He tells us. Grewal assured him that the cheque had been tampered with. Holt believed him. Quellenforschung reminds us, however, that believing this story is accepting not Holt's word, but Grewal's. Again, many have a problem with that.

One final example. Holt reports that it was Inky Mark's treatment at the hands of the Liberals convinced Grewal that he had to tape the conversations that he had with them (see here). Again, what is Holt's source? The only possible source for what was in Grewal's mind is Grewal himself. So again, the historian of the Grewal affair is put in the position of accepting Grewal's explanation. Many, given his track record, will have trouble with that.

Why was Holt's letter sent now?

In case you haven't noticed, the president of Grewal's riding association, Jim Holt, has circulated a long-detailed memo defending Grewal. The document is quoted here (with hattips to Public Eye Online and Bound by Gravity, where you can download the original Word file.)

My first post on this 'memo' (here) got one important fact wrong that I should correct here. Holt's four page memo was sent not to constituents, but to party members. That difference is not trivial. The memo is an impassioned plea for the membership to support Grewal. Why does Holt have to send this letter to them at all? Indeed, doesn't the very existence of this memo imply profound dissatisfaction within the rank-and-file?

Let us accept, for a moment, that this is the case. The question becomes, why now? The negative stories about Grewal in the press were much worse six weeks ago, when the tapes episode was at the height. Conservatives managed to remain moderately loyal to Grewal then. What changed?

My guess--and if you have a better idea please suggest it in the comments--is that many in the Conservative ranks were profoundly disappointed to see Grewal in the headlines again, just when it seemed the story might be fading from the public's memory. We've seen similar thing amongst the Blogging Tories. The story that Grewal gave new tapes to the RCMP (which has been clarified by Holt's letter) drove Brent Colbert to call for Grewal's head, as did the story about Grewal's electorial financing did for Andrew at Bound for Gravity. This latest story about Grewals' election also elicited a quick denunciation of Grewal by conservatives in BC, including MPs (see here). This is more or less admitted by Holt in his opening paragraph:

As you are very well aware, the past few weeks have not in any way been pleasant for our elected MP, for members of our constituency association, for the Conservative Party as a whole, and perhaps even for us as residents of Surrey and North Delta.

Now, Andrew has since withdrawn his criticism as overhasty; Colbert may well have, too. But that is not the point. Surely what is significant here is how many conservatives are turning against Grewal for what are not hanging offenses in the Canadian system.

Why now? The latest two stories -- on the surrender of additional tapes to the RCMP and about election financing--are merely the proverbial straws that broke the back of many a patient conservative camel.

Notes on Holt's letter 6: the CBC story on campaign finance problems

Holt's letter to local conservatives mentions last week's story about alleged problems in Grewal's campaign financing. Here there is much less than in Holt's letter to Milewski, which he mentions:

The CBC contacted our Newton-North Delta EDA earlier last week with information that they were looking into six donations that appeared to be lacking receipts. On Monday, July 11th, a full eight hours before the Donation Receipt story ran on CBC News, that network was handed a detailed written explanation of each and every one of those six cheques.

This helps fill in the time-line for the writing of Milewski's story.

Notes on Holt's letter 5: the RCMP asked for Grewal's personal copies of the tapes

Holt for the first time explains the story of last week when it emerged that Grewal had given the RCMP additional recordings. According to Holt,

"All Gurmant did, via his lawyer, was forward to the RCMP his personal copy of all recordings, likely so that they could compare that set to the official set already in their hands. … This story also raises serious questions regarding just how the media found out that the RCMP had requested this extra set of recordings from Gurmant's lawyer. "

Several new points here. This is the first time that we've heard that the 'new' recordings were Grewal's personal copy. Second (and more interesting) is the statement that the RCMP requested these tapes as part of their investigation.

Notes on Holt's letter 4: no mention of the alteration of the tapes

Holt's letter says nothing about the controversy about the editing of the recordings released on May 31st. The lack of a denial that the tapes were edited or that Grewal was involved might be significant.

Notes on Holt's letter 3: the taping incident

Holt's constituency letter defending Grewal avoids the tapes themselves and does not mention the fact that they were edited, but instead argues that the Liberals had approached Grewal rather than vice versa. There is something new here: Inky Mark.

We must recall the recent, and incredibly nasty response that Manitoba MP Inky Mark endured when he raised the subject of just such activities (Liberal Treasury Board President Reg Alcock dismissed this with an offensive response during an interview by stating: "Frankly, if I was going to recruit somebody I'd go a little higher up the gene pool.". (An outrageous statement that he has since apologized for).

Reg Alcock also demanded "evidence" during the Liberals' response to this incident. Given Inky Mark's treatment, our MP felt that it was vital that the Liberal's entreaties be recorded.

According to Holt, Grewal decided he needed to begin recording his conversations with Murphy and Grewal in part because of Inky Mark.

Notes on Holt's letter 2: Grewal's own immigration

As I mentioned in the earlier post, I will only comment on what seems new in the Holt letter. In the story about Grewal's own immigration--there were allegations that he had gained entry to Canada through a faked investment in a carpet store--we are told (for the first time, I think) that "legal action and a formal complaint to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Board will be undertaken".

Notes on Holt's letter 1: the Airport

As you noticed, Jim Holt (president of Grewal's riding association) has written to party members with a lengthy defense of Grewal. He identifies six issues:

• Bonding for visa applicants
  
• The taping of his conversations with Dosanjh and Murphy
  
• The airport incident
  
• The resurfaced allegation concerning Grewal's own immigration through the investment program
  
• The recent report that Grewal had released "New Tapes"
  
• Allegations about campaign finance

I will not summarize his arguments here, but merely try to point out what new information we have here.

There are new details about the airport incident. According to Holt, (1) Grewal did receive clearance from Air Canada staff to have someone take the package, (2) that he approached only one passenger, and (3) the package was "an open envelope with two CDs".

It is this third item that is the most important. This is the first time that we have a Conservative spokesman clearly state what was in the envelope. (There were reports from sources that it was recordings--but no official statement.)

Jim Holt defends Grewal to Constituents

Public Eye Online has a lengthy memo written by Jim Holt, president of Grewal's riding association, to riding conservatives. The text is as follows. (To download a copy of the circulated Word file, see Bound by Gravity

NEWTON-NORTH DELTA NEWSLETTER
July 14th, 2005

Dear Neighbours,

As you are very well aware, the past few weeks have not in any way been pleasant for our elected MP, for members of our constituency association, for the Conservative Party as a whole, and perhaps even for us as residents of Surrey and North Delta. I am writing this letter to you, along with your fellow members of the Conservative Party constituency association in Newton-North Delta, to help put the proper perspective on the matters at hand.

The purpose of this letter is to outline just what has transpired these past few weeks, and to point out the ruthless, and very unfair treatment that has been inflicted upon our MP, and each and every one of us as members of our party and our local communities, by our political opponents, and also the mainstream media, who were perhaps either unwitting, or less than diligent in their handling of these stories.

In essence, there have been six topics which have been at the centre of an attack on our MP over these past few weeks.

They include:

-- Immigration Bonding Accusations.
-- Taping of Liberal attempts to have our MP cross the floor.
-- An incident at the check-in counter at Air Canada.
-- Old Allegations re Immigration Investment Issues.
-- Release of "New Tapes" by Gurmant
-- Claims re Missing Donation Receipts

Visitor Permit Bonding Accusation: In spite of a flood of negative press and completely unfounded accusations by Liberal Immigration Minister Joe Volpe, it is now a matter of public record that Gurmant Grewal did absolutely nothing wrong, illegal, or unethical regarding his practice of obtaining a pledge from residents hoping to sponsor offshore visitors on a short term Visitors Permit. In point of fact, Gurmant himself actually brought this matter forward in Parliamentary Committee meetings. As the Ethics Commissioner outlined in a detailed report dated June 22, our MP was completely cleared of any and all charges that were improperly advanced by our political opponents, or perhaps of even greater concern, reported in the national media. Indeed, what Gurmant Grewal did was in many ways exactly what many MPs have been suggesting in Committee for some time, namely putting in place some sort of control mechanism to manage short term Visitor Permits. Given our MP's actions, it is now very likely just such a procedure might be introduced regarding foreign visits.

The Air Canada Incident: The "non-incident" at Air Canada, which has been quickly confirmed as such by the Richmond RCMP, Transport Canada, and Air
Canada, clearly indicates the nature in which the reputation of our MP has been maligned over the past few weeks.

This alleged incident indicates the lengths to which our political opponents, and some less than diligent media staffers will go toward trashing the reputation of our MP. The media failed to mention that Gurmant had first cleared his plan with Air Canada staff to send an open envelope with two CDs to Ottawa. They failed to mention that he only approached one passenger that he knew from previous flights (as opposed to the reports he went from passenger to passenger). The media didn't report that the person who did transport the CDs had no problems
whatsoever. And in the initial reports the media conveniently forgot to mention that there was nothing illegal about what Gurmant was doing, as he had already passed the security checks. Another very troubling aspect of this matter is the manner in which the national media continued to treat the incident as an important news event for several days. However, once confirmation contrary to their speculations was released, the media quickly moved on to other matters, and reported the clarifications deep within the print media, or in the case of the electronic media, almost not at all.

The goal of inflicting political damage by negative speculation was achieved once again. Perhaps even more troubling is the rather rapid manner in which the media become aware of the incident in the first place. Serious questions regarding passenger confidentiality, which is a presumed security cornerstone in the new world of passenger air travel, remain unanswered.

Immigration Investment Issue: It is very well known within local media circles in Surrey that this "story" has absolutely no foundation whatsoever, and the individual making the allegation has ties to the Liberal party. It is also interesting to note that the national media failed to properly research the allegation before reporting it. It appears that they failed to even bother to check with members of the local Surrey media for backgrounder information. Suffice it to say that this time, legal action and a formal complaint to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Board will be undertaken to ensure that this particular bit of fictional, partisan and slanderous nonsense is put to rest once and for all.

The Taping Incident: Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter of taping conversations, both the Ethics Commissioner and the RCMP are reviewing this matter in considerable detail. Due to these investigative actions, some degree of discretion must be exercised in commenting on this matter at this time. However, some facts can indeed be discussed. It is absolutely crystal clear that the Liberals approached our MP regarding the possibility of switching allegiances during the crucial Budget Vote.

How else can the Liberals explain the nearly three-dozen phone calls they made to our MP over a three-day period? How many times does it take for the Liberals to say NO, as they so claimed? And this is not the first time that this sort of behavior has been demonstrated by the Liberals, who will do almost anything to cling to power. We must recall the recent, and incredibly nasty response that Manitoba MP Inky Mark endured when he raised the subject of just such activities (Liberal Treasury Board President Reg Alcock dismissed this with an offensive response during an interview by stating: "Frankly, if I was going to recruit somebody I'd go a little higher up the gene pool.". (An outrageous statement that he has since apologized for).

Reg Alcock also demanded "evidence" during the Liberals' response to this incident. Given Inky Mark's treatment, our MP felt that it was vital that the Liberal's entreaties be recorded. However, in Gurmant's case, it appears that for the most part, the media chose not to conduct a serious "front page" examination of just why the most senior bureaucrat in the Prime Minister's Office, and a senior Liberal Cabinet minister were meeting with our MP re budget votes, etc., but rather once again appeared to buy in to the Liberal's spin on the event, and chose instead to discredit the Member of Parliament for Newton-North Delta.

More Tapes Released: In a continued effort to keep the spotlight on Gurmant, and AWAY from Ujjal Dosanjh and PMO staffer Tim Murphy, the media released a story last Friday that our MP had released "new tapes". This of course, in the absence of any sort of even minor investigation by the media, led to all sorts of speculation that there was something that was being hidden. Nothing could be further from the truth!! All Gurmant did, via his lawyer, was forward to the RCMP his personal copy of all recordings, likely so that they could compare that set to the official set already in their hands. Given the lack of substance in this story, it didn't seem to have much national exposure, and it died a rapid death in about one day. But some additional damage was done. This story also raises serious questions regarding just how the media found out that the RCMP had requested this extra set of recordings from Gurmant's lawyer.

The Donation Receipt Story: This story, which broke this past Monday, July 11, shows just what we are up against concerning the Liberal's determination to deflect public attention away from their own sordid and corrupt political actions. They will say anything, and suggest everything in an effort to slam the reputation of our MP. The CBC contacted our Newton-North Delta EDA earlier last week with information that they were looking into six donations that appeared to be lacking receipts. On Monday, July 11th, a full eight hours before the Donation Receipt story ran on CBC News, that network was handed a detailed written explanation of each and every one of those six cheques. Everything was in order, and fully explained, as far as we were concerned. But what did the CBC do? They completely ignored our response, and ran with the story, including letting questions hang out there that we had already fully responded to. It is just unbelievable what the media will do! To make matters even more interesting, it has been confirmed that not only were two of the complainants to the CBC good friends of Ujjal Dosanjh, but one of them actually sits on his constituency association Board. Did the CBC let the public know about this? Did they think that this fact might have some bearing on the quality of the complaints? Apparently, no, not at all!!

To conclude, throughout this entire troubling series of events, two distinct patterns have emerged. The first is that almost without hesitation, the mainstream media have unwittingly or willingly appeared to focus most of their attention on the good name and reputation of our Member of Parliament, rather than on spending the time necessary to properly and thoroughly research the truth of these matters. If such time and effort had indeed been expended, it is very likely that the stories would have had far different outcomes, or not even been reported at all.

Secondly, a distinct pattern is emerging in that we already have five of the above six issues satisfactorily resolved in Gurmant's favour, and I am certain that when the two investigations regarding the taping matter are concluded, the reputation of our MP will have once again been restored. However, his achievements and good record will unfortunately have been ignored.

Where does this leave us as members of our riding association; for that matter, where does this leave us as residents of our communities? Likely not that happy at all!

That is why I am urging each and every one of you as party members to speak out on what has occurred these past few weeks.

Talk to your neighbors, talk to your friends, and let them know just how angry you are at how we have all been collectively treated. Forward e-mails that you will be receiving shortly that will help tell our side of the story. If you are not receiving important email from the riding, send an email with your email address to Jim Holt at jimholt@dccnet.com AND Aubrey Morris at an4morris@dccnet.com with a subject: Fairness For Grewal and a quick thought or message.

Although the media might not publish or broadcast your comments, I urge
you to write a letter to the mainstream Vancouver newspapers, or call in to
the local radio talk shows, and let them know just how angry you are at what
has transpired.

For if we do nothing, then the worst will have occurred; once again the Liberals will have gotten away more unethical and partisan shenanigans, disenfranchising you and ignoring your vote.

This time these outrageous actions have not occurred in Quebec, as the truly shocking Sponsorship Scandal did.

This time these actions occurred right here in our community, and we should not have to stand for this, not even for one moment!

Yours very truly,

Jim Holt,
President,
Newton - North Delta Electoral District Association. Conservative Party of Canada