Rules of evidence

I've long considered Andrew Coyne is one of the country's best columnists: at his best, he is intelligent and vigorous, ideologically clear without being unduely partisan. His blog is less impressive--but that is natural enough. The best material is saved for the paying customers--and rightly so. In his recent blog post on the Grewal affair, he's disappointed.

He begins with the report of Ethics Commissioner Shapiro on the Grewal affair, which says this:

Mr. Dosanjh testified that Mr. Grewal was extremely excited about the crossing of the floor of Belinda Stronach, that morning, and how it was now easy for him to be appointed to Cabinet. However, Mr. Grewal’s account was that Mr. Dosanjh suggested a Cabinet position or diplomatic post for him and a Senate seat for his wife...

and then compares this to reports of how the Belinda deal was negotiated.

Before he got to that comparison, however, he should have stopped. There are rules of evidence. One of them is ad fontem--'to the source'. Why rely on Shapiro's report of Grewal's account of his discussion with Dosanjh, when we have a tape of that discussion? The part of the discussion in question--while Dosanjh and Grewal waited for Murphy to join them--is only eight minutes long. Who is right? Grewal, who claimed that Dosanjh offered him a Cabinet seat, a diplomatic post, and a senate seat? Or Dosanjh, who claimed that Grewal claimed that Belinda's defection made appointing him to Cabinet easy? Let's see.

Here is a transcript and translation of the relevant sections. (Again, my thanks to Sohn, Raj, and Mendeep for their help with the Punjabi.) Yellow, as is my regular procedure, marks text that is absent from Grewal's May 31st transcript, but included in the one released June 5th, and red marks places where my text corrects his (please note that the colouring of the text may be incomplete--some minor differences may be unmarked.) The soundfiles have been archived here, where you can download them and double check my work. (The June 5th transcript goes with the June 2nd tape.)

00:00-00:33 -- (Dead Air)

GG	(00:33) Hello, how are you?	Hello, how are you?
UD	Fine, and yourself? Haal Chaal theek hai?	Fine, and yourself? You are fine?
GG	Haal chaal te theek hai	I am fine
UD	Pher…	So…
GG	(00:38) Pher taan theek hai, tuhaanu taan….	So, it is fine. You…
UD	I didn’t know that last night	I didn’t know that last night
GG	Nahin, Nahin..	No, No…
UD	Honestly, I did not know …	Honestly, I did not know …
GG	Achcha? Last night tusi indicate kar rahe si…	Is it? Last night you indicated …
UD	I said that there are people coming, but I … I'd been told that somebody was, but I did not know who it was.	I said that there are people coming, but I … I'd been told that somebody was, but I did not know who it was.
GG	Lagda hai… ik-adha hor vee hona hai koi	It seems there may be another one or two persons as well)
UD	Newfoundland (?) vaale jehre bande hai	Those people from Newfoundland
GG	untha lai okah ho jaana kanu vote puni or nay puni	for them it is going to be difficult to decide who to vote for or not
UD	(1:23) chah da cup piyoge?	Will you have a cup of tea?
GG	Nahin, nahin, Aapaan chheti kariye, tusi jaana honai	No, no. Let’s hurry up, probably you have to go…
UD	Sure? Tim ne aaune..	Sure? Tim has to come…
GG	koi nahin, aa jaande thodi der vich	Doesn’t matter, he will come soon
UD	Question Period taan do vaje hai ajj	Question Period is at 2 o’clock today
GG	Achcha, te tiyari nahin karni hundi?	OK, but don’t you have to prepare?
UD	(unclear)	(unclear)
GG	Main kiha, shayad note karna painda hovey	I thought, maybe you have to make notes…
UD	Koi nahin, panj-ku minute lagde hai, car vich hee tiyari kar layee dee hai (Pause) (1:50) I … I think, ihde naal tuhade layee easy ho gaya hai…	It’s OK, it takes about 5 minutes, I prepare in the car itself. (Pause) I … I think it [i.e., Stronach's defection] has made the things easier for you…
GG	Haan, ih taan hai	Yes, that’s true…
UD	ihi tusi chahune ho	and that’s want you want
GG	Ih taan hai. Naale do galaan clear ho gayeeyan hun. Ik taan easy ho gaye, dooja, ih hai ki kal nu kujh ih na kahen ki, baad vich karange kujh. hosakdi hai (2:08) right away, ihde layee.	That is true, Moreover, two things have become clear. Firstly, it has become easier. Secondly, they shouldn’t say that they'll do something later. It can happen right away, for her.
UD	(2:11) Cabinet right away hosakdi hai	Cabinet can be done right away
GG	Uh uh	Yes
UD	(2:15) Cabinet right away hosakdi hai	Cabinet can be done right away
GG	Uhu, (2:18) right away ho sadki hai, kyonki vacancy kaafi lambe arsey to chali aa rahi hai, want the Parliament to work, (2:21) shortage hai members di	Yes, it can be done right away, since the vacancy has been there for a long time, want the Parliament to work, there is shortage of members

UD

Actually, you don’t want to lose the advantage. If you do it right away, you lose the advantage of numbers. Those are issues …

Actually, you don’t want to lose the advantage. If you do it right away, you lose the advantage of numbers. Those are issues ….

GG	Anyway, let’s talk
UD	(2:37) I spoke to the Prime Minister and he said he is going to Regina right now, and he will be happy to talk to you over the phone tonight, or in person, if you want to move
GG	Theek (‘right’)
UD	(3:01) I think you should have a thorough conversation with Tim.
GG	OK
UD	Because Tim is the Chief of Staff, it is like talking to the Prime Minister.
GG	Right

UD	Uh jehri right away vali gal hai na, going into cabinet right away is difficult because we don’t want to lose numbers. (3:20)	And as far as “right away” is concerned, going into cabinet right away is difficult because we don’t want to lose numbers
GG	(pause) I understand, dooje pasiyon, … senate* (NOT CLEAR) vakensiyan vee hagiyan ne kujh…	I understand, on the other hand, (in) senate* (NOT CLEAR) there are some vacancies…
UD	Ikko hai, B.C. vich	There is only one, in B.C.
GG	Par hor vee hai ne, bhariyan te nahin saariyan	There are more, all have not been filled yet
UD	chhe sat	six –seven
GG	(UNCLEAR)	(UNCLEAR)
UD	(UNCLEAR)	(UNCLEAR)
UD	Senate vich tan majority bahut hai	There is a big majority in the Senate
GG	Haan	Yes
GG	(3:42) Hun numbering jehri hai uh bahut crucial ho gayee hai kaafi, 151-152	Now numbers have become very crucial, 151-152
UD	(3'56) I think, you should, actually, thoda long term naal socho	(3'56) I think, you should, actually, think long term
GG	Hu, Hu	Yes, yes
UD	Obviously, you would only do if it is the right thing for you. It is always the right thing for us.	Obviously, you would only do if it is the right thing for you. It is always the right thing for us.
GG	Haanji, haanji, personally taan…	Yes, yes. Personally, ..
UD	But you will do the right thing (inaudible). I’ll push as far as I can. At the end I don’t control those things	But you will do the right thing (inaudible). I’ll push as far as I can. At the end I don’t control those things
GG	Haanji	Yes
UD	That why it is important for you to meet him, after the Prime Minister. He just now told me that he will be happy to talk to you, after the discussion, if everything is alright. If it appears that there is some understanding.	That why it is important for you to meet him, after the Prime Minister. He just now told me that he will be happy to talk to you, after the discussion, if everything is alright. If it appears that there is some understanding.
UD	Je na understanding hove ta pher gal karan di lod hee koi nahin	If there is no understanding there is no use talking to him
GG	Ihde naal, Nina naal ih effect paina hai …. (inaudible) , Saade nal ih effect paina haiki (4'48) ethnic minority de vich…(inaudible)	She, Nina, will have the effect that … (inaudible). We will have the effect, that in the (4'48) ethnic minority … (inaudible)

UD	That’s right. It is easier for you to use the same kind of language. This is the time to keep the country together, you can’t line up with the Bloc. You go out on a higher principle. In a sense people might say … (NOT CLEAR). That is not such a bad thing for you. Like one of your former leaders. She was a leader in your party and she is a senior leader.
GG	She was a leadership candidate, yes.
UD	She was one of the leaders in the party

UD	Vaise taa, it is not an easy thing. I wouldn’t. You really have to think. Main aap sochda haan, Waheguru karega taa it might be possible. Nobody will make you totally blunt promise. That is not done is politics usually. (NOT CLEAR). You might be better off for yourself, about asking all you are looking for is for your wife rather than for you, because you will have a pension or something, you can go right away… You can ask for both, but that might be the only thing that might be feasible. I haven’t talked to them, that’s just my way of thinking. Main tuhade naal gal kar riha haan, tusi kidaan karna hai vekh lao. I think you should tell Tim what you have in mind. Edaan nahin kadey vee hunda ki mainu aah cheez chahidi hai taan karoon. Then that’s not good for you. I know that you might not be ready to do it right now you certainly be looking for a significant appointment for her, not for you. How old are you now?	In fact, it is not an easy thing. I wouldn’t. You really have to think. My own thinking is that, if the God wishes, it might be possible. Nobody will make you totally blunt promise. That is not done is politics usually. (NOT CLEAR). You might be better off for yourself, about asking all you are looking for is for your wife rather than for you, because you will have a pension or something, you can go right away… You can ask for both, but that might be the only thing that might be feasible. I haven’t talked to them, that’s just my way of thinking. I am just telling you, you decide what to do. I think you should tell Tim what you have in mind. It never works like this that you give me such and such thing and I’ll do it. Then that’s not good for you. I know that you might not be ready to do it right now you certainly be looking for a significant appointment for her, not for you. How old are you now?
AA	47	47
BB	te tuhadi pension?	And your pension?
AA	Athth saalan ‘ch	In 8 years
BB	Athth saalan lai?	For 8 years?
AA	Athth saalan tak… 55 lug jange	After 8 years… I will be 55.

There is nowhere in the above exchange where (as Grewal stated) "Mr. Dosanjh suggested a Cabinet position or diplomatic post for [Grewal] and a Senate seat for his wife".

The point? Coyne compares two negotiations. He knows next to nothing about either. But he could know more about the one, if he wanted to.

Grewal's pension in the news and in the tapes

There's a story in the Maple Ridge News about BC's nine ex-MPs and their pensions, including

Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, who the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation says will draw a pension now worth $41,215 per year when he turns 55. He also gets severance worth $72,150 because he hasn’t yet reached 55, the age when the pension kicks in.

MPs' pension is not something that I'm normally much interested in--it's usually an occasion for chest thumping and moralization. But given that Grewal's pension came up in the tapes, it would be remiss of me to leave this out, especially since it's something that I haven't brought up before.

This is part of the transcript of the conversation in Dosanjh's office on the 17th. Tim Murphy's arrival interrupts. Again, yellow marks text that was cut out of the May 31st recording and its transcripts. Text in red was left of all transcripts and appears in public here for the first time. The Punjabi was transcribed by Raj, Sohn, and Mandeep. If anyone wants to double check, they can download the files here.

UD	Vaise taa, it is not an easy thing. I wouldn’t. You really have to think. Main aap sochda haan, Waheguru karega taa it might be possible. Nobody will make you totally blunt promise. That is not done is politics usually. (NOT CLEAR). You might be better off for yourself, about asking all you are looking for is for your wife rather than for you, because you will have a pension or something, you can go right away… You can ask for both, but that might be the only thing that might be feasible. I haven’t talked to them, that’s just my way of thinking. Main tuhade naal gal kar riha haan, tusi kidaan karna hai vekh lao. I think you should tell Tim what you have in mind. Edaan nahin kadey vee hunda ki mainu aah cheez chahidi hai taan karoon. Then that’s not good for you. I know that you might not be ready to do it right now you certainly be looking for a significant appointment for her, not for you. How old are you now?	In fact, it is not an easy thing. I wouldn’t. You really have to think. My own thinking is that, if the God wishes, it might be possible. Nobody will make you totally blunt promise. That is not done is politics usually. (NOT CLEAR). You might be better off for yourself, about asking all you are looking for is for your wife rather than for you, because you will have a pension or something, you can go right away… You can ask for both, but that might be the only thing that might be feasible. I haven’t talked to them, that’s just my way of thinking. I am just telling you, you decide what to do. I think you should tell Tim what you have in mind. It never works like this that you give me such and such thing and I’ll do it. Then that’s not good for you. I know that you might not be ready to do it right now you certainly be looking for a significant appointment for her, not for you. How old are you now?
AA	47	47
BB	te tuhadi pension?	And your pension?
AA	Athth saalan ‘ch	In 8 years
BB	Athth saalan lai?	For 8 years?
AA	Athth saalan tak… 55 lug jange	After 8 years… I will be 55.

Now, as is often the case with the editing of the Grewal recordings, it is fairly clear why the yellow had been cut from the May 31st tape and transcript: Dosanjh is assuming that Grewal is doing the asking here, not the Liberals doing the offering. But when the new transcript was prepared, why was the red left out? Presumably because it was something that the Liberals could point to as proof that no clear deal was on the table. Again, however, one wonders why bother. One could read over the sentence without noticing that implication, and leaving it out (when exposed) makes one assume the worst motives.

Appendix
For your comparison, the transcript that was uploaded on Grewal's site on June 5th is here (this transcript goes with the June 2d tape):

And the May 31st transcript:


The soundfiles have been archived here, where you can download them and double check my work. (This passage is about 5 minutes into the June 2d tape.)

weird problem with an old interview of Nina

While going through Ethics Commissioner Shapiro's reports I noticed something odd. Consider this:

Mr. Grewal and Mrs. Grewal both testified that while on their way to Question Period on Monday, May 16, 2005, he informed her for the first time that he had been contacted by Mr. Kalia. Mrs. Grewal’s response was “you’re wasting your time since, you know, we’re not going to be joining the Liberals.”

When did they give this testimony? During the period July 18-22, when Shapiro was in Vancouver. Within a few days of this, Nina gave an interview with the Now newspaper (here, archived here.) The story resulting from was published Monday, July 25:

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.

So she was interviewed by the Now the same day as she had appeared before Shapiro: Thursday, July 21st.

In the Now story about her interview, one finds this:

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.

This is clearly wrong. The meetings with Dosanjh and Murphy took place in the parliamentary offices of Dosanjh and Grewal, respectively.

When I read this the first time last summer, I had assumed that somehow this had gotten mixed up and that she was in Vancouver and he was in Ottawa (see my comments here, obviously wrong since Nina asked a question during question period: here).

But look at what she had said to Shapiro only a few hours before being interviewed by the Now. She told Shapiro that Gurmant and she, both in Ottawa, had discussed the possible defection to the Liberals; what can only be a few hours later she told the Now that they could not have discussed it because they were in different cities.

There may be a perfectly innocent explanation for the confusion: remembrances about specific times and places can grow dim over time. But to have different recollections within a few hours? She could be lying in one case or the other. But for what possible gain? It's baffling.

problems with Grewal's blackberry log

While reviewing the Ethics Report, I noticed that there are unresolved problems with the chronology of Grewal's calls with Sadesh Kalia.

Together with his translation and transcript of his calls with Kalia, Grewal created a log of his calls from Kalia on his Blackberry for the 16th, 17th, and 18th. Here is the transcript for the sixteenth:

It is difficult, however, to reconcile this log with Grewal's six recorded calls with Kalia.

• Grewal's first recorded phone call to Kalia on Sunday, May 15th (here), clearly comes before (A). (There seem to have been earlier calls that either were not recorded, or if they were recorded no tape was released.)
• the second recorded call comes early on the 16th (here and here), therefore before (A)
• the third taped call is a missed call from Kalia which gives its time as 9:04 (see here). Again, it comes before (A)
• the fourth phone call from Kalia gets through (see here. Kalia tells Grewal to expect Dosanjh's call at 3 pm, so this could just be possibly call (E). But this is ruled out by the fact that the next call comes before question period at 2:15 pm. And since calls (A-D) were all missed, this call too (apparently) comes before call (A).
• in the fifth phone call (here), Grewal says that he can't phone Dosanjh right away because he is on his way to question period, which began at 2:15 pm). Since the log includes no received call before 2:15 pm, it too must have come before (A)
• In the sixth phone call with Kalia the pizza date is arranged. It is, presumably, one of (E-I).

What is the meaning of all this? I'm not really sure. Why have a log of calls that seems to have only one of the six calls that it accompanies?

Quick point about Dosanjh's potential lawsuit

As many have noted, Dosanjh is publicly musing a lawsuit against Grewal. From where I sit, it looks to be a slam-dunk of a case.

Except for one niggling fact that I noticed several months ago and have not previously mentioned.

Presumably Dosanjh's suit would be based on Grewal's public statements about what transpired from May 16-18 and that Grewal released documents that had been doctored to make it look like Dosanjh had said something that he hadn't.

Grewal's statement, however, was made within the Parliamentary lobby and, as far as I can tell, his interviews with the press were all given from his office. Parliamentary privilege applies. Grewal cannot be sued for defamation for what he said while within parliament.

What about the documents that he released? I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that an MP (or, in this case, an ex-MP) could claim Parliamentary privilege for documents (transcripts and recordings) released from his office. In this case, the transcripts and recordings were disseminated through his parliamentary webpage. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the courts will extend Parliamentary privilege to cover this.

Update In the comments, BCer and Chimera wonder whether Parliamentary privilege applies to speach within Parliament or only within the Chamber. This I'm finding difficult to determine precisely. Note this Speaker's ruling from 1999:

The Speaker: On Monday, November 1, 1999, the hon. member for Québec East raised a question of privilege concerning the breach of his privileges in relation to a civil suit launched against him by a senator who accused him of distributing defamatory material.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for raising the matter. I also want to acknowledge and thank the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the opposition House leader, the Progressive Conservative House leader, the Bloc Quebecois House leader and whip of the Bloc Quebecois for their contributions on this matter. [snip]
Any attempt to intimidate a member with a view to influencing his or her parliamentary conduct is a breach of privilege. Let me reiterate for all members that privilege is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.[snip]
The position put forward by the hon. member for Québec East suggests that the senator has made an explicit effort to intimidate him by limiting his freedom of speech.

Joseph Maingot clearly states on page 315 of his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, and I quote:

It may be pointed out that in regard to this privilege, a Member's privilege of freedom of speech concerns speaking in the House or Assembly or in a committee. In addition, the Member is also protected when carrying out those duties, as a Member of the House, that have a nexus with a parliamentary proceeding. However, when the Member performs such duties to his constituents and his party the fulfilment of which do not involve a parliamentary proceeding, the Member is not so protected.

I believe that my predecessor, Speaker Fraser, stated matters succinctly on June 10, 1993:

What a Member says outside the House about anyone is subject to the laws of the land relating to libel or slander as it would be for any other Canadian—if indeed the comments are actionable. What Members say in the Chamber, however, is protected by privilege.

Although I view the types of charges raised by the hon. member with great importance, my role as Speaker is limited to dealing strictly with breaches of privilege that occur during proceedings in parliament. In the words of Joseph Maingot on page 105 in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada:

It is necessary for something to be said or done in the transaction of a “proceeding in Parliament” before the Member has Parliamentary immunity.

Since the incident referred to concerns information contained in a document distributed by the hon. member to his constituents, it is quite clear that this did not take place during proceedings in parliament and is therefore not protected by privilege.

What does this all mean?

I think that Grewal's speech inside the walls of Parliament are protected, but welcome correction by those who really know. But if the dissemination of the sound files and transcripts is the equivalent of the document distributed above, it might not be protected.

But someone might read this differently and know better than I.

Ethics Commissioner's report seriously flawed (2): documentary evidence ignored

Andrew Coyne discusses Ethics Commissioner Shapiro's decision today in the National Post, which he reprints in his blog (here). I hope to get time to engage with his piece in a little more detail later.

One point that Coyne rightly skewers Shapiro is on his handling, or non-handliing, of the 'tapes'. We wonders how Shapiro can come to the conclusions he does

when it is not even clear that he listened to the tapes. “[F]rom the outset of this inquiry,” he writes, “I wished to proceed on the basis of obtaining the direct testimony of all of the parties involved before deciding whether it would be necessary to rely on the tapes as primary evidence.” In the event, he “did not consider it necessary … to rely on the contents of the tapes in reaching my conclusions.”

This was the second problem I had with Shapiro's discussion: he seems to happily comment on the testimony of Grewal and Dosanjh about a conversation and pass judgement on that testimony without reference to a complete recording of the whole conversation. This is methodologically perverse. There are rules of evidence. One of the most important of them is that primary evidence trumps secondary--that a recording of a conversation will be more reliable than the participants' memory of it. If he'd bothered to listen to the recording of May 17th's meeting, he'd know that Grewal had lied to him when he said that a diplomatic appointment was discussed (see here), or that it had been Dosanjh who had suggested a cabinet post and senate seat (Grewal had clearly asked for both: here and here.)

Instead, Shapiro engages in a series of one-said-t'other-said and forms his judgement about the reliability or significance of different parties' versions. Now, as it happens, I think he accidentally came to some right conclusions--it is fairly clear from his report that he doesn't believe much of what Grewal has told him. But his report's intellectual and moral authority is undermined by the bizarre decision to treat the tapes.

Ethics Commissioner's report seriously flawed (1): he doesn't answer the question asked

At this evening's Blogger meet-up, I met Andrew Coyne, who mentioned that he has a column coming out tomorrow in which he will slam Ethics Commissioner Shapiro's report. Knowing this blog's work, he said that he assumed that I had a different opinion.

We didn't get a chance to explore this any further, but I think Coyne would be surprised to hear that I have at least two serious problems with what Shapiro has done.

First, let us consider the allegation that he was set

(i) Mr. Grewal sought inducements from Minister Dosanjh or that Minister Dosanjh offered inducements to Mr. Grewal to change his vote on matters before the House of Commons of Canada. (emphasis added)

It seems to me that Shapiro has ignored an important phrase here.

There is nothing in the tapes that suggests that Grewal sought an inducement to change his vote. What Grewal wanted was to change his party, and he hoped to score a senate seat for Nina and a cabinet post for himself in the process. The prospect of Grewal's abstention from the confidence motion of May 19 was brought in only at the end of the negotiations. (For a brief overview of how I interpret the course of the courtship, see here.) More importantly from the point of view of this inquiry, the quesiton of abstention was raised by Murphy, and (as I read the transcripts) never seriously entertained by Grewal.

Grewal was not trying to sell a vote, but his over-all political allegiance. He would become a Liberal if they gave him x and y. Now, in so far as Shapiro has identified Grewal as the initiator of the negotiations and the one who had asked for (rather than being offered) a cabinet, diplomatic post, and/or senate seat, he's been correct. And in so far as he's cleared Dosanjh of having offered any of these things, he's correct.

But by having misidentified the goal of negotiations he misunderstands the affair and finds Grewal guilty of something that he didn't quite do. Although I am no friend of Grewal, that's not right.

(I'll discuss my second problem with Shapiro's in a subsequent report.)

new in Ethics report (11): chronological problems with Grewal's decision to start taping

Ethics Commissioner Shapiro's reports that Grewal

admitted that on Monday, May 16, 2005, he decided to tape the conversations he was having with Mr. Kalia, Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Murphy in order to ensure he had proof of the nature of the discussions that were occurring.

Here again, Mr. Shapiro's decision not to use the primary evidence of Grewal's recordings let him down. Here is a list of phone calls, discussions, and events from the 16th:

1. Grewal's first phone calls with Sadesh Kalia: Sunday, May 15th. (one of which is taped: Kalia call #1, which you can read here)
2. the second recorded call with Kalia: early Monday, May 16th (here and here)
3. the third taped call is a missed call from Kalia (see here)
4. the fourth phone call from Kalia gets through (see here and here)
5. in his fifth phone call with Kalia (here), Grewal says that he can't phone Dosanjh right away because he is on his way to question period
6. in the sixth phone call with Kalia the pizza date is arranged
7. Pizza date with Dosanjh, Monday, May 16th, 8 pm. (not taped)

Grewal told Shapiro that he decided to begin taping while on the way to Question Period on May 16th (here) (which started at 2:15 pm according to Hansard). The problem, however, is that Grewal had already taped five phone calls by that point. And if Shapiro had bothered using the tapes as evidence, he would have seen that Grewal's account of how and when he started taping was problematic and needed further clarification.

new in Ethics report (10): missing conversations

The Ethics Commissioner's report continues to discuss the conversation between Grewal and Murphy in Grewal’s office at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 18. Shapiro concludes

The meeting ended with no commitment by either participant.

Mr. Dosanjh testified that subsequently, he was informed that two Conservative MPs were going to be holding a media event and making allegations that the Liberals were trying to buy their votes. As a consequence, Mr. Dosanjh contacted Mr. Grewal and was assured by him that it was neither he nor his wife making these allegations.

There were no further discussions between Mr. Grewal, Mr. Dosanjh or Mr. Murphy.

This is problematic. Grewal spoke on the phone several times with each of Dosanjh and Murphy over the 17th and 18th. We know that because we have five of the calls. (You can see the scans here.) But none of those calls is mentioned here.

But it gets worse. Dosanjh mentioned a call that he made to Grewal. That call is not included among the released recordings. Why?

why Paul Martin lost

Too much time reading blogs. (Don't let this happen to you!)
(cross-posted to Bouquets of Gray)

New in Ethics report (9): Harper learned about the tapes on the 17th

Long-time readers may remember a rather long-winded and complicated series of arguments last summer about whether Harper had learned about the call on the 16th or 17th (see here, where I concluded on the 17th, and here, where I wrongly argued for the 16th).

The Ethics Commissioner's report settles the question once and for all:

We wished to clarify with Mr. Harper that Mr. Grewal first approached him on this matter after their Tuesday evening (May 17, 2005) caucus meeting and that it was only on Wednesday, May 18, 2005, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Grewal that he (Mr. Harper) was informed by Mr. Grewal that he was tape recording conversations with the Liberals about crossing the floor and the offers that were being discussed. However, as indicated above, these facts were corroborated by Mr. Norquay.

The point is probably more important than it seems, since Harper told Grewal to stop taping at that point, and it seems that some of Grewal's tapes came after this. Since the call came on the 18th, only the recordings of that day were done after Harper told him to quit.

new in Ethics report (8): "all three parties agree that no offers were made"

From the Ethics Commissioner's report:

All three parties agree that the meeting ended with no offers having been made and that there was no commitment by Mr. Grewal.

This is as interesting for what it says as for what it doesn't.

First, Grewal, Dosanjh, and Murphy all agree that the Liberals made no offers at this meeting, which amounts to an admission of Grewal's that his many earlier statements that such offers had been made were false.

It also says, of course, that Grewal made no commitment, which is borne out by the recordings (which can read transcript here or here).

What this does not say, however, is that all three agree that no requests were made by Grewal, and since that was the allegation that the Ethics Commissioner was trying to get at.

And this comes to the heart of the matter. The Ethics commissioner had a limited set of questions to address:

1. “that Mr. Grewal sought inducements from Minister Dosanjh and/or Mr. Tim Murphy; or Minister Dosanjh or Mr. Murphy offered inducements to Mr. Grewal to change his vote(s) on matters before the House of Commons of Canada;
2. that Mr. Grewal surreptitiously audio taped conversations with Minister Dosanjh and/or others; and
3. that Mr. Grewal attempted to entrap Minister Dosanjh into improper conduct.”

That all three parties agree that no offer was made clears Dosanjh of allegation (i), but Grewal was alleged not to have made a commitment, but to have sought an inducement. And the larger finding was that he had in fact done so either really or in pretense to entrap Dosanjh.

new in Ethics report (7): did Grewal intentionally mislead the commissioner diplomat offer in May 17th meeting?

From the Ethics Commissioner's report:

The testimony of Mr. Dosanjh, Mr. Grewal and Mr. Murphy is relatively consistent as to what transpired during the meeting in Mr. Dosanjh’s office in the Confederation Building at 1:00 pm Tuesday, May 17, 2005.

Prior to the arrival of Mr. Murphy at this meeting, Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal both agree that there was further discussion in relation to Mr. Grewal’s retirement and pension entitlement. However, their stories differ in the following respect. On one hand Mr. Dosanjh testified that Mr. Grewal was extremely excited about the crossing of the floor of Belinda Stronach, that morning, and how it was now easy for him to be appointed to Cabinet. However, Mr. Grewal’s account was that Mr. Dosanjh suggested a Cabinet position or diplomatic post for him and a Senate seat for his wife. (my emphasis)

Grewal's claim that he was offered a diplomatic post during the meeting at 1 pm on the 17th is very odd. We have that whole meeting on tap (you can read the whole transcript here (red is what was edited out of the version released to the public on May 31st) or see the scans here (where yellow marks what is edited out)). In that conversation there is no hint at any diplomatic appointment anywhere in any of the recordings, except, perhaps, here, where Murphy says that the PM had ruled out an appointment outside of politics.

For the moment I want merely to point out that Grewal's statement to the commission that a diplomatic post was discussed in this meeting is clearly false, and can very simply be shown to be false.

What I don't understand is what Grewal was thinking when he said this to the commissioner? I will comment shortly on the bizarre decision of the Commissioner not to use the tapes to judge the various reports that Grewal, Dosanjh, and Murphy made of them. But surely Grewal would have expected his account of the meeting to be compared to the recordings of that meeting.

Harper failed to meet ethics czar on Grewal (Globe and Mail)

The Globe and Mail reports:

Harper failed to meet ethics czar on Grewal
By CAMPBELL CLARK
Thursday, January 26, 2006 Posted at 5:22 AM EST
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper failed to meet federal Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro despite repeated attempts over four months to interview him for an inquiry into the Gurmant Grewal affair, Mr. Shapiro noted in a report released yesterday.

Despite a code of conduct that says it is an MP's duty to co-operate with an inquiry by the commissioner, Mr. Harper's office told Mr. Shapiro he could not find time in his schedule to answer his questions between August and November of last year. Instead, Mr. Shapiro spoke to an aide.

The report was ready last Friday but delayed to prevent accusations of political favouritism in the last days of an election campaign. In the report, Mr. Shapiro wrote that he wanted to ask Mr. Harper when he knew about the surreptitious recordings of conversations that Mr. Grewal, then a Conservative MP, had with senior Liberals about switching sides for a crucial no-confidence vote. [snip]

Update The paragraph where the Ethics Commissioner says this:

Unfortunately, although we made numerous attempts between August and November, we were informed Mr. Harper’s schedule did not permit an interview. We wished to clarify with Mr. Harper that Mr. Grewal first approached him on this matter after their Tuesday evening (May 17, 2005) caucus meeting and that it was only on Wednesday, May 18, 2005, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Grewal that he (Mr. Harper) was informed by Mr. Grewal that he was tape recording conversations with the Liberals about crossing the floor and the offers that were being discussed. However, as indicated above, these facts were corroborated by Mr. Norquay.

Frankly, I don't understand why Harper wouldn't have met with Shapiro. Some bloggers are implying that Harper had something to hide, but for now it is best to suspend judgement. (Off the top of my head, the only thing that Harper had to hide was whether his office had a role in the editing of the tapes. But given that this was not a question that was being dealt with in this review--something that Harper would have surely known--that seems an unlikely reason.)

Update 2 The Toronto Star editorializes on Harper's failure to meet with Shapiro in Editorial: Leading by example

New in Ethics report (6): Grewal's negotiations did not start out as a 'sting'

From the Ethics Commissioner's report:

Mr. Grewal and Mrs. Grewal both testified that while on their way to Question Period on Monday, May 16, 2005, he informed her for the first time that he had been contacted by Mr. Kalia. Mrs. Grewal’s response was “you’re wasting your time since, you know, we’re not going to be joining the Liberals.”

Grewal has claimed on many occasions that he never intended to become a Liberal and that he was stringing the Liberals along in order to expose them. (The Ethics Commissioner condemns such an attempt at entrapment as a breach of the code.) What both Grewals told the commissioner here shows that to be false. Nina's assertion that Gurmant's negotiations were a 'waste of time' because they were not going to become Liberals strongly suggest that crossing the floor was presented to her as a realistic possibility. Nina was skeptical, or opposed, or some combination of the two.

This helps us nail down the question of when Grewal decided to turn his attempt to cross the floor into a sting. Apparently on his way to question period on May 16th, he still thought crossing the floor was a possibility. The fact that there is no tape of the pizza date on the evening of the 16th may be relevant.

[edited for clarity]

New in Ethics report (5): Grewal claims specific consulate offered

From the Ethics Commissioner's report:

The testimonies of Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal are relatively consistent as to the nature of their discussions that evening. Mr. Dosanjh spoke of his own political career and noted that the Prime Minister had made no commitments or offers to him when he agreed to stand as a Liberal candidate in the 2004 election. They also discussed Mr. Grewal’s Parliamentary pension entitlements. However, their accounts differ in one important way. Mr. Grewal indicates that Mr. Dosanjh specifically offered him a Consul General position in Boston or in Seattle or an ambassadorship to a small country. Mr. Dosanjh, on the other hand, indicates that no offers were made. There is no further evidence to corroborate either of these claims.

This is somewhat new. We knew already that Grewal claimed that he'd been offered a diplomatic post. Apparently he made these same claims, in a more specific fashion to the Ethics Commissioner. Here he alleges that he'd been offered the position of Consul General in Boston or Seatle or to some small country.

The Commissioner clearly disbelieves Grewal, which is probably correct. In the tapes from the next day's meeting with Dosanjh and Murphy, Murphy tells Grewal that other Conservatives '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 thiing to do' (see the transcript here, together with the edited version). Since we now know from the commissioner's report that Grewal had been asking for a diplomatic posting, both through intermediaries and during the pizza date, this amounts to a clear 'no' on the part of the Liberals.

Ethics Commissioner held back report until after the election

Buried in the CBC report:

In the statement, Shapiro said his report was ready on Friday but was held back to avoid interfering with Monday's federal election. Grewal did not stand for re-election.

Media reports of the Ethics Commissioners rulings

Globe and Mail: Ethics czar clears Dosanjh in taping furor

CBC: Dosanjh cleared: No offer to buy MP's vote

CTV: Grewal taping 'inappropriate,' Shapiro says

Toronto Star: Health Minister cleared of offering bribe

Macleans: Federal ethics probe clears Dosanjh of wrongdoing, slams former Tory MP.

National Post: Dosanjh cleared of wrongdoing

Update Some more stories:

Dosanjh cleared, ex-MP scolded in taping furor

Dosanjh cleared

Dosanjh considering suit over vote-buying allegations

New in Ethics report (4): there is no recording of the pizza date

From the Ethics Commissioner's report:

While he had the tape recorder with him during his evening meeting with Mr. Dosanjh, it did not function properly, despite his efforts to fix it. As a consequence, he did not record the meeting.

This raises the old question of the pizza tape, which I raised on the day that the tapes were released (see here) and several times since (see here and here).

The Ethics Commissioner now says that Grewal tried to tape the conversation but failed to do so; Grewal had apparently told the Conservatives the same thing (here).

This is not consistent, however, with what Grewal said in the first few days after he revealed the existence of the tapes wen he claimed to have had four hours of tapes. You can see this for yourself by going to the CTV story here and click on the Video Link to the left with the title "CTV News Vancouver: Renu Bakshi speaks with Gurmant Grewal 3:41" (direct link, here.) About a third of the way into the tape, you see Grewal being interviewed:

Renu Bakshi: Grewal said he had no intention of accepting the offer, but he strung them on to expose what he calls vote buying. He says he secretly taped nearly every conversation, including a face-to-face with health minister Ujjal Dosanjh.

Grewal: He ordered pizza and we talked for about two hours. And thereafter he says, ok, that he has spoken to the prime minister.

Renu Bakshi: How many minutes of tape in total do you have?

Grewal: I didn't count, but it would be maybe two-and-a-half hours or three hours; including the telephone conversation, four hours.

Grewal himself refers to the pizza date among the tapes that he had.

This does not necessarily mean that he lied to Shapiro and his own party (which I would not exclude); he may equally have been exaggerating to the CTV reporter.

(There are other reasons to believe there is a pizza tape, however, which I will hopefully return to.)

New in Ethics report (3): there are no tapes (the recordings were digital)

From the Ethics Commissioner's report:

Mr. Grewal testified that earlier that day, he decided to purchase a new digital tape recorder to record his conversations.

I assume that 'digital tape recorder' means not a recorder of digital audio tape (DAT, a now obsolete technical standard that is only used in the recording industry (see here)), but a digital recorder.

This is interesting. Especially since the 'suicide note' (the Conservative press release that admitted that there were problems with the Grewal 'tapes') calls them 'tapes' repeatedly.

The warning sign should have been that Randy Dash, the audio expert whom the Conservatives hired to examine the tapes and vouch for their authenticity, spoke only of 'clips', not tapes (see his letter, which was released by the Conservatives here).

This may require the revision of several views. For example, it renders meaningless the argument that one heard from Conservative quarters that Randy Dash was the only audio expert who had examined the 'originals'. Since there was no literal, physical tape to be examined, and his copy was no different from the one that anyone could get downloading the MP3 from Gurmant's site.

New in Ethics report (2): Nina knew about the discussions

From the Ethics Commissioner's report:

Mr. Grewal and Mrs. Grewal both testified that while on their way to Question Period on Monday, May 16, 2005, he informed her for the first time that he had been contacted by Mr. Kalia. Mrs. Grewal’s response was “you’re wasting your time since, you know, we’re not going to be joining the Liberals.”

This will have been before the 'pizza date' later that evening, which was the first time Dosanjh and Grewal discussed the matter directly.

This helps clarify something that's been unclear for quite some time: the question of when Nina was informed about the negotiations. Up to this point, Nina has said little about them except that she was involved. Indeed, the Toronto Star (story archived here) reports that, when asked about the negotiations last June, she said:

"nobody approached me, I wasn't part of any negotiations."

New in Ethics report (1): new go-between says Grewal approached Liberals

A couple new figures appear in the Ethics Commissioner's report. These are men whom Grewal had instructed to approach the Liberals.

Mr. Dosanjh indicated that on Saturday, May 14, 2005, he received a telephone call from Mr. Bob Cheema, a businessman in the Vancouver-Surrey area acquainted with both Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal. According to Mr. Dosanjh, Mr. Cheema visited his home later that evening and suggested to him that Mr. and Mrs. Grewal would be willing to join the Government in return for a United Nations position or Senate appointment for her and a Cabinet post for him. According to the testimony of Mr. Manjit Singh Saini, a business acquaintance of Mr. Cheema, he (Mr. Saini) had been called prior to this event (in April or early May) by Mr. Cheema. Mr. Cheema informed Mr. Saini that, if Mr. Grewal were to be given a Cabinet post and his wife a Senate or United Nations post, Mr. Grewal would join the Liberal Party. Mr. Dosanjh reported that he informed Mr. Cheema on May 14, 2005 that, if the Grewals wanted to cross the floor, it was up to the Prime Minister to decide what, if any, appointment he might eventually make.

This complicates matters somewhat, since we had not heard about Cheema before. But the basic pattern remains the same: Grewal initiated the negotiations.

Ethics Commissioner on the tapes themselves

From the report about the tapes:

There has been a great deal of media coverage in relation to the existence of the tape recordings that Mr. Grewal had made of his conversations with various parties. They are, of course, what sparked this present inquiry. However, from the outset of this inquiry, I wished to proceed on the basis of obtaining the direct testimony of all of the parties involved before deciding whether it would be necessary to rely on the tapes as primary evidence in support of my findings and conclusions. In this way, any questions associated with the provenance, quality, integrity, translation and transcription of the tapes could be addressed at a later time. Even though we had all of the tapes audio enhanced for the purposes of translation and transcription, I was not satisfied that an accurate and reliable transcript could be prepared in relation to the conversations which took place in Punjabi. Indeed, throughout this inquiry there were strong objections by those parties represented by counsel regarding the use of the tapes in support of the inquiry. At the conclusion of this inquiry, I did not consider it necessary, in the face of the wealth of the primary corroborated evidence of all of the witnesses to rely on the contents of the tapes in reaching my conclusions.

breaking: Ethics Commissioner blasts Grewal

The Ethics Commissioner has released his report on Gurmant Grewal's antics last summer here. The executive summary contains all the important material:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On June 1, 2005, Mr. Yvon Godin, the Member of Parliament for Acadie-Bathurst, requested that I conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the apparently surreptitious audio taping by Mr. Gurmant Grewal, the Member for Newton-North Delta, of his conversations with the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh, the Minister of Health and Member for Vancouver South, and Mr. Tim Murphy, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister.

The subject matter of the reported conversations dealt with the possibility that Mr. Grewal might leave the Opposition to join the Government and either support the Government, or not take part, in an upcoming confidence vote in the House of Commons.

Specifically, Mr. Godin requested that I examine the following allegations:

1. “that Mr. Grewal sought inducements from Minister Dosanjh and/or Mr. Tim Murphy; or Minister Dosanjh or Mr. Murphy offered inducements to Mr. Grewal to change his vote(s) on matters before the House of Commons of Canada;
2. that Mr. Grewal surreptitiously audio taped conversations with Minister Dosanjh and/or others; and
3. that Mr. Grewal attempted to entrap Minister Dosanjh into improper conduct.”

With respect to allegations (i) and (iii), the information gathered during this inquiry indicates that Mr. Dosanjh did not offer specific rewards to Mr. Grewal in that he (Mr. Grewal) change his vote in relation to the May 19, 2005 budget confidence vote.

While it is not clear whether Mr. Grewal genuinely sought an inducement to change his vote or whether he just acted the part in an attempt to entrap Mr. Dosanjh, his actions were, in either case, extremely inappropriate. If his intent was the former, he committed an extremely serious breach of sections 8 and/or 11 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. If his intent was the latter, his actions were at odds with Principle 2(b) of the Members’ Code.

With respect to allegation (ii), while surreptitiously audio taping fellow Members is neither illegal nor a specific contravention of the Rules of Conduct spelled out in the Members’ Code, I do not, however, believe that such conduct by Mr. Grewal is consistent with the Code’s Principles, in particular, Principle 2(b).

The facts of this case have clearly not enhanced the public’s confidence and trust in the integrity of the House of Commons and its Members. Indeed, I believe the public’s trust and confidence has been weakened.

The report mentions the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, which you can read for yourself here. Specifically, the Commissioner finds Grewal's action were incompatible with one or both of sections 2b, 8, and 11. Here is section 2b:

Given that service in Parliament is a public trust, the House of Commons recognizes and declares that Members are expected … to fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflicts of interests, and maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each Member and in the House of Commons

Section 8:

When performing parliamentary duties and functions, a Member shall not act in any way to further his or her private interests or those of a member of the Member’s family, or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

Section 9

A Member shall not use his or her position as a Member to influence a decision of another person so as to further the Member’s private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

Section 10

(1) A Member shall not use information obtained in his or her position as a Member that is not generally available to the public to further the Member’s private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person’s private interests. (2) A Member shall not communicate information referred to in subsection (1) to another person if the Member knows, or reasonably ought to know, that the information may be used to further the Member’s private interests or those of a member of his or her family, or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

Section 11:

A Member shall not attempt to engage in any of the activities prohibited under sections 8 to 10.

breaking: Ethics Commissioner blasts Grewal

The Ethics Commissioner has released his report on Gurmant Grewal's antics last summer here

Buckets of disapppointment

Gurmant's riding goes Liberal?

Meanwhile, in Newton-North Delta, it looks like Sukh Dhaliwal is going to take Newton-North Delta, which had been Gurmant's riding.

Nina ahead by 500

With three-quarters of the polls in, Nina is now ahead by 500. I think she may pull it off. Which means years more of blogging.

Nina behind by a few

Regular readers will not be surprised to hear that I'm especially interested in the fate of Nina Grewal, who I've blogged about quite a bit. With almost half the polls counted, Nina is behind by 55 … count 'em … votes. It's going to be a long night.

Make that 217...

The Toronto Sun, true to form, has as its front-page story 218 reasons NOT to vote for the Liberals. Read it if you like. I was quite surprised, however, to find this as reason #37:

Post-Belinda, Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal revealed tape recordings of PMO staffer Tim Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh discussing possible incentives if he crossed the floor. Grits said tapes were doctored.

Sigh. The Grits said the tapes were doctored? They were doctored, as this blog has shown in excruciating detail (see here and here for the hilites). Even Harper has admitted as much (here; cf. here).

Let's review. Grewal approached the Liberals about changing parties (here) and taped the conversations; he lied repeatedly about what was in the tapes (here); he edited them heavily (see here and here), while the tapes were in possession of Harper's office (here); he went into hiding (see here) once his edits had been exposed, only to briefly resurface in order to say that Harper had approved his taping (here), which he retracted the next day.

And this is all supposed to be a reason not to vote Liberal?

Jack Cook, Nina Grewal's independent rival in Fleetwood-Port Kells

Jack Cook, an Independent Candidate in Fleetwood-Port Kells, despairing of getting his message out through the mainstream media, produced a DVD of his campaign pitch. It's been mounted on the net here. Go watch it. Gurmant and Nina make cameo appearances. Sorta … kinda …. Well, anyway, go see it.

More updates on Nina's campaign

From the Vancouver Sun

The riding votes small-c conservative, said Grewal's campaign manager Dane Minor, but this time it's definitely a three-way race with crime and transportation infrastructure being the main local issues. He said the campaign has become personal, with other candidates attacking Grewal as being reliant on her husband. "She is her own woman and always has been," he said.

NDP candidate Barry Bell, is making his second try for the federal seat. In 2004 Bell didn't even have a campaign office yet garnered 28 per cent of the vote. Now, said campaign manager Jeff Davis, Bell is better known. He said Grewal is carrying "baggage" from the controversy surrounding Gurmant Grewal's discussions with Liberals over having the couple defect from the Tories. Bell said that when he knocks on the door of Conservatives, they often tell him they are voting for Stephen Harper, not Nina Grewal.

Liberal Brenda Locke, a former cabinet minister in the B.C. Liberal government, agreed that transportation -- the riding is on the south side of the Fraser River at the crowded Port Mann Bridge -- and crime are the two main issues. Locke said she is being aided by former Cadman supporters, loyal to her from her days as a provincial MLA, when her constituency overlapped Cadman's federal riding. She is facing a tough fight. Locke was turfed from her provincial seat earlier this year when voters in her constituency swung back to the NDP.

And from the Vancouver Sun, a story about Nina Grewal's independent competitors DVD campaign 'flyer':

Surrey candidate's campaign pitch goes straight to DVD Jonathan Fowlie, Vancouver sun

Jack Cook is a self-declared man of firsts.

As the long-time Surrey resident tells it, he imported Canada's first personal computer and was the one who introduced the Segway scooter to Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Canada.

Now an independent candidate in Fleetwood-Port Kells, the 53-year-old Cook says he has pioneered yet another first -- his own personal campaign DVD.

Starting last week, Cook began mass mailing his 10-minute video pitch to all 37,902 residences in the riding, in hopes it would help raise his profile before Monday's federal election.

"We had to design a campaign with the understanding that the local media wouldn't take me seriously, because they never take independents seriously," Cook said Wednesday in an interview, adding he believes a personal campaign DVD has never been done before in Canada.

He said the DVD, his website, and election signs with a sketched self portrait were all intended to get attention he was unlikely to get in the local press.

In that DVD, Cook stands in front of a plain white background and speaks directly into the camera to let viewers know why he should get their vote.

"Do you want a representative who has nothing to say in the House of Commons, rarely ventures into the riding, refuses to meet with constituents and return their phone calls," he asks, standing beside a cardboard cutout of Conservative incumbent Nina Grewal.

Later in the DVD, Cook promises to consult constituents on all pieces of legislation and to meet with anyone in the riding who ever has an issue to raise.

Of course, the DVD is not entirely about platform. Viewers who watch to the end will also learn that Cook can speak Japanese, French, Spanish and Thai. They will know he has donated more than 100 units of blood in four countries. And those who watch the "extra" section will hear about his journey down the River Kwai, his travels to the 1972 U.S.S.R. hockey summit and how he once traded a calculator for a parka.

On Wednesday, Cook said producing the discs and sending them across the riding cost him about $55,000, which he says has been money well spent.

"I've managed to get through the front door and [people] are not offended," he said. "The only thing they have to do is decide whether to make popcorn and watch it or not."

Update on Fleetwood-Port Kells contest

At Vancouver 24 Hours, Sean Holman reports on the contest in Fleetwood-Port Kells:

Will the sins of the husband be visited on his wife?

That's the question in Fleetwood-Port Kells, where Conservative incumbant candidate Nina Grewal - the wife of controversial fellow caucus member and scandal magnet Gurmant Grewal - is running for re-election.

Nina, a former RRSP sales manager, has attempted to distance herself from Gurmant, noting in a policy book that they are "two separate MPs representing different ridings ... Any advice that Gurmant is giving me during this election is similar to any supportive spouse. The only difference is that my spouse brings with him nine years of hill experience." And, with a rising tide of Conservativism across the country, Grewal may have just enough electoral buoyancy to get washed back into Parliament.

But Liberal contender Brenda Locke - the former provincial cabinet minister - is doing her best to drown those chances, accusing Grewal of not doing a good enough job representing the riding. And local groups - such as Fraser Heights Community Association and the Fleetwood Community Association - have been delivering the same message when reporters come-a-calling. Meanwhile, the NDP are running their local constituency president Barry Bell against Locke and Grewal. He's an executive member of the International Painters' Union who ran as the party's candidate in Surrey-Tynehead during the last provincial election.

This is bizarre

See this story about Conservative Candidate in Malton, John Sprovieri in 24 Hours Vancouver. It seems he borrowed Nina Grewal's issue page, including a statement

"Gurmant (Grewal) and I are two separate MPs representing different ridings. Gurmant not running in this election affects me personally, but not professionally."

Someone in Sprovieri's campaign room has quickly taken down the page (here). But you can see the old one in google cache here.

Update Even better are Mr. Sprovieri's thoughts on abortion:

"If you want to know my opinion, I am a woman, end of discussion."

Here's a screen capture:



Update 2. Sprovieri is now getting in a slanging match with his Liberal rival over one another's competence in English: here

Happy New Year!

Best wishes to everyone this Christmas.