FAQ 11b: What has been the reaction to Buckets of Grewal?

I was pleasantly surprised with the fame--or at least notoriety--that Buckets of Grewal received from various sources during the feeding frenzy in June.

The highlight, of course, was the CTV story Rookie political blogger tackles the Grewal tapes

The Toronto Star's blogger, Antonia Zerbisias, was one of the first to note us. She's mentioned us a handful of times:

June 1: 'Whoever ''Buckets" the blogger is, s/he is obsessed with the Grewal tapes, who leaked them and why. S/he gives great analysis, almost free of political bias. Almost. Sorta. Kinda. Relatively speaking.'

June 7: 'Gotta say, this Buckets of Grewal chap -- and he is a chap, who prefers to remain anonymous -- continues to amaze me. A first-time blogger and a student of documents is all I am going to say about him.

Today he's put up an amazing slide show (also here) of the transcripts of the Gurmant Grewal tapes, showing what was edited out and what was not.'

June 16: 'As regular visitors know, Buckets of Grewal has been doing a meticulous job of examining the infamous audiotapes and transcripts. ……'

FAQ 4x. What are these tapes and how many of them are there?

Grewal released his tapes through his parliamentary website at http://www.gurmantgrewal.ca/audio.asp. He has subsequently taken this page down.

At any one time, there were four audio files (in mp3) available to download, each of which had a pdf transcript of the conversations. The tapes that were first released, however, are not the tapes that are there now. Some of these tapes, however, contain more than one conversation. So, here are a list of the conversations and tapes as they stand now.

A. "Various Calls to Gurmant Grewal from Sudesh Kalia: May 15/16, 2005", which now downloads the file TelConservations-GG-SK.mp3, which is 7 minutes 27 seconds long. You can see a scan of the transcipts (here). This has seven items of interest (of which six are calls).

1. Sunday May 15 Evening - call from SK
2. Monday May 16 Morning (early)
3. Monday May 16 Morning (9:04) message left from SK
4. Monday May 16 (before 3 PM - SK tells GG to phone UJ after 3)
5. Monday May 16 (c. 3 PM? - SK tells GG to phone UJ right away)
6. Monday May 16 (before 8 pm) - SK sets up the 'pizza date' for 8 pm
7. A log of calls between SK and GG on GG's Blackberry (see here)

FAQ 5f. Was the pizza date taped? What happened to the tape?

We know that Grewal arranged to meet Dosanjh at his home for Pizza on the evening of May 16th. The date was arranged in the final phone with Kalia (see here), and Dosanjh mentioned it and described his conversation with Grewal at his press conference of the 18th.

We also know that Grewal taped it. He told a CTV interviewer on May 22nd that he had done so (see here.

A tape of that conversation has never been released, however.

FAQ 4f1. Grewal said that the Liberals had offered his wife a diplomatic post, did they?

In the days after first going public with his revelations about his secret negotations with the Liberals, Grewal made several specific allegations. For example, in his interview on CTV with Beverly Thompson on May 19th he said:

Mr. Tim Murphy came to my office as late as yesterday and he was making these aggressive offers and negotiating and making deals.

Thompson: Aggressive offers because they were saying that they were saying that they'd give you a plum position in some way.

Grewal: That's right.

Thompson: And were they specific about that?

Grewal: Yah, they were talking about diplomatic position and senate seats.

FAQ 6f. What was the role of Harper's office in the editing of the tapes?

We know that the tapes were heavily edited (see here) and the editing was not accidental (see here). We also know where the tapes were edited.

Once it became clear that there were the problems with the tapes, the Conservatives issued a press release (dubbed the 'suicide-note'). Here is the first paragraph:

This 'clarification' raised more questions than it answered. First, there was more than a few seconds that had been cut--the new audio file that is mentioned was 15 minutes longer than the old. (You can download both here to see for yourself; the differences can be seen graphically here.) Second, it is impossible to believe their characterization that the changes were made accidentally (see >here and KMG's response.)

The more important point here, however, is that the Conservatives accept responsibility for what happened to the tapes. We are told that Grewal had given the tapes to the Office of the Leader of the Opposition and that's where the changes had occurred.

Harper himself said as much in an interview on CKNW on June 20th (here), where he admitted that "the incorrect tape was posted on our website."

Return to the FAQ.

What did Nina know, and when did she know it? (pt. 1)

As I said in the previous post, I have been continuing my work on the FAQ (nominated for a blogging award here--please vote for me if you like my work). As part of the preparation on the entry on Nina, I've been reviewing the role that she's played in the story.

She has claimed that she knew nothing of Gurmant's negotiations or about the tapes. Some might be sceptical of such denials, but in fact it makes reasonable sense in light of the evidence.

The first mention of Nina in the tapes comes in the last of the five calls that he's released from Sadesh Kalia. That call, which took place in the afternoon of May 16th, arranged the pizza date with Dosanjh for later that night. Grewal and Nina were both invited:
In the end, however, only Gurmant attended.

The next morning, Grewal again met Dosanjh and Murphy. Again, Nina came up in the conversation. Grewal is pressing how valuable the Grewals would be to the Liberals (thanks to Raj, Sohn, and Kuldip for help with the Punjabi):

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

(5'33) tusi Nina naal gal kIti hai

(5'33) Have you talked to Nina?

GG
haanji, dovein decided ta nahin haan, dwindling jihe haan. Depend karde, ki milda ki hai. Je ta quick changa haiga taa tahra tarhi ho jaye, je zyada hee ho jaaye taa baad vich haali karaange.
Yes. Both of us are not decided, we are kind of dwindling*. It depends on what we get. If we get something good quickly, then it can be done right away. But if it is too much (of waiting) then we’ll do it later.
(*sic. Apparently Grewal means dawdling.) Here, Grewal is aske point blank whether he'd talked to Nina. He says he had.

FAQ 7b. What is the 'suicide note' and what does it have to do with the release of the tapes?

Grewal first revealed that he had taped his conversations with Dosanjh and Murphy on May 18th, and the Conservatives released what they described as a full set of recordings at mid-day on May 31st.

Within a day of the release of those tapes, however, questions began to be raised about their integrity (note my entry of 6 pm on June 1st: here) and over the next day there was a flurry of stories (e.g. here or here [archived here]).

Late on June 2, the Conservatives publicly admitted that there were problems. A Conservative staffer distributed a press-release to reporters at an Ottawa. the conservative staffer who distributed it is said to have called it a 'suicide note'. This press release admits that the original tapes had been in conservative hands since May 18th, suggests that the problems found in the tapes were caused by technical problems, claims that only a few seconds was missing, and points out two places where the transcript needs revision. Here is a scan:

The press release raises as many questions as it solves: it was more than a few seconds than had fallen out of the tapes. (It was almost 15 minutes in one recordin alone.) And it places responsibility for the tapes squarely in Harper's office.

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 4i. When did Harper learn about the negotiations and what did he do?

Grewal began negotiating with the Liberals about changing parties on May 15th (when he and Kalia first made contact) and met with them on the 16th, 17th, and 18th (see here for an overview). When did Harper learn of these negotiations?

In a press scrum at the beginning of June (here), Harper said:

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. … Gurmant did ask me if I wanted him to meet with the Prime Minister and I said no. Thanks.

[*This is a mistake for the 17th: for a full discussion of the details, see here]

According to this, Harper learned about the negotations on the evening of the 17th, and on the morning of the 18th about the possibility of Grewal's meeting with the Prime Minister.

What did he do? Here Harper says only he told Grewal not to meet with Martin and to stop the tapings. (See Grewal's description of Harper's directions, here.)


Return to the FAQ

FAQ 4a. Can you provide an overview of the negotiations as a whole?

The negotations that the Grewal tapes contain were revealed to the public in dribs and drabs. There was the eight minutes of tapes on May 18th; the heavily edited tapes of May 31st; followed by the fuller tapes/transcript of June 2-5. All of this was accompanied by assertion, counter-assertion, direction, and mis-direction of both sides during the entire period.

Here is, I think, how the negotiations went in outline, cutting out the courtship rituals. What I place in square brackets I regard as [reasonable supposition], double square [[less certain speculation]]; what I leave unbracketed I regard as demonstrated to a reasonable level of certainty by entries in this blog.

1. Kalia tapes. [Grewal approached the Liberals through an intermediary (Sadesh Kalia)], whose role was to bring Dosanjh and Grewal together. [Before the negotiations proceeded to the next stage, the Liberals will have committed themselves to unchallenged Liberal nominations for both Gurmant and Nina.]



2. May 16. Pizza date. Grewal and Dosanjh met and, over pizza, [Grewal laid out his price--a seat in cabinet immediately and a senate seat or diplomatic post for Nina [[if she lost the next election]]. Dosanjh argued that a seat in cabinet right away was impossible; he advised Grewal against asking for the senate seat.]



3. May 17. Stronach defection hits the news.



4. May 17. Grewal, Dosanjh, and Murphy meet. Grewal insists that Belinda's example proves that his request for a cabinet post immediately, [which Dosanjh had ruled out the night before], was in fact possible; Dosanjh implies that the most Grewal can expect is [a position as parliamentary secretary after a decent interval]. Murphy arrives. After complaining bitterly about Volpe's behaviour, Grewal asks for a senate seat for Nina and fishes for a cabinet post for himself. Murphy explains that a senate seat is impossible and ignores the hints at a cabinet post. Grewal asks that an apology with Volpe be arranged to 'open the door' for further negotiations. The meeting ends.



5. Dosanjh phones Grewal. Dosanjh explains that a clear deal is impossible; that neither he nor Scott Brison were given clear promises; an apology from Volpe will not be made until an understading is reached.



6. Murphy phones Grewal. They arrange to meet at 10 am the next morning.



7. 18th. Grewal and Murphy meet. Murphy suggests that Grewal can keep 'the door open' to further negotiations by abstaining in the coming non-confidence vote. In return, a public apology from Volpe will be arranged. Grewal knows that he cannot do this and still remain a Conservative and says as much. If he voted against his party he would be expelling himself from the Conservative Party without suitable recompense. He therefore declines. [In essense, he is offered an apology for an abstention. This is not enough.]



8. After lunch, Dosanjh phones Grewal and strongly hints that Volpe will apologize if Grewal decides to cross the floor, and that a position as Parliamentary Secretary will follow after a decent interval.



9. Murphy phones Grewal. Poor reception on Grewal's cell phone requires Murphy to hang up and try again. Murphy coaches Grewal on what to say if he does cross. Grewal informs Murphy that he 'won't do anything until the uncertainty element is removed'. Both sides leave it there.

It was later that evening that Grewal announced that he had been approached by the Liberals and offered a Cabinet post and Senate seat if he would abstain from the next day's vote.


Return to the FAQ

FAQ 6e. Might the law have been broken in the editing of the tapes? (with KN)

The Grewal tapes were heavily edited before being released to the public (see the overview here). The question is whether this broke the law. I asked for an opinion my friend KN, who wrote the following

The most relevant law is probably Section 372 of the Criminal Code:

372. (1) Every one who, with intent to injure or alarm any person, conveys or causes or procures to be conveyed by letter, telegram, telephone, cable, radio or otherwise information that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

The Elements are:

1) Intent to injure any person
2) Conveys or causes or procures to be conveyed by...otherwise
3) that he knows is false

The tapes were clearly posted with the intent to injure Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy. They were conveyed by Internet, which is almost certainly included in "otherwise". As a result, anybody who posted these on the Internet with the knowledge that they were false is probably guilty of breaking this law.

It strikes me that the debate would soon turn to the question of how much editing it takes to create a falsehood and whether the editing of these tapes qualifies.

FAQ 4c. Why is it important who approached whom?

Grewal insists that the Liberals approached him. The Liberals insist the opposite. Why does it matter?

The question is important for both sides' spin of the affair. Grewal has claimed that he never intended to change parties and that he'd only pretended to be interested in changing parties after the Liberals had asked him to do so. That story would be much more difficult to accept if he was the one who asked to join the Liberals.

The Liberals, on the other hand, see it as much less embarrasing to them if they are perceived to have been reacting to Grewals' offer rather than making one of their own.


Return to the FAQ

FAQ 4b. Who initiated the discussions?

One question that got much play early-on in the Grewal affair was who approached whom. Did Grewal approach the Liberals? or did the Liberals approach him? For the importance of this question to the Liberals and Conservatives, see here.

Grewal insisted that the Liberals approached him: in his news conference of May 18th (a transcript of which I've prepared here, where he first revealed that these negotiations had taken place and that he had taped them:

I responded to Mr. Dosanjh's invitation and entered these discussions to determine the level to which the Liberal party and Paul Martin were willing to sink to save their government.

By the following morning (19th), Grewal had clarified this. When asked in his Canada AM interview with Beverley Thomson (transcript here) whether the first phone call had come from Murphy, Grewal answered "No, it was through a common friend".

That friend, Sadesh Kalia (on whom, see here), came forward later that same day and identified himself, contradicting Grewal and insisting that Grewal had asked him to contact the Liberals on his behalf. Two weeks later, however, two associates of Kalia came forward and reported that he had told them that the Liberals wanted to entice a Conservative to change parties (see here).

The tapes themselves may be of some helpf. At one point, while Murphy was instructing Grewal that if he should cross, both sides would deny making the initial approach, assigning responsibility to the intermediary: "So you didn't approach, we didn't approach", to which Grewal responds "Uh, they approached me" (p. 7). But even if Grewal is making the claim that the Liberals had made the initial approach, that would not be decisive, since Grewal knows that he is taping the conversation.

There are points in the conversation where Grewal and Dosanjh seem to assume that Grewal had been the initiator (see here).

FAQ 3e. Did the Ethics Commissioner clear Grewal of impropriety in the Visa-Bond Affair?

The Ethics' Commissioner's report can be read in full here.

The final two paragraphs of the report read

This suggests that this case fits best the situation contemplated by the Code in regards to “mitigated contraventions”. Subsection 28(5) of the Code provides that if the Ethics Commissioner concludes that a Member has not complied with an obligation under this Code but has done so through inadvertence or an error in judgment made in good faith, he can recommend that no sanction be imposed.

Mr Grewal has not fully complied with an obligation under the Code, but I believe that his actions were an error in judgment made in good faith. It is my recommendation that given that his intentions, however misguided, were reasonable and that the practice has now ceased, no sanction be imposed. I would also recommend that Mr Grewal find a way to inform his constituents of the change in his practice.

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 3d. What part of the MPs' Conflict of Interest Code might Grewal's visa-bonding practice have breached?

After Grewal had revealed to the Immigration committee that he had made a regular practice of getting constituents to sign commitments to provide bonds before supporting sponsorship applications, Joe Volpe referred the matter to the House of Commons Ethics Commissioner, who was asked to consider Grewal's practice in light of the House of Commons Conflict of Interest Code (which you can read yourself, here). Specifically, he was asked to

determine whether the alleged practice of Mr Gurmant Grewal, Member of Parliament (MP) for Newton-North Delta, of requesting personal bonds from persons seeking his support on immigration matters could be a contravention of the Member’s obligations under the Code. Minister Volpe further emphasized his concern that the use of a bond could lead others to question whether Mr Grewal’s support for the application could be purchased, whether Mr Grewal had the bond guaranteed to him personally and whether the practice could lead others to question whether Mr Grewal was seeking to profit financially from his position as a MP.

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 2e. Who is Dr. Gulzar Cheema and how is he involved?

One of the more obscure references in the Grewal tapes is to "Dr. Cheema". It occurred in the second phone call between Grewal and Sadesh Kalia.

The editor of this transcript has added Cheema's given name, Gulzar, to help identify him. Cheema is an Indo-Canadian physician, who has been a Liberal MLA both in Manitoba and in British Columbia, where he was also Minister of State for Immigration and Multicultural Services in Gordon Campbell's Liberal government. In the federal election of 2004, Cheema was a Liberal candidate in the riding of Fleetwood-Port Kells but lost to Grewal's wife Nina. (She had 14052 votes to his 11568.)

For the Wikipedia entry on him, see here.

Why Kalia mentioned Cheema is unclear. The translator/editor of the recording (which was in Punjabi) includes within parentheses explanations to help the reader, and here uses them to suggest that the Prime Minister had promised the consulate to Cheema in Chandigarh, India,. The phone call itself, however, is much less clear on this point and only says that 'he promised to Cheema'.

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 2d. Who was Sadesh Kalia and how was he involved?

Sadesh Kalia is a prominent member of the Indo-Canadian community in Surrey. A Liberal, he discussed with Grewal the possibility of defecting to the Liberals before Grewal spoke to Dosanjh and/or Murphy beginning on May 15th. A partial list of their calls was released with the Grewal tapes (here) shows they spoke at least a dozen times over these few days. Grewal released recordings of six of them on May 31st (archived here and here.)

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 2f. Who is Joe Volpe and how is he involved?

Joe Volpe is the Liberal MP for the Toronto area riding of Eglington-Lawrence and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. His involvement in the Grewal affair began when he criticized Grewal for introducing an independent bonding scheme for visitors visas and referring the matter to the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner. (On the bonding scheme, see .)

In his taped conversations with Murphy and Dosanjh, Grewal mentions Volpe several times, demanding that Volpe apologize as a way of opening the door to further negotiations.

Suggestions that Murphy had promised to get Volpe to interfere in the RCMP investigation are based on tampered tapes.

Wikipedia entry for Joe Volpe

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 2c. Who is Tim Murphy and why was he involved?

Tim Murphy is the chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office. From 1993 to 1995, he was Liberal MPP for the constuency of St-George-St. David in the Ontario Parliament, following which he had practiced law and served as president of the Ontario Liberal Party.

From 2001, he was a senior political advisor for Paul Martin, who was then Finance Minister. After Martin became Prime Minister in late 2003, Murphy was chosen as his chief of staff.

Since any negotiations about Grewal's changing parties and joining the Liberal caucus would require Paul Martin's approval--as would any 'understanding' by which Grewal took any formal role within the government--it was natural that he would send someone to represent him. (On the question of whether it was appropriate for him to be involved, see the article in the Hill Times archived here.)

On Murphy, see the Wikipedia entry under his name.

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 2b. Who is Ujjal Dosanjh and why was he involved?

Ujjal Dosanjh is the Minister of Health in the Liberal Government, a former NDP premier of BC, and prominent member of Vancouver's Indian community. He came to Canada at the age of 21, worked as a labourer while putting himself through university and then law school. He was involved in civil liberties, was elected as an NDP MLA, eventually becoming Attorney General in the NDP government of Glen Clark. He was chosen to replace Clark as leader of the NDP and Premeir of BC in 2000. In the next election, the NDP was annihilated and Dosanjh lost his seat.

In 2004, he was recruited to run for the Liberals by Paul Martin and following his election in the riding of Vancouver South, was made Minister of Health.

Like Grewal, Dosanjh is a Sihk and a prominent Indo-Canadian. Given his position within the Liberal government, it was natural that he would be involved in any negotiations concerning Grewal's change of Party.

For Dosanjh, see the Wikipedia entry, Ujjal Dosanjh. For his website, see here.

Return to the FAQ

FAQ 2a. Who is Gurmant Grewal

Gurmant Singh Grewal is a Conservative MP for the British Columbia riding of Newton—North Delta. He was born in Barundi, India, and emigrated first to Liberia and, later, in 1991, to Canada. He became active in local politics, unsuccessfully competing for a Liberal nomination to the BC legislature in 1995, and standing for election as a member of the BC Reform party in the same election. (See here.) In 1997, he stood for the Reform Party in Surrey Central, and was elected, being re-elected in 2000. For the 2004 election, he was elected to represent the new riding of Newton—North Delta, while his wife, Nina Grewal was elected MP for Fleetwood—Port Kells.

Much useful material is collected in the Wikipedia article on Grewal (which I have contributed to)

Return to the FAQ