May 17, 2005: Grewal Meets With Dosanjh & Murphy
Here is Complete Transcript of Meeting Between Grewal Dosanjh & Murphy. This is available for viewing at Bucket's Slide-Show... which shows just how much editing was done of these tapes, which the CPC have falsely claimed in 2 press releases, was caused by a "technical glitch". I have taken the time to type out these documents from PDF format so that people can read the this transcript as it was first presented... and clip as it was first presented.
I leave it up to you the reader to tell me if these edits were intentional or not. I have my own opinion about it, which has grown even more pronounced now that Buckets has discovered a that substantive portion of audio which was translated from Punjabi to English by the CPC was translated wrong.
This column by Halifax Herald Editor does a good job of explaining my feelings thus far.
Without Further Ado, the whole TRANSCRIPT --- showing the "edited out portions" in Red
Meeting with Mr.Ujal Dosanjh and Mr.Tim Murphy in the Confederation Building
At 1:00 PM on Tuesday May 17th, 2005
GG - Hello, how are you?
UD - Fine, how are you? I didn't know last night (about Belinda).
GG - No, no, you knew that.
UD - Honestly I didn't know this was.
GG - You indicated last night, I thought you knew it.
UD - I was told that someone was coming but I did not know who it was.
GG - It seems there might be some more...
UD - Those from Newfoundland are suspected.
GG - It is difficult for them to decide how to vote
UD - Would you have a cup of tea?
GG - No, thanks, let us hurry up.
UD - Sure? Tim will come soon.
GG - We have to rush through because of the Question Period.
UD - Today, Question Period is at 2 PM
GG - Don't you have to prepare for it?
UD - No, I can just prepare in 5 minutes in the car.
I think Belinda has made it easier for you, because you got what you wanted.
GG - That's true. It's easier. From two perspectives it's clear. Nobody can say anything to us. You want the Parliament to work. Parliament has a shortage of Members.
UD - In fact, cabinet can be arranged right away. For the other, you don't want to lose the advantage. If you do right away, you lose the advantage of numbers. Those are the issues.
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
GG - Right.
UD - About right away, no one, cabinet right away is difficult to lose the number.
GG - I understand, on the other side what is the situation in Senate, there are rumours of many vacancies to be...
UD - There is only one in BC
GG - but more in other provinces 16 or 17, all have not been filled yet, only 6-7 filled.
UD - Some have been filled in.
(TV voice in the background)
UD - It is delayed.
GG Now number is very crucial, 151 to 151
UD - In Senate, there is a big majority
GG - Yes, that's true.
UD - I think you should actually think long term
GG - Hu.. hu
UD - Obviously, you would only do it if it is right for you. It is always right thing for us.
GG - Yes, personally, I understand.
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 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.
GG - inaudible (Punjabi name) was prepared to be a leadership candidate...for us it.. any difference because we represent the ethnic minority.
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 should go out on a high principle. Go out on high principles. In a sense people might say "inaudible" That is not a bad thing for you. Like one of your former Leaders. She was leader in your party.
GG -She was a leadership candidate, right.
UD - she was one of the leaders in the party.
UD - Did you talk to Nina?
GG - Yes, but we are not decided, we have not made up our minds yet, we are still dwindling. It depends. If Cabinet is quick we'll go ahead with it. If Cabinet takes its time we probably won't.
UD - Under this circumstance, it is difficult. Cabinet is quick
GG - A day here or there doesn't matter --very understandable.
UD - You lose the numbers
GG - You get the numbers immediately and if one goes to the Senate it might be better.
UD - Next 6 months, if one goes to Senate, you lose the numbers. This is the game of numbers. (indistinct)
GG - Yes, I agree, that's why you wanted to do it.
UD - It is not an easy thing. I wouldn't. You really have to think. My own thinking is it might be possible. Nobody will make you totally blunt promise, because that is not done in politics, usually, Cabinet right away may be possible... You might be better off for yourself, about saying all you're looking for is for your wife rather than for you cause you'll have a pension of 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 him, that's just my way of thinking... I'm talking to you for your own welfare. I think you should tell Tim what you have in your mind. They way of approaching it isn't the way it's done. Then that is not good for you. I know that you might not be ready to do it right now but you certainly be looking for a significant appointment for her, not for you. How old are you now.
GG - 47
UD - Your pension?
GG - After 8 years. At 55
UD - You will get after 8 years.
(Tim Murphy Walks In.)
UD - Ya, Hey !
TM - Sorry about that
GG - Mmmmm
UD - Having a good day!
TM - Oh no! How are you sir?
GG - I am fine.
TM - I'm very well, thank you.
UD - You want tea or a glass of water?
TM - I will have chai (tea)
UD - With artificial sugar or?
TM - With whatever you think is best for me.
Ha Ha Ha.
UD - How about you?
GG - I will have just black.
TM - How are you doing?
GG - Fine, thanks.A fantastic news for you today!
TM - Ya! it cannot have been an easy decision... but I think obviously it is a good news story for us.
TM - Something is going on strange inside, so
UD - I told him, I didn't know until this morning. He called me around 9:35 or something
GG - Hu Hu
TM - Absolutely, not surprisingly, we were sworn to secrecy. It is the first time I have been involved in politics where I have media sitting in that room, emailing me as to what is going on.
GG - Media knew it before you?
TM - Usually in this town you know everything leaks, everything leaks. It was pretty tightly held.
UD - the Pundits were sitting...laughs
TM - What's going on!
TM - As you know with this its still the balance of power hangs with the 2 independents, right.
GG - Hu..Hu
TM - Assuming Carolyn Perrish, which I think she will vote with us it will be 151 to 151
GG - No 152 to 152
TM - Well, because of pairing 151 to 151 because of Stinson and Efford. There're two independents. We need one of two to vote with us to avoid and election, unless other thing happen. Right as this point, I don't what is going to happen. My sense is that David Kilgour is unlikely to vote for us, but he is an unpredictable man. As far as I know he has been member of three parties now. And then Chuck Cadman. I think actually Chuck Cadman is an honest man. He has not made up his mind and he's goiung to wait and see
what his riding wants and what the right thing to do is and so I truthfully think with Cadman we won't know until Thursday.
UD - Until he stands up.
TM - So, you know, now I think truthfully in the face of this I think Belinda spoke to that.
GG - Mmmmm.
TM - What I think is the broad public opinion, that this is not the time for an election, that there is a fairness idea of saying that Gomery comission is showing some stuff that none of like and support and that we all think is bad stuff. There is fairness, in letting that process continue and dealing with the results of it. And you know so that is the push and pull and where we are at. There's some good stuff for BC in that budget.
UD - I know, laugh
GG I don't see that one, but otherwise after the budget is renewed some good elements are there. We have been public about that Atlantic Accord I think that's another issue to be pondering about it. If the Bill we separated for Atlantic Accord I'm sure that will pass.
TM - I don't think the Bloc support it much. I don't think they will
GG - Ya but still it will pass
GG - I think as these crossroads crucial things do happen and the challenges are there. Of course, Independents we cannot rely on them for the time being, both of them. The nature of the individuals and the nature of their own preference time-frame. You are right, David and I are good friends, we traveled together I was shadowing him. I also have the same sense I agree with you that he will be voting with us - I told you yesterday.
GG - Chuck Cadman probably maybe vote with you, he is keeping close to his chest. Let me put it this way, Tim, Ujjal and I we belong to the same community and we have lots of common friends.
TM - Yep
GG - We are in a way like brothers actually in the community because two of us are in politics from BC and many people rely on us for those issues and lots of common friends, we speak the same language - so many common things. When he became Premier I was the only person belonging to a different party at his reception that night.
TM - Sure
GG And I was attacked by the media for being there which I happily took and (let me shut it off)..... [a few secs of silence]
GG - So having said that I may not have otherwise talked to anyone or have been willing to talk but some common friends they did bridge us on this issue. For now, whatever you have to tell me, we will think about it quickly....
UD - I'll just put away, don't worry
UD - Just ignore it
GG - So because of that, I guess the future course can be determined. It will be a very difficult decision to make.
UD - Belinda just made it easier for you
GG - She made it easier, she opened the door
TM - Ya.. it's still not easy.Page 4
GG - Ya because in the ethnic community we look upon things a little bit differently and there always a long term impact
TM - Ya
GG - And they...always a long term-impact. This will the talk of the town, not of the town, not of the country, of the world. People will know in India, they will talk in India too, it will be a big thing for many people. So it will depend on what what we talk
UD - Have you spoken to your wife and you are speaking on behalf of both of you?
GG - Hu Hu
TM - As you may know Ujjal and I have spoken last night and again this morning and talked to the PM. And I think that the way Ujjal described it to me, and I think it's a sensible one and I'm thinking about how Ujjal came into cabinet the importance of honesty, faith and trust in the relationship and that at that one level Ujjal take risk, on an other that his faith was rewarded and there is an element of trust underlying that, obviously, and I accept that can be difficult and sometimes difficult burden to bear in politics ummm ummm because it feels sometimes like it is a career and hobby that does not operate on trust very much. 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. But obviously we're obviously at a point where 2 votes don't vote with govt then the budget passes - so um 2 votes from the Conservative side of the ledger can make a difference, a significant difference. One doesn't, two do. I think that, as you say, you may have seen the PM say we are not, you know he's said it, I'm not offering and I'm making no offers. And I think that is a narrative we have to stick to it, and I don't want to make the PM a liar. That's not to say that's what we are doing, but I think it is important that we can be honest about it. But there also, we understand that those people who take risk, ought to be rewarded for the risks they take and, you know, that as you look through the process of, you know, making a difficult decision, thinking about implications for you personally and then what that means that as we get out from under this, the gold fish bowl of right now and into a calmer temperature over the summer, that then I think our flexibility to do things in that clamer period of times goes up considerably. And you know that I can help people out in transitions, you know, even in that environment, you know as someone says, I've got a comfort problem within a party I am part of, given the difficult choices facing me and that may mean I have to move to an independent status and then out of that independent status, in truth, then flexibility also increases, right? to do some things that well and independent MP can make, you know, can make a contribution that someone whose shown and stood up for a vision of the country and a personal set of beliefs that they believe that matter to them. They can do that in way, they can articulate that point of view saying hang on. I have a principled point of view that I'm bringing to the table here. I'm a person of principle. Am I being offered anything, I can say "no", right, because it's a point of principle that kind of principled stand is the kind of principled stand that people look to and say "that ought to be rewarded." Does that sound right to you?
UD - Yes it sounds right to me and then at the end, in two or three months, if both of them felt that way they want to come and join,
TM - Absolutely
UD - it will be more credible at that point for you.
TM - Yeah, no sorry, I did not want to in any way preclude that, I mean obviously you'll have to feel what you are comfortable doing and what, where your personal space is and what both you and your wife, let me make one thing absolutely clear that we are, umm, we're a welcoming party and we will do everything we can do to be welcoming, you know obviously for us continuing to expand our base in BC and in prominent communities in this country is a political priority for us so it's a welcome mat that has a lot of nice comfy fur on it. Laughs
UD -I think what Tim is saying about trust is that most of these things do happen with trust and you have to feel comfortable with that and at the end, of course if Chief of Staff stated that certain conduct ought to be rewarded in due time that trust can be interpreted 99.9% of the time. Sometimes you can't do it because the circumstances will kill you. I told him about my conversations with the PM when I came
(Tea is served to all)
TM-Let me put one more little fact that I hope we can keep this one fact in this room. You should understand from my perspective, you know, I have two things I'm going to say--one of which is, David Peterson, in terms of Belinda Stronach. David Peterson was the conduit. DP called me on Friday and obviously we had a conversation through him as an intermediary on a basis of trust and not surprisingly, if it did not work out, then Belinda Stronach did not want to be in the position of being hurt by the discussion and so we did that on the basis of trust. Between us, it almost didn't happen, but it was on the basis of trust. Ujal Dosanjh is a crucially important minister in this government, and yet I could not tell him because I had given a promise, until today. Right? And so, that I think is lesson about two things. One of which is, we live up to our commitments and secondly this conversation no matter what happens, is something that happens with us, that is it Ok?
GG - Sure
TM - And the fact that no one knew that Belinda was doing this is proof that keep to those commitments no matter what happen. Ok. So I want you to know that and have that comfort
GG - Since there is no decision from either side, so we have to keep it at that.
TM - Absolutely.
GG - If it is positive or negative decision, whatever, we will respect it
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 Ujal 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.
GG - Hu..hu
UD - Today in politics you don't leverage, if you do this thing, I'll do that.... it doesn't happen that way... and, out of that trust, as it grows, there are rewards. That's part of that trust relationship. As you know, it's never a bargain.
TM - There are some days I think Ujjal doesn't think it's that big a reward. But...
UD - Somebody said this morning, Belinda... I said she's going to be Minister of Health...and somebody said "hey, I'm Minister of Health".
GG - Another thing which will facilitate for us to talk is, if I may be blunt
TM - Absolutely
GG -..in this room. I am unnecessarily being targeted by Joe Volpe. It may be his duty to do certain things up to certain limits but beyond that, he crossed that line. He twisted the fact to the extent that he has to stick labels on me, put words in my mouth, to come to the point what he is alleging. I honestly was talking to Ujjal, I deserve an apology from him. I have stated in the committee, that I am asking people to sign letters of intent to post a bond. No one has ever gone to, for getting visitor Visa, no one has ever gone to or sent to a lawyer. No one has ever signed a bond. No one has ever paid a fee to the lawyer to make that thing happen. No one was given a cheque; money has not been a factor. Why would he go out and say that I was profiteering from it. He has put out a figure of $1.5 to 2 million.
TM - He said that in public?
GG - Yes in public, he is libel actually and I can easily sue him for that
TM - I will talk to him.
UD - What I told Gurmant is that on the Ethics issue, there is nothing we can do. It's a matter before the Ethics Commissioner.
GG - I agree.
UD - But on the other hand, if we can work something - if there is an arrangement or understanding that we arrive at, we can certainly make that part of the package.
TM - Yep
GG - For me to agree to anything that will be a prerequisite otherwise I'll look stupid...
TM - Yes, I can understand that.
GG - ...that I'm talking something and on the other hand I'm being accused of something, the Minister needs to verify the facts, if he agrees that he twisted the facts and went overboard, he crossed the line then he owes me an apology - He stated on CPAC that my office was like a cash cow. Two months have passed, not a single individual has come forward because there is no one existing who has signed any bond. The Ethics Commissioner is investigating and I am pretty sure I will be coming clean. I am confident, because I have done nothing wrong. What have I done, I have told them. And they can verify that.
TM - When are you expecting the Ethics Commissioner's Report?
GG - I don't know, but timing is important. I can not have any control. I told the Ethics Commissioner --
TM - [Inaudible]
GG - ... yeah, I know -- Judy took so long as I told the Ethics Commissioner that timing is crucial. Damage is being done in the meantime, but the damage will stop by doing the right thing and the right thing is that the Minister can withdraw his comments --he
partially withdrawn his comments in the House. That withdrawal is so partial, it doesn't look like a withdrawal. He has issued two apologies recently; the third one can blend with the other two, it won't make a big difference, but it will at least make my way clear and my conscience clear too.
TM - Yeah...
UD - I think that can be...let me think it out loud for a moment on that score. On the rest of the understanding can be reached at. On that score, I think it would be pretty easy for --I would suggest to my colleague Joe, its pretty easy for him to say, "I have spoken to Mr. Grewal, he has explained the situation to me. I do believe that he has not received any money pursuant to any of those letters of intent for bond."
GG - And that he apologizes for making those comments. He regrets the inconvenience Caused.
UD - He regrets...
TM - It would be really nice if we could get the Ethics Commissioner to give an interim report or something else to take the cloud off, that would be helpful.
GG - They are investigating as we speak, so
TM - Yes
GM - So...
UD - The ethics issue is about the bonds, right?
GG - The ethics issue is about two things. One am I contravening any rules of Immigration? Second, that - did I take any money? So...
UD - Did you take any money?
GG - I did not take any money, which can be cleared. Contradicting any provisions of the Immigration Act, that can be determined by the Ethics Commissioner or other experts. But according to me, when people come to you and me or any other MP for asking favours visitor visas, we ask them, "are you sure the individual will go back, right"? Only then will we intervene for a visitor's visa. Whether this is a verbal commitment or a written commitment, what difference does it make? Visitor visas are intended for visitors to come and visit our country and return to the country of origin. If they have stated to me verbally or in writing, what difference does it make. Don't they tell the same thing at the embassy?
UD - I think that is an issue that we can work on.
TM - I agree.
GG - Mmmm
UD - That's a minor issue. I know it is important to you.
GG - Ya.
UD - You look silly doing this - that is an understanding
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.
TM - Have you um,
UD - Both of those things happen together in sequence. There may be a little gap.
TM - Have you...
GG - Sorry ?
TM - Sorry...go ahead
GG - No no you go ahead
TM - I was just saying, have you done or has any polling been done in your riding as to what your riding things about the need for an election, or is it much like Cadman's: 60 plus percent?
GG - Ok? So, that makes my job easier
GG -We do not have any scientific polling done. But, talking to people, even some of my own staunch Conservatives, they are double-minded OK? So to be honest my constituents, the majority of them would not look forward to an election.
TM - Right
GG - Ok? So that makes my job easier.
TM - Ya
GG - I have sent my householder...that will come in due course to confirm what I'm observing at the moment.
TM - Right
GG - My perception would be confirmed. On the other hand we have mixed reaction... some people say "get them out" and they don't deserve 'blah blah blah' so you use the wording, you know, and the others say 'no, no, no' don't do it.
TM - My guess is your householder will probably bias towards wanting an election because people who are angry are more likely to send a reply
GG - Right. I agree
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 Belinda thing was all done [inaudible]
GG - Mmmmm
UD - You should chat with him, figure out where you're at
GG - Ok
TM - Let me ask you this
UD - And if you are inclided to then do it and you say you will do it
TM - Can I ask you - how free are you in talking to Joe Volpe in trying to clear this hurdle out of the way. How much, if anything can I tell him?
GG - You can tell Joe Volpe that look, Joe was my friend, we were working together in the gym almost every single day in the past. If I had something to do in the party, I did ask him sometimes - we were going so well. I had his private number, as well at one time.
TM - Ya
GG - The problem is that after this bump in our relationship, he is doing it for one single reason, that the candidate who is running against me from your side is his personal friend. Joe Sukh Dhaliwal, Joe stayed out of 36 days campaign, 6 days in Surrey at his residence. Joe told me he was feeling like home, that they had given him so much warm welcome. Okay? Then a few comments were made during the campaign which are on the record, for example, Judy Sgro came there twice during the campaign, and she said, for any immigration work to go to Suhk Dhaliwal, not to Gurmant Grewal. If a minister states that on the record, it could be potentially harmful for her. Second, she was given some money, people are bragging about it - Sukh's people - [inaudible] thousand dollars which she didn't report anywhere, ok?
TM - RightPage 9
GG - I told Judy that I knew, and she should stop saying that. If I had used another avenue to make the same statement, she would have been in trouble.
TM - Right, right
GG - Ah thirdly, for this visa thing. He's simply exaggerating in the Indo-Canadian media more than anywhere else because of his relationship with him.
TM – right
UD I think what Tim was asking you is can he talk Joe about the apology
GG - I was coming, so if you tell him, look in knowing him and knowing the purpose, let's forget the purpose, Gurmant thinks that we can come back to normal, but I can take very serious offence to Volpe's false statements being repeated continually. He can take an action with the Ethics Commissioner that can be completed soon. But my conversation with you is that he must apologize and I will not accept less than that. Otherwise I am going to take legal action against him. My party is pushing for that. He has stated that I have asked people to sign bonds personally on my name, or my party's name or on the Leader's name. He has said it in the House. Either he can prove it or he can pay the price for it. He has said my office is a cash cow., He has to prove it or he will be liable. If he says I was profiteering from it, he is liable. As he said, that I have made $1.5 or 2 million dollars out of it, which I did not - he is liable for that. I can sue him for these slanderous and defamation.
UD - You get angry about it don't you? I have another question that Tim was asking you. When he's talking to Joe, he has to then tell Joe, why he is talking to Joe. How much can he tell Joe about this conversation?
GG - No don't tell him anything, please
TM - That will be a challenge
GG - I believe that this information remain here, but. But..
UD - Then we only to talk to him once this decision is made, before you go out.
GG - No, no, that will not be the right thing to do, I tell you why. When I am going out and making the statement, this thing has to be clear - reasonably well in advance.
UD - It will be.
GG - Let me answer this - what you can tell him is that look something is happening and we want you to apologize, issue an apology, probably in the House or in writing. I want it in writing but he can also do it in the House with the understanding that something is happening and if it too much, then I will take legal action and it will jeopardize what we are doing.
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.
TM - Yeah
UD - He'll do it, because there is a follow-up get together and say 'Joe we need it' and he'll do it before you announce.
GG - Let me put it this way,
UD - There will have to be an understanding in place before we do it.
GG - I understand your point of view, my viewpoint is that we are here together and taking the risk, we're taking the risk, I am here for the reason, Ok? So second, if we have to get that thing out of it and it won't have any side effect or it does not negatively impact
either you or anyone else by issuing any apology because it is the right thing to do. He has to do it irrespective of what we do.
TM - The challenge is, If I put myself - thinking about your interest,, which are absolutely fair and thinking about his from a political perspective. Without being able to know that something's happening here, the best I could get him to, get is something that is akin to, well look I am not going to get into the details of this look, I can see him saying something like, well in the heat of the moment, people may say things that are a little too much, the Ethics Commissioner is looking at this and I am not going to say anything more and will be prepared to be bound by what he concludes and if he concludes that nothing happened, then of course I will apologize. That is what I think I can get him to at best without being able to say that something is happening. I can push him that extra bit, if I can say to him that something is happening.
GG - Ok, done. Done
TM - Does that make sense to you
GG - It does make sense. It does make the job easier, the onus will be on you to keep his mouth shut after that.
UD - Not to worry, he will automatically do that.
GG - I know, I know he would. Even after it happens or not happens, after that period of time too. So if he can keep that secrete that would be fine with me, then you can tell him. So I have this bond, this information in this room should remain there not anywhere else.
TM - Sorry, I'm just going to be very clear, what I 'm proposing is one of two things - there is one or two ways to go. One of them is you do what essentially you need to do, and we do what we need...we come to an agreement based on something is going to happen, based on the fact that you know, and I know that Ujjal knows something is going to happen. I go to Joe Volpe and I say "don't ask me why, but at 10:30 am tomorrow you're issuing this statement.
GG - That's fine.
TM - But, I do that, I force him to, based on the fact that we have a deal, if I don't have what I am saying is the best I can get him to is to say "I'm not gong to say anything more, people say excessive things, I'll wait for the Ethics Commissioner and be bound by the results' So those are the only....
GG - I prefer the first scenario, I think 75% that we are there, ok?
TM - Ya
GG - 25% depends on what's going to happen next, if we do.
TM - Ya
GG - That will be coming from Big Boss
TM - Right
GG -...ok? So not directly but...
UD - I think it's going to come from him...
GG - I know but what I meant was you said that he asked you to come tell me we will talk --like to talk to me then?
UD - Yes he would...but
GG - Time, I'm not underestimating what you are doing but what I'm saying is he has to talk, right?
TM - Right
GG - So if he has to talk what he has to talk...
UD - Then he can only talk to you over the phone
GG - That's fine, even tomorrow or today whatever
UD - Tomorrow, might be a bit late on this other process.
GG This process you can go ahead. I believe so. That will make me comfortable in dealing with further.
GG - That will make me look at least not looking stupid in my own judgement, my own conscience. If I'm looking in the mirror I'm feeling that okay, I am doing something stupid
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 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]
GG - Okay, I understand, but let me be also blunt, if I may, my point is that what we are talking is not part of the deal at all. This is something, what we are doing is the right thing to do. Make the way clear. It is just like to go somewhere the door has to be open. This is just simply a door which is inhibiting in my conscience to talk further or do anything. We are simply opening the door, but it is not the subject of where we are going to.
TM - And I am saying that I can only get the door only part way open
GG - Mmmmm
UD - You can only get the door slightly open, if there is no deal
GG - You have to open the door where I can sneak out - okay
GG - That much the door has to be open.
TM: Well I will see what I can do. We should actually be real careful about using "the deal" as a language because when you are asking, you want to say "No' I did it from a principal basis..."
GG - I agree.
TM - "..no deals." So I think we should, I know we're shorthanding
you here, but let's not because I don't think it's good for either of us. But I think we all understand what we are talking about..
UD I think that suits us. Do you want to spell it out. Are you happy with the kind of understanding Tim has given you?
GG - If you ask about happy, no, but I do understand what he is saying. Happy I will be when I know, not exactly but some sort of nature of what kind of things will happen after that -- what the time frame, what will happen, those kind of things you know. I will sit not with the Independents for very long then it will be in my best interest to be there where I wanted to be, ok?
TM - Ya
GG - It will be in your best interest too.
TM - Ya
GG - Sitting independently, neither I'm yours or I'm theirs, I don't think that I will stay there comfortably.
TM - But you know and that makes sense
UD - Actually, Belinda has given you an opportunity to not go independently, if you choose
GG - Ya, exactly, if we have to do it, lets do it properly
UD - I don't have a problem
GG - I don't want to do anything half-heartedly. I have not done so ever and I won't do it.
TM -Ya that's fair.
UD -That's fair. I think Belinda has opened that door, because you are going to do it without Belinda. The other scenario for your credibility would have been better.
GG - Tim, I was telling Ujjal that Belinda being leadership candidate gave you some high profile. My situation, two of us are the only Sikh people, Sikh's are very active, ethnic communities - BC-wise, Ontario-wise..it will have an impact on other ridings too.
TM - Yes I hear you... I know that a little bit.
GG - The benefit is much much much different than Belinda
TM - Yes, I agree with you. I know that a little bit and you may not know this and I'm not even sure UD knew but when I used to be a liberal party organizer in my history-and in 1990 in the leadership for our party between Martin and Cretien and I mean obviously one of the communities that was very active was the Sikh community and I got to know a little bit about the connections that were across the county in the community. So I accept what you're saying
GG -If I go anywhere in Canada and they talk about us, people will give you some reflection (talk over)
UD-Maybe you can talk, you want me to leave for a few minutes
TM - No that doesn't, it's up to you (talk over)
UD - He wants things spelled out but it's pretty difficult to do
GG - I will not talk with the Big Boss like that, but Tim can. Ujjal I'm contradicting your advice a little bit OK? The understanding that, if possible, my wife would be the preference for that adjustment, possibly in the Senate. So that's the understanding, but Ujjal told me not to mention it like this. I understand why he is doing that. That's nothing, but clarity is always better, it doesn't harm any - either of us
TM - That's right
GG With you that understanding - how you talk and how you communicate will be up to you. I don't want to be either left in the dark or perceiving something which may not
be the situation actually. So what we know what we are doing, where we are - it makes it more comfortable to say yes or no.
TM - And for you?
GG - For me, whatever you think is reasonably appropriate. I may be eligible for a pension soon, in about 8 years/9years. This is something that my investor has been informed of (inaudible) since I got elected, until recently, so that gives you some indication.
TM-Well I have to - there is a challenge around the Senate, per se that is not to say other options are not possible. I mean in truth we have a single BC vacancy with someone potentially appointed and we don't literally have a vacancy after that for a year and a half I think (UD..) in that range, anyways it's Jack Austin, the next retiree, I think, and our problem is that we have already talked to someone about the existing vacancy, we have not appointed the person because it felt a little unseemly to do so when literally the government could fall, it just felt like the wrong time so we did not proceed, but it's... Now I understand what you are saying in terms of wanting some sense of security for your wife and that is understandable. So that - so security is the kind of thing you can look at.
GG - I do not what to be rude or anything, but I thought it is a sense of security. It could be a question in my decision making
TM - No, I understand
UD - (inaudible) That will be considered
TM - I understand what you are saying, security matters.
GG -The reason is - is that in my part we have only two seats ethnic minority, women from B.C. So the work I have done I have not done I have not burned any bridges in my party. My party does appreciate the work I have done. My leader does appreciate, he took the bullet for me on this cases which normally the leaders don't. You know that
TM - Ya
GG In Joe Volpe's case, my leader told me to be quiet and he'll take the bullet for me and he did. It normally doesn't happen that way. So I'm having a brighter future, if we have a government you know, that - so I think that if I'm doing it then it's a kind offer but I must be accomplishing a bit where I stay, if I stay where I am. So if I cross the floor then have some sense of permanent/(equivalent) security
TM - Yes
GG - Anyways, so we'll leave it there.
UD - His wife is not going to win the next seat if she's a Liberal
TM - Yeah, No. I understand that.
GG -I may, she may not.
TM - Ya
GG - If I'm a Liberal in my riding I will win easily.
UD - If he decides to run, if he decides to run.
TM - Yes
GG - Let's say, hypothetically, if I'm in cabinet and I'm running as a Liberal in the next election - not a problem.
TM - Right
GG - Anyways, so we'll leave it there
TM - Ok
GG - I'll leave it there. I'll leave it up to you, but I think that Joe Volpe thing needs time sensitive I should say
TM - I understand
GG If it done sooner than tomorrow when we are, if we were to make an announcement tomorrow, I'm prepared because it is done the day before.
UD - So you want to talk with - are you comfortable with what Tim has said to you then?
GG - What's that ?
YD - You agree security matters, he agrees security matters
GG - Right, we can resolve that
UD - That will be resolved subsequently
GG - You see, trust is one thing but knowing what we are trusting is another thing. We may have to trust not to get this information out. We agree. For the rewarding , trust is there, but we have to be clear what we are trusting
TM - Right
GG - I'm counting two birds in the bush, I don't have one bird in hand yet, right so, that kind of trust always reflects uncertainties
TM - Yeah, might as well leave it there.
GG - Alright, we'll leave it there. I would like to hear from you the progress on Joe Volpe, whatever, whenever and once that is out of the way, then tomorrow after the understanding with you, Ujjal and the PM, then may go ahead and make the announcement, if we do agree. If we didn't than the only benefit of this talk would be the (whole) Joe Volpe thing is out of the way. Right?
TM - And you and I got to meet each other.
GG - Yes, Of course, that's right - the door is partially open
TM - It always is
GM - That's right. Alright.
UD - I don't know where it's at. I mean obviously you can't deal with Joe Volpe unless there is an understanding
TM -Yeah. No I think the sense is, I think both of us, I think what you're saying is you need to think about it and I'm saying I need to think about it, but there still is a bit of a gap
UD - Fine
GG - Okay
TM - So we need to deal with that [phone ring] excuse me, sorry
UD - Well then why don't I take me out of it and why don’t the two of you talk
GG - Okay
TM - Through Ujjal?
GG - Okay, I can give you my - I prefer not to talk on the cell phone but we can talk on the land line.
TM - Alright so let me just
Inaudible (shifting noises) [exchanges of numbers/contact info]
TM - my number, that's for you. It's easiest for me to contact your, but it's up to you
UD - inaudible.. he has to meet with the three of us
TM - G-E-R-M-A-N-T?
GG - No G-U-R
TM - GUR, sorry apologies - What number is best for you?
GG - Ok -- 604 sorry, 613-XXX-XXXX, that is my direct line
TM - 613-XXX-XXXX?
GG - Yep
TM - Okay
GG - Or 0666
TM - Or 0666
GG - my cell is 604-307-XXXX - and you're numbers Tim?
TM - The easiest one always to get me is the PMO switchboard
GG - Okay
TM - It is 613-992-4211 They can track me down anywhere and it's a pain in the behind, extraordinarily
GG - Okay, any other numbers?
TM - That, they'll...
UD - They'll trace him
TM - They track me down and I don't get any rest because they know where I am
GG - Alright so we'll leave it there. Thank you very much -- great pleasure - thank you
TM - Maybe we will walk out separately.
GG - As we conclude, I think the Joe Volpe think will clear the way
(If I am missing anything - please email me firstname.lastname@example.org for corrections to this thanks)