Globe And Mail. (Conservative MP Germant Grewal and Tim Murphy, Paul Martin’s Chief of Staff);
Murphy: [unintelligible] …best for you and best for us, in a way that allows everybody to feel comfortable, and also allows everybody to feel principled, and I think to be principled. Both.
So, I was kind of thinking about that and I talked to Ujjal last night and again this morning, just before I came, which is why I was a few minutes late.
I apologize.
Grewal: That’s OK.
Murphy: What I think… what might be the easiest thing to do, and see what you think about this, because we have the vote tomorrow night, and if the government doesn’t fall, it’s not the only vote we may have to face. My guess is that when you look at issues like supply, final votes on the budget, opposition days, there could be as many as eight votes between now and the end of the session which could bring the government down, right?
Obviously, each one of them will be a nail-biter right to the end, and obviously, the two votes that you and your wife represent are the way the House is made up now, matter a lot, or can matter. There are, just to be honest, as I think I told you yesterday. There are other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemma that you face, and are musing, so �
Grewal: [unintelligible] many?
Murphy: I don’t want to, in the he same way I don’t want to do anything that, I don’t want to�
Grewal: [unintelligible]
Murphy: If I’m to honour your trust, I have to honour others.
Grewal: Definitely.
Murphy: So, I hope you don’t take that wrongly.
Grewal: Absolutely not.
Murphy: So I think the way to make it work, and the way that allows us the freedom�as you can tell. Right? Just to be blunt, right?
I think it’s a bad idea, truthfully, to have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade. Because I think anything that [unintelligible]. I don’t think it’s good if anybody lies. So if anybody asks the question well, was there a deal, you say, ‘No.’ You want that to be the truth. And so that’s what I want, is the truth to be told.
Secondly, though, I mean obviously it’s an important decision for you and your wife and I understand that you want to ensure that you can continue to contribute. Both of you. So, I understand that.
And, as I said, people who make decisions like this in a principled way are people who ought to and deserve to continue to contribute. So how do we square that circle?
Grewal: Okay.
Murphy: So one of the proposals I have is this, that, tomorrow’s vote is, let me phrase it in the abstract. If two members of the Conservative Party abstain from that vote… don’t vote against their own party, right? Don’t have to.
But equally don’t vote to bring it down tomorrow night on the two/ I think there’s two key votes. And that can be done on the basis… those members can do it, on the basis, well, you know.
Look, my riding doesn’t want an election. Doesn’t want one now. Thinks it’s the wrong time to do it. But equally, you know, to vote the opposite way is to vote against the party I’m a member of, the leader of the party, and I’m not prepared to do that.
But I don’t think an election’s the right thing � I don’t want to say that won’t create some…
[interjection by Grewal, unintelligible]
… some flak, but it keeps freedom, right? Allows someone to go back home in the right circumstance and it also allows someone an opportunity, right? So if there is an abstention. If someone then, though, in my view, if someone then abstains in that environment, who has exercised a decision based on principle, it still gives the freedom to have negotiating room.
On both sides. Both going back home � then it’s actually the freedom to have discussion is increased if someone has made a decision that doesn’t preclude any options based on principle.
Then you can come and say, “Well look…” � then you can have an explicit discussion. And then in that environment, you know, a person can say, “Look, I obviously abstained, and that created some issues, and now I’m thinking hard about.”
You can say, “I’m thinking hard about what’s the right thing for my riding and the contribution that I could like to make.”
Then we can have a discussion that welcomes someone to the party. And then in that environment we know if those two votes continue to vote, either the one vote switches, or one switches and one abstains, or both abstain, from now until the end of the session the government will survive, right?
We know that. And then we get through to the end of the session, right?,
And then, if one person wants to switch and make the contribution, then that makes a lot of sense.
If the other wants to switch and then serve until an election, or some time in advance of that, and then… and then… and then… you know, something would look to be done to ensure that that person…
[…]
Murphy: All of which is to say, that in advance of that, explicit discussions about Senate. Not Senate. I don’t think are very helpful, and I don’t think frankly can be had, in advance of an abstention tomorrow.
And then we’ll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that with some freedom.
And I think what that allows is negotiating room for you, in either direction.
You can easily, say, “Look. Yeah, you know, if you don’t like it, you can stay home, stay back with… where you are. And if you do like, we can make an arrangement that allows you to move. Now look, I don’t expect, you to react to that right now. Think about it. Please talk to Ujjal. Ujjal knows this is the discussion I’m having with you. Please feel free, and say, you know, he knows. And then, if that proposal is of some interest to you, then I will talk to Volpe and get something happening.
(Pause. Grewal starts to speak. Murphy interrupts.)
Well, I have talked to Volpe, already. So �
Grewal: Is he manageable?
Murphy: Yes.
Grewal: What happens is�..[unintelligible] you know how we came together. There are some common friends. He approached me. [unintelligible]
Murphy: No, it’s a bit… it’s the same. I understand. Sorry. Please accept, I understand completely. It’s much like Belinda, where there is a third party who is independent of both sides. You didn’t approach, we didn’t approach.
Grewal: They did approach me.
Murphy: The independent party played the role, like we didn’t approach, you didn’t approach.
Grewal: [unintelligible] End of tape
So, where is our media? Where is the discussion about the possible conspiracy to commit a criminal code offence?
You know, in between those debates about how “scary” “hidden agenda” Conservatives are to “mainstream Canadians”?
The criminal code can- and will be- interpreted by appointed judges who are paid around a quarter million bucks a year for this specific purpose. Do I make myself clear on this?
“Yes, MiLawd, Yer Honour!” Etc. Haw!
[unintelligible]?
You got an envelope for every one of those, right?
Here’s his hidden agenda, hiding in plain sight: To stay in power.
So Volpe is manageable.
If that’s not an attempt to bribe I don’t know what is.
Forgive my skeptical nature – but I knew the Liberals side of the story was false as soon as I watched CBC news hour yesterday and there was no mention of this story – whatsoever… at least not in the first 25 minutes… after that I flipped back and forth and could have conceivably missed it.
But isn’t Steven Harper scary?
This is very bad, but I’m also a little worried about the remainder of the tape the conservatives are not releasing (according to the globe and mail which is where I think I read that.)
An RCMP investigation should be done. I just hope that little bit of tape they are not giving out contains something unimportant like talking about the weather, complimenting each other on their wives, or discussing the best burger king places to eat. If not, this could backfire and make the conservatives look bad — and the liberal minded media are looking for any excuse right now to bill the conservatives as bad.
Volpe is manageable.
That’s an attempt to bribe. Period.
Volpe is manageable.
That’s an attempt to bribe. Period.
Chuck Cadman might be the nicest guy in the world but aren’t the words he uttered last night in after vote interviews eerily similar to the words Murphy is suggesting as talking points for the Grewel’s to use?
Also, Joe Volpe must be so pleased for the country to learn that the PMO deems him as “manageable”
Laurie
We all need some comic relief. So here’s some…
Imagine BS contemplating her moves to win the leadership of the LPC. And imagine BS envisioning herself as our PM.
Funny I though Martin’s agenda was fairly open….power at all costs…as long as the public pays the tab for the bribes.
Seems fairly open to me.
I hope this will get on:
I can”t keep my toes from tapin
can’t keep my feet from dancin
can’t keep off the ol dance floor
this is what comes to mind when I heard the latest
news.
Cadman makes no sense at all. Here is why.
About a week before the vote, he was on CTV with one of his staff saying that the “overwhelming” majority of the calls in were for bringing down the government. Then two days before the vote, he said it was a tie, and then after he voted he said it was about two thirds in favor of keeping the crooks in power.
He also said that he took his poll from emails and calls from constituents. How scientific is that? I am not in Cadman’s riding but, just for fun, I emailed Chuck Cadman’s home email last week and asked him to bring down the government. I received a reply that they could not count me vote unless I supplied them with a name and address within the constituency. So, I went to the internet and pulled up the name of someone in Surry with their address and phone number and emailed them back with the information. I never heard anything back so I assume he counted my vote. Now the question is, if it was so easy for me to cheat on his poll, how easy would it be for Liberal supporters to do the same thing with reference to the Surrey phone book, the internet, or wait better yet, “last years Elections Canada” voter registration list? The answer, very easy. There is something rotten here that doesn’t smell right.
RE: possible conspiracy to commit a criminal code offence
Paul Martin would sooner bring up Pfizer (Viagra) on charges of Corrupting Morals:
Canada Criminal Code
163. (2) Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse,
(d) advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method for restoring sexual virility or curing venereal diseases or diseases of the generative organs.
Of course we know he won’t be doing that anytime soon either. In this case the CCC is somewhat antiquated but it seems that any treatment of morals or ethics in the CCC has been set aside
Ooh.. politicians are negotiating and making deals? No way! I’m outraged.
IF the liberals are going to try and keep the country together every time we try to split it up, I’m going to get really frustrated here.
Now I guess I have to go back tow work.. awww.
http://www.boomantribune.com/ also has a nice forum style – why don’t you?
Eh.. mockpuppet – the Federal Government has no authority to “keep the country together”. They don’t get a vote. That’s up to the people of Quebec.
The people of Quebec.. you must mean the French speaking people of Quebec.
Lets see who Quebecers really are. Native Canadians? Check. English Canadians? Check.
French Canadians? Check.
Now, when the seperatists take provincial parliament, they are allowed to have a referendum. That’s awfully nice of us, since we’ve been bending over backwards for them ever since the war…Quebecers (french speaking ones) Have NO right to split up the country, just as us conservatives don’t.
It’s called Federal government for a reason. Now, if a few Quebecers think they can seperate from Canada – please ensure they leave the land that belongs to native canadians, and pay us back our share of their debt.
And if we can all seperate whenever we want to, well, I’m going with Peter Griffin and declaring my house an independant nation. Now to work on a flag…
Mocky, I ran your terms past my friends in Quebec. They decided that they didn’t like them. They’ll just separate on their own terms. All the land. No repayments. Etc., etc.
Now. Just what are you going to do about it?
When we talk about ‘splitting up the country’ one might mull the fact that the make up of Parliament ensures it and enshrines it.
WHERE the hell else would we have a parliamentary makeup that INCLUDES a party FROM ONE Province dedicated to the SEPARATION OF their province as their mandate, yet sit in the House of Commons.
And, just a few short years ago THEY were the Official Opposition for God’s sake.
The Quebec people and especially the Bloc as represented by those 54 souls sitting in the house and led by Guilles Duceppe are NOT true separatists. They went to the House on the express mandate from their people that separation wasn’t on the agenda. Most in Quebec want to work within Canada. They have expressed that to be their desire in more ways than one. They are a people just like the rest of us but particularly good at getting more from Confederation than the rest of us because of the makeup of Upper and Lower Canada. On confederation this should have been rectified, but it was not and continues to haunt us today.
That the Bloc today is a threat to unity is a statement bourne out of ignorance of not only the Bloc, Guilles Duceppe but Quebec as a whole.
The Liberals have used this issue to divide and conquer for as long as I can remember. And they continue to do it today. Right out of Belinda Boops mouth.
Until WE wake up to the game that is and has been afoot and take corrective action, nothing will matter.
We all in English Canada have more in common with the Bloc and Quebecers than we realize, so used to the harping on Quebec by liberals. THEY always keep the balance of power by playing this card and it always seems to work for them.
Except for the Charlottetown Accord. Now THAT vote showed how the country as a whole felt INCLUDING Quebec.
And the facts seem to support Quebec NEVER separating for if they did try I believe they would find it impossible. Both financially and physically.
Quebecers are ANGRY now AT the liberal party and they want and NEED their English cousins to realize the outrages that have been perpetrated against them and us and get ONSIDE.
While they have fits of outrage and frustration, we in English Canada sip our lattes and cluck at the goings on in parliament as though they had nothing to do with us…. that Stephen Harper.. isn’t HE scary. Oh, Paul Martin just looks so warm and friendly…. while Quebecers upchuck their cookies in disgust and revulsion and wonder why WE haven’t woken up.
As long as we have the Buzz Hargroves cracking the whip and the federal government pouring billions of tax dollars to keep the automobile industry propped up in Ontario and Central Canada we will continue to be lulled by the ruling party and their media handmaidens.. lulling us to sleep with their obnoxious patter and pandering to the liberal party. They know patronage when they see it and they are not about to give it up.
I agree with Snowbunnie. I’m wondering why Alberta can’t have their own federal party and run federally. I know, I know. But still, why not? In the meantime I’m working to support the separation of Alberta. I don’t think it will come to that but, and this is a warning to warm and fuzzy federalists, if Alberta were to get as far along with a referendum as Quebec did last time, they won’t be stopped. There are more people pissed off right now in Alberta than there ever were in Quebec.
Alberta needs to get really tough and start opting out of federal programs en mass. They need to set up their own provincial police force and medical program for a starter. Let it go to court, which it will. Then they can maybe get to the real bottom of the Gomery Inquiry as well as others at the same time. When they have certain crown bureaucrats on the stand they can say things like; oh, by the way, what do you know about…
Your arguments don’t hold water, even if the Bloc weren’t also implicated in “adscam”
The Bloc are filling the absence of the CONSERVATIVE party in Quebec.
The Liberals still have some support in quebec, but really both major parties have blown it with Quebeceurs.
The conservatives most definitely created the vacuum for the Bloc to fill. It is the conservatives who are pariahs in Quebec. (the marriage makes no sense.. be thankful we gave you a pass on the motivation for the strange alliance.. at least NDP Liberal makes ideological sense.)
If Quebec doesn’t like our terms, tough! What are they going to do, ask the US to invade and bring them freedom and democracy LMAO.
We had this out already, and England won. The Queen is here today. I don’t see Roi Georges the 43’d anywhere around here (not so popular even with the quebeceurs)
For that matter, why wait for a referendum to give them a settlement (a la Israel/Palestine)
Of course Quebeceurs want to stay in Canada. But the Bloc is the Bloc *Quebecois*, and to discount a seperatist agenda is as naive as thinking Harper doesn’t have one either.
If it is better regionalist governance you’re after, well, you have only to overlook your provincial government.
ndp and liberal make perfect ideological sense, for commies, socialists and corrupt thieves, and FAILURES of any accomplishment beyond overtaxation.
The problem with the bloc rests in harpers or martins hands. You can expect the same awipe separatists voting bloc any day of the week, so wtf?
Slackjaw and marxtin have failed miserably to make quebec a responsible province, mostly economical, overly commie policies, hidden foundations, etc., Time to give harper the chance he deserves.
back in the sixties and seventies, it was common practice for the FLQ to rob a bank in Toronto, spend some of the money on dope, some on hookers, etc. and some on ‘the cause’. That came to a climax when they whacked one of their own, (Pierre Laport), by strangling him with his own rosary beads- while his hands were tied behind his back), and then these ‘heros of the revolution’ fled to Cuba, came back to Canukistan, got ‘pardoned’ and then…….government flunky jobs, ( and went on the rubber chicken university talksthingy circuit………
Forgive my ignorance, but could someone please explain what this means. Don’t know who these guys are or understand who they’re onside with. The innerworkings of Canadian politics is too complex for me to understand. Clearly the “checks and balances” system is whacked. Could use a quick tutorial on this specific issue, if you please.
Newsbeat1.com reports:
Jack Layton, NDP Leader, has joined with Gilles Duceppe, Bloc Quebecois Leader, in demanding a police investigation into the telephone call made by Tim Murphy, PM Martin’s Chief of Staff, to Mr. Grewal, Conservative Member of Parliament.
Did Tim Murphy commit a crime or crimes?
Did PM Martin commit a crime or crimes?
This Canadian joins with Duceppe and Layton in demanding a police investigation.
What say you?
Long live freedom and democracy.
Long live the Rule of Law.
What say you?