A reader wrote a few days ago asking what this passage alludes to. On Tape 1 about half way through the 2d conversation between Grewal and Kalia (Monday morning), we find this exchange:

Kalia – You (GG) review, this is their need, why would they (PM and UD) deceive.
GG – Ok I will call you and tell you (my decision) later on,ok.
SK – I don’t think they will, he told me again and again. He (PM) promised Dr. (Gulzar) Cheema (consulate in Chandigarh, India) and he’ll meet that commitment after the legal problems are resolved. Cheema also told me that he can not discuss this more than this, he (Cheema) says every thing is OK with him.

I’ve uploaded a jpg file of a longer exerpt that places this portion in context in the extended entry.
There is this news item from the Tribune (India) on an upcoming appointment of former Liberal provincial MLA and federal candidate Cheema to Consul-General of the Canadian Consulate in Chandigarh. I wonder what he knows about this.
Phantom Observer wonders, too.

Continue reading →

I’ve been out of the house most of today, with my only news source Rawlco radio (generally worse than useless), so the one bona fide development I caught upon arriving back comes by way of Angry. The Ethics Commissioner has launched an official investigation into the Grewal tapes. Maybe there is hope that his own discomfort at being used as a bargaining chip in the very tapes he’s investigating will provide an incentive to break from his pattern in acting as an official Liberal party rubber stamp of approval.
A number of people have talked about “tipping points” for the Liberals. Well, I think that’s a pipe dream. You don’t “tip” a leech. But there may be a tipping point for Paul Martin, the final push by those intent on cutting loose the head so the body can slither away to survive.
This is a party that never got a chance to bury their dead from the Chretien-Martin wars. The wounds hadn’t begun to heal before the heavens opened up to pour Adscam on them. And while there may be glee and hope in some quarters that the accusations of tape tampering will save them to fight another day – these people aren’t idiots. They know as well as the rest of us what is on those tapes, and that the Prime Minister has been caught in a public lie. There are now signs of breaks in the ranks.
At a personal level, extended contraversy and dissent is hard enough on a leader – for a micro-manager like Paul Martin, having matters spiraling out of control on a weekly basis has got to be excrutiating and exhausting. He certainly appears out of sorts at times. Then, there’s a longtime habit of deflecting questions (“Did you have lunch with that man?”) directed at him in Question Period to other ministers.
This sometimes works at a tactical level, but as a general strategy, it’s a loser. At some point, a general understands the importance of rallying his troops and leading by example – of stepping into the fray and facing down the enemy come hell or high water, of taking his share of hits like a man.
Instead, Paul Martin uses his ministers as cannon fodder. They have to be tiring of it.
There seems to be more at work than mere lack of moral fibre or personal stubborness – I think there’s genuine fear. I don’t think it’s fear of the opposition, or fear of the media or the public. It’s the fear of a man who hears the unsheathing of a knives – at his rear. The dithering has always been coupled with stammering, and a strong tendency to avoid eye contact when pressed to answer questions. These days the stammering seems more pronounced, the eyes evade a little more wildly. To me – admittedly just a lowly Canadian who sees the PM only in brief television clips – Paul Martin sometimes looks downright spooked.
Then, there’s this Chantal H�bert Star piece on “whispers of rebellion” and a curious passage buried further down the page;

Never in the modern history of the province has a Quebec government been as unpopular as Premier Jean Charest’s; never in living memory have the federal Liberals enjoyed so little support.
Those are the kind of numbers that have government insiders and Parliament Hill observers alike cringing at the notion that Martin’s mettle could one day soon be tested in a real-life crisis involving the future of the country.
Those concerns were compounded by the performance of the Prime Minister in front of senior managers of the civil service earlier this week. Martin’s speech moved part of the audience but its emotional undertones left others uneasily wondering about his frailty

Emphasis mine.
Maybe it’s not my imagination.

This handy primer courtesy of the Blue Maple Leaf;

When Gurmant Grewal first notified the public that he had been offered a cabinet post, the liberal party, including the Prime Minister, denied that anyone had ever talked to Gurmant.
When Gurmant said that he had been recorded his conversations with liberal party members, the Prime Minister changed his story and said that liberal party members were negotiating with Gurmant, but that Gurmant initiated the negotiations. Paul Martin added that at no time did he ever agree to meet with the Conservative MP.
However, the audio tapes clearly show that the chief of staff for Prime Minister Paul Martin said, “The Prime Minister is prepared to talk to you directly both by phone and in person.”
During question period in the House of Commons Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper asked the Prime Minister why he said he was unwilling to meet with the Conservative MP when clearly he was.
Paul Martin answered by repeating his previous lie, that Gurmant initiated discussions with the liberal party. The Prime Minister also said that he gave specific instructions to senior party members that no offer could be given to entice a defection and at no time was the Prime Minister prepared to meet with the Conservative MP. Then Paul Martin ended his answer by saying, “obviously anyone would meet with somebody that was interested in crossing the floor.”
[…]
Paul Martin again changed his story by saying that he would not be willing to meet with the Conservative MP unless he joined the liberal party with no preconditions or offers from the liberals.

Now, go back to the beginning and review the first sentence;

When Gurmant Grewal first notified the public that he had been offered a cabinet post, the liberal party, including the Prime Minister, denied that anyone had ever talked to Gurmant.

There’s a problem that arises when you parse your words carefully to avoid saying what you’re saying…

“You have to be able to say that I did not make a deal. That’s very important. That’s why these kinds of deals are not made in that fashion.” – Ujjal Dosanjh

… you often end up saying it anyway.

A spirited debate in the comments of the “Wells post” from earlier today. Good points made on all sides, with Mr. Wells serving up a little fact-checking on the Sponsorship shutdown timeline at the expense of readers, in response to criticisms of media sloppiness in reporting. Fair enough.
The discussion reminded me of something I read elsewhere, though – a post at Conservative Life from last Friday, in response to Ralph Goodale’s testimony;

One week after Groupaction had it’s sponsorship program contracts frozen by the PWGS; and after the company had been referred to the RCMP for fraud investigation; Mr. Goodale’s department awarded Groupaction more than a million dollars in contracts to do recruitment ads for the Department of Defence.
And they say there isn’t an open competition. Why exclude a company from Department of Defence advertising dollars just because it was featured in the Auditor General’s Report, centered out in Question Period, and under investigation by the RCMP for fraud in sponsorship contracts?

Now, refresh my memory, people. Can any of you recall the scrum with reporters cornering Goodale on this? Were there blaring headlines across the front page of the Globe and Mail? Mike Duffy pontificating on how a government could justify awarding contracts to companies under police investigation?
Me, either. But they listened in rapture to his tale of refusing Chretien’s paltry little request.

I needed a p-word. Get over it. Via Dust My Broom; this quote from NDP aboriginal critic, Pat Martin from the Globe and Mail;

“I’ve gotten a very clear message from first nations leadership and from Liberal cabinet ministers that the money that was intended to be announced May 31 has been redirected to form part of the NDP budget. The government intends to pay for its commitments to the NDP with money that they had already committed to first nations,” he said. “If that’s the case, it’s even sleazier than I had ever imagined.”

I don’t know which is the bigger story here – the daily machinations of the Librano $pending $pree or Pat Martin’s undiagnosed attention deficit disorder.

“…we are a welcoming party we will do everything we can, obviously for us continuing to expend our base in B.C. and in prominent communities in this country is a political priority for us. It is a welcoming mat that has a lot of nice Comfy fur on it…”

– Tim Murphy, Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Paul Martin, from The Grewal Tapes

Regular reader Rusty Smith emails;

“After watching Paul Martin making denials in the House over the last two days, and then reading the Grewal transcripts today, I have come to the conclusion, crude as it might be, that the only difference between Martin and Chretien is that Martin has the ability to LIE out of BOTH sides of his mouth.”

I’m not sure that’s entirely fair.
I think that what we lack is the ability to properly translate the Librano dialect heard in the House of Commons into English. To rectify this problem, I have taken the liberty of creating an online translator: Simply enter any quote of Prime Minister Paul Martin that appears to deny Liberal attempts at bribery, as suggested by the Grewal tapes (ie:“No offer was made”) and click “TRANSLATE”.
(Max 60 characters)

TRANSLATE!

Over in this time zone, CTV News hasn’t been on yet, but commentors have been chattering all evening that Paul Martin was in the loop on the offers to tempt Grewal over to the Liberals.

Exclusive photo of Warren reacting to the news that he won’t have the Gomery Commission to kick around anymore.

If Kinsella’s hinting that the Chretien lawsuit may have legs, it’s probably the best thing that could happen for Conservative fortunes. A premature halt to proceedings would “rob” the large percentage of misinformed Canadians of the Martin-fueled false expectation that, at the end of the process, names would be named, blame laid and charges pursued.
After personally floating that misconception in his address to the nation, it would be delicious irony to watch Paul Martin struggle with his choices – to play “outraged victim” or “incompetent fool”, outsmarted by Chretien again?
My guess is that the electorate would settle on the latter.
In the meanwhile, though, moves are afoot to extend the authority of Gomery past the tight restrictions of paragraph K.

As of last Friday, it didn’t look as if the Conservatives were preparing to try to bring down the government again. On Thursday, it gave notice that the topic for tomorrow’s debate will be on a technical matter related to the terms of reference for the Gomery Inquiry.
The motion reads in full: “That this House call on the Government to amend section (k) of the Gomery Commission’s terms of reference to allow the Commissioner to name names and assign responsibility.”
Tory MP Diane Ablonczy has been hammering away at the government over this for weeks. She is upset that “clause k” in the terms of reference only allows Justice John Gomery to make recommendations aimed at preventing mismanagement of future advertising activities, but not say who is guilty.
According to Ms. Ablonczy, “Gomery can watch the surveillance camera and he can confirm the bank was robbed but he cannot disclose who grabbed the cash or who drove the getaway car.”
The Conservatives have until 6 p.m. Monday evening to place more motions on the Notice Paper. It must then decide which one it will use by 10 a.m. the day of the debate.

Stay tuned….
update In the comments, WK accuses me of seeing Black Helicopters – to which I can only reply, “get your own comments section, you pussy” – and now there is news today is that Chretien is dropping his legal challenge, which means he probably reads my blog and realized how his tactics would play into the hands of The Scary Stephen Harper Reform Alliance KKK Konservatives!
I really need to keep fingers off the keyboard sometimes.

One member turned out to be a dog that had been dead for five years. But he, too, was welcomed to the Liberal party.

Very interesting. So, the more recent appointment of a bitch to cabinet wasn’t a break from party policy, after all.

LONGEST SANDWICH: The longest sandwich measured 634.50 m (2,081 ft) and was created by Pietro Catucci and Antonio Latte of EuroSpin in Mottola, Taranto, Italy, on August 7, 2004. The ingredients included 920 kg (2,028.25 lb) of flour, 512 litres (112.6 gal) of water and 25 kg (55.11 lb) of salt.
MOST UTTERANCES OF WORD “NO”: In May of 2005, during telephone conversations between members of the Canadian government and staff, and an opposition Member Of Parliament, the word “no” was uttered by government officials 14,327 times (averaging just under one “no” per second) over a taped four hour time period.
WALKING – GREATEST DOCUMENTED LIFETIME MILEAGE: Between 1969 and 2000, Arthur Blessitt of Florida, USA, walked 34,501 miles on seven continents while carrying a 3.7-metre cross.
LONGEST GUITAR MARATHON: The longest guitar marathon by an individual lasted for 42 hours and was achieved by Guillermo Paolisso Terraza (Argentina), at the Galleria Umberto 1�, Napoli, Italy, from 22 to 23 January 2005. During the marathon Guillermo Paolisso Terraza played about 800 songs in an assortment of 16 different musical styles.
HEAVIEST KIDNEY STONE: Peter Baulman (Australia) had a kidney stone removed from his right kidney in December 2003 at The Gold Coast Hospital, Southport, Queensland, Australia, weighing 356 g (12.5 oz) and measuring at its widest point, 11.86 cm (4.66 in).
More Guinness Records here

Via Nealenews this Globe And Mail item;

The federal Liberals would consider ignoring a House of Commons defeat should they lose any of the several coming votes that are matters of confidence between now and the end of the spring session, Chief Government Whip Karen Redman says.

She goes on to explain the reasoning, of course, but that’s irrelevant.
They have been governing illegally for a couple of weeks now. What’s another year or two?
update – Coyne weighs in.

Habamus Rodentum has done something that the mainstream media couldn’t be bothered with – actually read and report on the contents of the Kroll report. While CBC and CTV reported that the actual figure for Adscam was $355, it did not occur to them to report how the Liberals managed to get millions in extra funding through without the approval of parliament – which is required under the Constitution Act.

The Kroll Report (KR) has indicated that the amount of $355 million, $105 million over the Auditor General’s amount, was increased because other funding was given by various departments of the Liberal government for SPS (Special Programs & Sponsorship) on top of the that given within the Public Works budget for SPS.
Any requests for money, under Treasury Board rules, were supposed to document what the money was to be used for by segregating the budget for each use. This was not done but allowed to pass through the [Treasury Board] and PMO’s office for authorization to spend, bypassing Parliament.
Anything that was submitted to Parliament for SPS spending did not contain appropriate details in “Reports on Plans and Priorities” (RPP�s), “which include the individual expenditure plans for each department”. Any increased spending over the budget does not have spending authority and has to go back to Parliament to be voted on.

The big story of the Kroll testimony yesterday wasn’t the extra $105 million – it was the fact that parliament was misled. This wasn’t the work of a few “rogue” ad executives or civil servants. The extra-parliamentary spending – or as “habamusrodentum” puts it, “a fraud against the government” – was directed by the Prime Minister, the Treasury Board and Public Works Minister.

Sorry. Forgot to post a Disturbing Mental Image Alert.
Check out the questions Ian Scott has for Sinclair Stephens. (He has several posts – be sure to go to the Ianism main page just scroll down).
Something smells.

Angry ITGWN provides a breakdown of a sample sponsorship contract, from the Kroll Report;

Out of a total of $46.32 million:

$460,000, or 1%, went to sponsorship

$8.34 million, or 18%, went to actual work done

$26 million, or 56%, went to “unrelated or unknown parties”

$11.52 million, or 25%, was unspent or the invoices were not found

MK Braaten is liveblogging. Double funding of programs, double skimming of $$$! update And more here.

-The Finance department was responsible for 115.19 million of the sponsorship costs.

Apparently the Liberals are already issuing denials that more or less state that these latest revelations are just, you know, the word of an auditor.
Meanwhile over at Occam’s Carbuncle, Alan has been looking past the limitations of Paragraph K, and guess what?

…”the Gomery Commission terms of reference do not exactly call for the publication of a report. They call for the submission of two separate reports to Cabinet.”

Sponsorship losses were actually $355 million.

There is nothing that the Libranos won’t lie about. At the same time Paul Martin was on our television sets claiming credit for starting the inquiry, he was dipping into our pockets to pay others to discredit it.

The war room and its cost came to light on the heels of last week’s complaints from Justice John Gomery about officials exaggerating the cost of his inquiry.
Officials at the commission looking into the sponsorship scandal say the total cost of the actual inquiry will come in under $32 million. Judge Gomery said government officials have “leaked” to the media that it is costing departments another $40 million to cover costs at four key departments, including the Privy Council Office. “It’s an exaggeration and it’s twisting reality,” Judge Gomery said last week.
[…]
Judge Gomery has made it clear he doesn’t appreciate the Martin government adding its hidden costs to his overall budget. In an exchange with an ad executive, the judge said: “What they did was … put together the fees of everyone in the Justice Department that worked on the file, the photocopies they made at the PCO and God knows what other expenses that were totally beyond the commission’s control.”

Speaking of dollars and cents, forensic accounting firm Kroll Lindquist Avey is bringing down their Adscam report today. Advance reports suggest it’s going to be ugly.

Internationally renowned forensic accounting firm Kroll Lindquist Avey is expected to shake the foundations of Justice John Gomery’s inquiry today with a detailed report on whether pockets were lined in the sponsorship scandal.
The Kroll report is expected to follow the money trail from federal coffers to the Liberal- friendly ad firms and possibly into the wallets of Grit organizers.
The findings are expected to make more waves than any other testimony before Gomery and have been kept under such tight wraps that not even a kernel of information has leaked out.

(Thanks to tipsters in the comments who have already done the roadwork by the time I check in each morning.)

Anti-Corruption.ca has the most useful chart detailing the Adscam money flow, according to Gomery testimony so far. (A good one to send to your disinterested Canadian friends.)

Further to events of this morning; Reading Coyne’s column again, can anyone point me to a passage that accuses Tim Murphy of committing a crime?
You know, among my first thoughts in reading this were that the National Post is a big place, with lawyers and whatnot, to vet columns before they run. Are we assuming too much in thinking this column is the target, or if it is, is this just a ham-fisted attempt by Murphy to intimidate the leading critic of Papa Paul – and more importantly, the powers that be who publish him?
Pure conjecture on my part, I’ll readily admit. But now that I’m in conjecture mode (and the first beer I’ve ever consumed before dinner hour since I turned 17…);
Recall the threats to bloggers for linking to Captains Quarters – and for all the crowing of the blogosphere, that threat was successful – several bloggers fell into line and delinked, while almost all in the mainstream followed suit. For all the pomposity of our press, they are willing litlle sheeple like the rest of us when it comes to, you know – actually taking risks for the truth.
A very long time ago, before I first ventured onto the blogosphere, I speculated that the core difference between Americans and Canadians wasn’t “a more European world view”, or medicare or our “cultural mosaic”.
It is the singular fact that Canadians have never had to fight on their home soil for the right for their nation to exist. We had no Indian wars, no Canadian revolution, no civil war. No Pearl Harbour, no 9/11.
I think that fact alone explains the national angst about “Canadian identity” more than any other. We don’t know how to fight, truly fight for what should be our inalienable rights.