The smoking audio tape

The Prime Minister's chief of staff, on tape, apparently discussing the possibility of a Senate seat for Gurmant Grewal if he abstains in tomorrow's vote. If that is verified to be Tim Murphy's voice -- well what are the consequences in this country? UPDATE: None, apparently. Murphy is not denying it's his voice. But on CTV, it was just more can-you-believe-this "shenanigans." CBC was more interested in whether an Alberta MLA "crossed the line" by saying Stronach "whored herself" for a cabinet post (verdict: yes). Meanwhile, PoliticsWatch has listened to the full eight-minute tape. It reports:

At no time during the tape does Murphy make an explicit offer to Grewal, and he carefully chooses his words and speaks about hypothetical situations. The tape suggests that Murphy is more interested in Grewal abstaining than having the MP crossover to the Liberal side. Murphy also says that it is a "bad idea" to "have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade." However, Murphy tells Grewal that there are "other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemna that you face," suggesting the Liberals have been talking to other Tories who may be considering crossing the floor or abstaining. "I don't think it's good if anybody lies, or if anybody is asked the question, 'Well is there a deal?' and you say, 'No.' Well you want that to be the truth," says Murphy. "And that's what I want. I want the truth to be told." On the tape, Murphy proposes the concept of Grewal abstaining from the vote and using the following excuse, which sounds eerily familiar.  "That can be done on the basis, those members can do it on the basis, 'Well look, my riding doesn't want an election, doesn't want one now. Thinks it's the wrong time to do it.'" Murphy explains to Grewal that abstaining is a better option than crossing the floor and could allow for future talks.  "If someone abstains in that environment who has exercised a decision based on principle, (it) still gives him the freedom to have some negotiating room on both sides. "Then the freedom to have discussions is increased." Murphy described the next step for an MP who has abstained against the wishes of his party leader.  "A person can say, 'Look, I obviously abstained and created some issues' and then they can say, 'I'm thinking hard about what the right thing for my riding and the contribution I would like to make.'"  Murphy goes on to say, "In advance of that explicit discussions about Senate, not Senate I don't think are very helpful and I don't think can be had in advance of an abstention tomorrow." He says discussions could be held later.  "You can easily say, if you don't like, you can stay home or stay back where you are or if you do like we can make an arrangement that allows you to move." ... Although the Liberals are now saying that it was Grewal who approached them, on the tape Murphy suggests that should be clarified at a later date. "It's much like Belinda where there is a third party who is independent of both sides," Murphy says. "So you didn't approach. We didn't approach."

Oh, it's exquisite, isn't it? "If anybody is asked the question, 'Well is there a deal?' and you say, 'No.' Well you want that to be the truth."

Got that? You want to be able to say truthfully that there's no deal. Which is pretty easy if in fact there is no deal. So why does it take eight minutes to sketch out how to do it here? Why do they have to agree that nobody should lie?

"I don't think it's good if anybody lies..." But here are the things you can say: "my riding doesn't want an election... I'm thinking hard about what the right thing for my riding [is], etc."

It's a "bad idea" to have an "explicit trade," but if someone abstains "based on principle" then "the freedom to have discussions is increased." Explicit discussions "about Senate, not Senate" are not "very helpful," or at least not "in advance of an abstention." But then "we can make an arrangement that allows you to move." And the whole thing can be arranged through a third party -- I hear David Peterson's available -- so that "you didn't approach, we didn't approach."

Vote-laundering, you might say. But stay tuned: "The Tories plan to release tapes of discussions between Dosanjh and Grewal tomorrow." APPENDIX: Just to remind people of what the laws of the land say about trafficking in offices... Under Section 119 (1) of the Criminal Code,

every one who ... being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, corruptly (i) accepts or obtains, (ii) agrees to accept, or (iii) attempts to obtain, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment for himself or another person in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by him in his official capacity,

or makes such an offer, is “liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.” Under Section 124,

every one who purports to sell or agrees to sell an appointment to or a resignation from an office, or a consent to any such appointment or resignation, or receives or agrees to receive a reward or profit from the purported sale thereof,

or offers to buy an appointment or resignation is good for up to five years in the slammer. Not that I'm suggesting anybody did anything of the kind here. But if they had... APPENDIXER: Paul Wells highlights this strange passage, from the same tape: "If that proposal is of some interest to you, then I will talk to Volpe and get something to happen." I can't imagine what he could be talking about, but I'm sure it can't have anything to do with this. I mean, it can't. APPENDIX OUT: Warren Kinsella weighs in. APPENDIX OUTER: Here's CP's take:

Grewal said he was offered an ambassadorship and a Senate posting was put forward for his wife. But the audio tape captures Murphy refusing to make such an offer. "No offer was made to Mr. Gurmant Grewal," Murphy said in a news release. On the tape, Murphy is overheard discussing confidence-vote strategy with Grewal. He tells Grewal that he and Nina could miss several votes this spring, and says he's willing to negotiate something later. "We'll have much more detailed . . . discussions after that with some freedom," Murphy is overheard saying... He says there will be up to eight confidence votes by late June - and each one will be a "nailbiter." Murphy suggests the Grewals could cloak their abstention as a matter of principle. He even suggests a possible explanation for them. "If anybody asks the question, 'Was there a deal,' and we say no, we want that to be the truth," Murphy says.

"We want that to be the truth." That is the line of the night. Lower down, there's this:

There was one more bizarre twist on the tape: an ambiguous reference to Immigration Minister Joe Volpe. Volpe asked the RCMP earlier this month to investigate two Tory MPs, including Grewal, on immigration-related claims. The RCMP probe reportedly stems from allegations, not yet proven, that two MPs - including Grewal - offered to help immigrants in return for money. Grewal has denied any wrongdoing. He told a Commons committee in March that he had asked Canadians who requested visitor permits for relatives to give signed commitments to post bonds in exchange for supporting those applications. A senior government official said the conversation between Murphy and Grewal had no relation to the RCMP investigation. He said Grewal wanted the minister to retract some remarks about him.

On the other hand, there's this:

Dosanjh said they had pizza and beer but never discussed job openings. He said Grewal made repeated job requests and was rebuffed each time. "I'm actually offended that Mr. Grewal would go to the lengths of approaching us making totally inappropriate demands," Dosanjh said. "He approached us; he approached us because he and his wife wanted to cross the floor."

You follow: an MP whom the government has asked the RCMP to investigate on allegations he insists are completely spurious wanted to cross the floor to join that same government. Of course. Makes perfect sense.