Comments on: What the Criminal Code says about interception of communications

By: Scott Tribe

Scott Tribe — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:28:13 +0000

I’m not predisposed to believe anything John Ivison and the National Post are claiming. Andrew Steele of the Globe thinks Iggy is on board with this… so I guess we’ll see who’s right.

By: Roll Tide

Roll Tide — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:24:12 +0000

Did it occur to you that maybe it was no mistake that the Conservative was invited?

What we have is a Bloc-NDP coalition who were predisposed to oppose the economic statement. The Liberals (minus Ignatieff and maybe more)come on board after the Conservatives threatened to scale back their government sugar daddy.
Hillarious times, its no wonder Ignatieff wants no part of it.

By: BCer in Toronto

BCer in Toronto — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:29:50 +0000

Hunt this interloper down like a dog.

Mulclair was asked in his press conference today if they knew who the interloper was. He said they did, but declined to name him or her at this time.

By: Dr.Dawg

Dr.Dawg — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 02:21:29 +0000

Arguably, the Conbs’ best case is that there was an invitation to join the call.

Was there consent to tape the call and then release it to the public?

Not bloody likely. 184 (1). No saving provision applies. Hunt this interloper down like a dog. And then form the next government.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:33:37 +0000

Any chance the email for Linda Duncan went to John Duncan instead? That was the only last name I could find shared by a Dipper and Con.

By: Beijing York

Beijing York — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:03:24 +0000

Personally, I think this story has got to be dropped as quickly as possible. It was a Rovian ploy to distract the media and stall the momentum the concept of a coalition government is getting.

Harper is better equipped at handling accusations of scandal than those of ineptness. He’s been like teflon on every other scandal raised because he recognizes that a steady non-reaction is better politics than an over-reaction. Chretien is also gifted with the same reflexes.

An angry Jack Layton or heaven forbid Pat Martin (Mr. Ethics MP) is the worst thing that could happen when the idea of a coalition government is picking up momentum.

Right now the Winnipeg Free Press (fairly right wing) is reporting 69% in favour of a coalition government. It’s been on the rise all day.

Having the media spend the week focused on whether the taping was illegal, unethical or inept (on the part of the NDP) would be a shot in the arm for Harper. It’s bait and the whole news item should be buried as fast as possible in my view.

By: catherine

catherine — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:03:12 +0000

How does one accidently send a CPCer an email about an NDP caucus meeting? Do you trust Layton? I hope the Liberals know what they are doing.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:56:57 +0000

What kills me is that the Cons are trying to paint talks – even strategy talks – between two nearly identical (except for the who separation thing) parties on issues of mutual interest is somehow “nefarious”.

Of course, I expect Jack Layton to pop up tomorrow and say “Of course we have had long standing strategy talks with the BQ…pretty much since September 2004 when they were initiated by Stephen Harper.”

I said it before Layton did (check out James Bow’s latest for proof):

Getting the BQ to help a Liberal NDP coalition can help show Quebecers that Federalism CAN work. It would be a boost. The BQ would merge into a Social Credit type regional party…

By: David B.

David B. — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:45:37 +0000

If it ever gets to court I expect the legality will hinge on whether an email sent to the wrong address constitues an invitation and thereby implies consent.
But unethical? No doubt.
Either way, it will be interesting to follow what happens with it.

By: Kephalos

Kephalos — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:43:24 +0000

Thanks for the post.

So, being covert nosy is not agaist the law, but unlawfully recording a private conversation is “guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”