Jump to content
Jambands.ca

"Economic Update"


AD

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(breakaway to Don Newman with Susan Bonner)

Talking about cabinet solidarity, which I'm happy for, because this is a big "?" mark. How is that going to work, if this all went down? Apparently the Libs and the NDP intend to maintain separate caucuses .. but I'm still not clear on how cabinet sharing would be orchestrated. And if there is no cabinet sharing, are we even really talking about a coalition?

(/end breakaway)

Flaherty: New found friendship between separatists and Liberals. [This is going to be the theme .. hammering hard on this]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Layton calls shenanigans on Harper re: hypocrisy over being critical about meetings with the BQ when both Layton and Harper sat down together to negotiate with the BQ while working on ousting the Martin minority.

The NDP also considering acting legally on the Conservatives tapeing (<-- bradm, is that the correct spelling?) an internal conference call and releasing the transcript through the Prime Minister's Office.

(For the curious: Internal NDP call)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(@Birdy) Yes, this is where I am torn. The political party funding was, to me, a legitimate concern but was retracted. Revoking the right to strike was absolutely absurd, but has been retracted. So the remaining concrete complaint is lack of stimulus initiative, but if that had been the only grievance from the beginning, this whole ordeal probably wouldn't have gotten underway .. so .. on one hand it feels as though the opposition parties have set their mind to something and are plowing ahead, regardless of getting many of the concessions they were after.

That's what I meant by "bad precedent". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NDP also considering acting legally on the Conservatives taping an internal conference call and releasing the transcript through the Prime Minister's Office.

From

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/ndp-tapes.html

NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair said the meeting was illegally recorded and broadcast and that the party may take legal action.

In a news release, the party said that according to legal advice it has received, any reasonable person given inadvertent access to the call should have understood that they were not authorized to record it.

The party said possession of the recording could be an offence under the Criminal Code and any recordings should be handed over to the RCMP in the event of an investigation.

The NDP has also asked media outlets to return the recordings.

My understanding of Canadian law is that, aside from the police acting with a warrant, all that's needed to record a call is permission of at least one of the parties involved in the call*. The law, however, doesn't (as far as I know) make any mention of becoming a party to a call "inadvertently." And while recording the conference call may have been against internal NDP "conference call" rules, that doesn't make it illegal, any more than it would make it illegal for one of the party members who advertently was in on the call to have recorded it.

Aloha,

Brad

* The law in some states in the USA is different, requiring permission of both parties. This came up during the Monica Lewinsky thing, when there was a call recorded that had one party in a state that had a one-party rule, and the other party in a state that had a two-party rule. I can't remember how it was resolved. At least in Canada, it's a cross-country federal thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my understanding too, although 'permission of at least one of the parties involved in the call' becomes sticky if the person taping was not meant to be involved ..

184 [1] Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[2] Subsection [1] does not apply to

(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it;

(B) a person who intercepts a private communication in accordance with an authorization or pursuant to section 184.4 or any person who in good faith aids in any way another person who the aiding person believes on reasonable grounds is acting with an authorization or pursuant to section 184.4 ;

© a person engaged in providing a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public who intercepts a private communication,

(i) if the interception is necessary for the purpose of providing the service,

(ii) in the course of service observing or random monitoring necessary for the purpose of mechanical or service quality control checks, or

(iii) if the interception is necessary to protect the person’s rights or property directly related to providing the service; or

(d) an officer or servant of Her Majesty in right of Canada who engages in radio frequency spectrum management, in respect of a private communication intercepted by that officer or servant for the purpose of identifying, isolating or preventing an unauthorized or interfering use of a frequency or of a transmission. [1973-74, c.50, s.2; 1993, c.40, s.3.]

Obviously, IANAL, but it would seem to boil down to interception (yes or no), consent to intercept, express or implied (yes or no)

Edited by Guest
Had to change brackets to parenthesis, 'cause the forum was interpreting them as markup and munging the post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.

And all sectors. But what I consider a stimulus package, Jack Layton does not. And what Jack Layton considers a stimulus package, I really, really do not.

I guess the Opposition feels like overthrowing the government is the better choice than waiting the less than two month period for the 'package'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's my understanding too, although 'permission of at least one of the parties involved in the call' becomes sticky if the person taping was not meant to be involved ..

184 [1] Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

[2] Subsection [1] does not apply to

(a) a person who has the consent to intercept, express or implied, of the originator of the private communication or of the person intended by the originator thereof to receive it;

(B) a person who intercepts a private communication in accordance with an authorization or pursuant to section 184.4 or any person who in good faith aids in any way another person who the aiding person believes on reasonable grounds is acting with an authorization or pursuant to section 184.4 ;

© a person engaged in providing a telephone, telegraph or other communication service to the public who intercepts a private communication,

(i) if the interception is necessary for the purpose of providing the service,

(ii) in the course of service observing or random monitoring necessary for the purpose of mechanical or service quality control checks, or

(iii) if the interception is necessary to protect the person’s rights or property directly related to providing the service; or

(d) an officer or servant of Her Majesty in right of Canada who engages in radio frequency spectrum management, in respect of a private communication intercepted by that officer or servant for the purpose of identifying, isolating or preventing an unauthorized or interfering use of a frequency or of a transmission. [1973-74, c.50, s.2; 1993, c.40, s.3.]

Obviously, IANAL, but it would seem to boil down to interception (yes or no), consent to intercept, express or implied (yes or no)

Thanks for that, d_jango. I also wonder if it'll boil down to whether a conference call counts as a private communication.

Aloha,

Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of Canadian law is that, aside from the police acting with a warrant, all that's needed to record a call is permission of at least one of the parties involved in the call*. The law, however, doesn't (as far as I know) make any mention of becoming a party to a call "inadvertently." And while recording the conference call may have been against internal NDP "conference call" rules, that doesn't make it illegal, any more than it would make it illegal for one of the party members who advertently was in on the call to have recorded it.

Aloha,

Brad

* The law in some states in the USA is different, requiring permission of both parties. This came up during the Monica Lewinsky thing, when there was a call recorded that had one party in a state that had a one-party rule, and the other party in a state that had a two-party rule. I can't remember how it was resolved. At least in Canada, it's a cross-country federal thing.

i think the rules are different for calls between 2 people and calls between many people. but i'm not going to root around and try to back this claim up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've said in another post/topic, for me there are no leaders that inspire or give hope to our country in this very delicate time.

All parties have dug themselves into pathetic holes aruging over the table scraps that are shrinking like the economy. Instead of working together as mature adults to at least find a way to address and start trying to plug the holes of this sinking ship, they have all chosen paths that lead to a dead end...or the bottom of the sea...

It's hard to find a website that gives an unbiased view of how most Canadians are reacting to the latest episode of "As The Hill Churns" but on this page Harper & The Cons are not very popular...but I'm sure there are other sites that have him out in front...

Where's Guy Fox when you need 'im? ;)

Biggest Game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that we can so easily dismiss the ENTIRE bloc based on one peice of their ideology when we all expect each other to put little bits of ideology aside to understand where we're coming from. I think it's actually a very non-partisan, open-minded idea to form a coalition government. If the Cons were not so insistent on "ruling" instead of governing I think they could quite easily sit across the table in a fully non-partisan cabinet, and yes, I do think it could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




×
×
  • Create New...