Volpe Says He took No Part In Wooing MP

[bigdude]

Volpe says he took no part in wooing Tory MP

Steered clear of talks with Grewal

Couldn't accept demand to halt probe

ROBERT BENZIE AND SEAN GORDON

STAFF REPORTERS

Immigration Minister Joe Volpe insists he stayed out of efforts to convince a Conservative MP to abstain from a key budget vote.

In the latest twist to the controversy swirling around a private chat between Tory MP Gurmant Grewal (Newton-North Delta) and Tim Murphy, Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff, Volpe said yesterday he couldn't go along with an apparent request from Grewal.

Volpe said he distanced himself from the recruitment effort after being told Grewal wanted him to halt an RCMP probe of his activities.

Earlier this month, Volpe asked the RCMP and the federal ethics commissioner to examine accusations that Grewal and another Tory MP improperly sought money from people seeking admission to Canada.

Volpe said he was adamant he wouldn't interfere with the RCMP investigation in return for Grewal's help in the vote.

The talks last week were aimed at getting Grewal to abstain from a vote last Thursday that could have toppled the minority government of Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin. Grewal secretly taped the talks. He voted against the government, which survived the non-confidence vote on a tie-breaker from Speaker Peter Milliken.

Grewal says he was offered possible patronage appointments in return for helping to prop up the government.

The government countercharged that his key demand was an end to the RCMP probe.

"I wasn't part of the conversation between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Grewal, but ... I was alerted to a conversation and that Mr. Grewal was making a series of requests," the minister said after a speech at the University of Toronto.

In an excerpt of a taped conversation released by Grewal, Murphy says, "I will talk to Volpe and get something happening," and later Murphy adds, "I have talked to Volpe already." To which Grewal replies: "Is he manageable?" "Yes," says Murphy.

Senior Liberals have said Murphy was simply referring to the possibility of an apology from Volpe for attacks against Grewal in the Commons.

I don't know about this!

[The Terrible Sweal]

The tory sleaze of this situation boggles the mind.

First they go around taping people, Parliamentary coleagues and ministers of the crown included.

Then the portions of the tapes fall short of the smoking gun they disingenuously claim. Murphy's actual words on the tape consist of saying, albeit gently, that there can be no deal.

And to cap it all off, the fools won't release the whole tape. Like helloooo! Why not take out whole page ads in the national papers: "WE HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE" !!

This whole situation is so clasically representative of typical Alliance-Tory flimflam. Who let Stockwell back into the strategy room?

(And the NDP had better be careful about playing too clever with this issue or they'll get burned too.)

[bigdude]

Grewal tape shows Tory offered position: CTV

This is really starting to smell - what are the RCMP waiting for?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The four-hour tape also shows that Gurmant Grewal was offered a government position within two weeks of the vote, CTV said.

No quote, just a second-hand allegation. What stinks in this situation is the media perpetuating a story based on nothing but tory sleaze.

[willy]

perpetuating a story based on nothing but tory sleaze.

TTS you claimed the other day not to hate Conservatives, but your insistence on calling names and attach derogatory tags to many of your comments. This shows a lack of integrity.

When you do this I get a strong erg to then start with the wacky Jack comments and the Fiberals stuff. It is not useful. At times I read comments from you that are thoughtful, why must you lower your debate?

Your really don’t want to sound like Rightwinger do you?

[kimmy]

We shall find out soon. The tapes are to be turned over to the RCMP today.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

perpetuating a story based on nothing but tory sleaze.

TTS you claimed the other day not to hate Conservatives, but your insistence on calling names and attach derogatory tags to many of your comments. This shows a lack of integrity.

Bullcrap.

When Grewal tries to cut a deal and is rebuffed and turns around and blames the people who rebuffed him, that is a lack of integrity.

When a party releases a small portion of extensive tape recordings to impugn someone and then refuses to release the rest of the tapes, that is a lack of integrity.

When someone says that an honest critic is 'calling names' when he is not, that is a lack of integrity.

Here endeth the lesson. Hope you were listening.

[JustOneGuy]

It is almost impossible to not see that the conservatives must not have anything on these tapes - and if they all of a sudden do when, sorry if, they are ever released I will find it very suspicious.

If Mr. Grewal really had anything on these tapes that’s criminal or highly damaging why didn’t he release them before the budget vote? He released his bits and pieces the day before but nothing in them was very damaging and has since then hid behind the excuse that the rest of the tapes need to be translated. Seriously do any Canadians really buy this??

If there was something actually damaging to the Liberals on those tapes the conservative party would have them translated in a manner of hours and released them to the media on May 18th with the rest of Grewal’s conference. They would have seized on the opportunity to highly influence the NDP vote by showing the Liberal government was doing something illegal if they had that information, after which I doubt Layton would have continued to support Martin – $4.6B deal or no deal.

Does anyone really buy that the Conservative party really has something on these tapes that has taken 2 weeks to translate? Doesn’t Mr. Grewal speak both Punjabi and English - couldn’t he have translated them? And if they had released the tapes in Punjabi I’m quiet sure the media would have had no problem translating the tapes for themselves in a manner of hours? What is the conservative party trying to hide or perhaps plot some make believe story for themselves??

Any ways that’s my 2 cents

[takeanumber]

Grewal has already confessed that he wiretapped.

So where's the arrest?

It's illegal wiretapping.

We have laws in this country.

I want to see charges filed.

Why is there an exception for Conservatives?

[kimmy]

Just because you post something over and over doesn't make it any more true.

Here's my post from the other thread:

When will the RCMP press charges against Grewal and the CPC leadership for illegal wiretapping?

Perhaps the RCMP are not pursuing wiretapping charges against Grewal and the CPC because what Grewal did is not wiretapping and is not illegal.

It's been pointed out to you time and again that this was not a wiretap, which is defined as monitoring of a conversation by a third party. It has also been claimed repeatedly here that it is legal to record a phone converstation that you're part of.

While I'm sure there are more thorough treatments of the subject, this site was the first that popped up in my search:Call recording in Canada

Canadian federal law requires one-party consent for telephone call recording.

This call-recording software vendor makes the same claim.

Call recording software site

In Ontario, Canada, for instance, and potentially in your State or Province, it is only legal to tape a conversation when at least ONE of the people involved in the conversation is aware that it is being recorded.

That sounds pretty clear to me. Can you provide anything to the contrary?

-k

[takeanumber]

I refer you to S.183, S 184 of the criminal code that states that recording without informed consent is illegal, subject to up to 5 years in prison. (I just looked it up again to make sure that I was right)

So, I ask again, why havn't charges been laid?

[kimmy]

I refer you to S.183, S 184 of the criminal code that states that recording without informed consent is illegal, subject to up to 5 years in prison.  (I just looked it up again to make sure that I was right)

So, I ask again, why havn't charges been laid?

CONSENT TO INTERCEPTION

183.1 Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part. [1993, c.40, s.2.]

184.2 [1] A person may intercept, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, a private communication where either the originator of the private communication or the person intended by the originator to receive it has consented to the interception and an authorization has been obtained pursuant to subsection [3].

Sorry, your reference contradicts you.

-k

[Chimera]

Although it was not "illegal wiretapping", if Grewal did indeed approach the Liberals requesting a position first, then try to nail them for allegedly bribing him with said position, I think that might be bordering on entrapment.

Just a thought.

[takeanumber]

Quote the whole law:

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

(2) Saving Provisions:

(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 orginator thereof to receive it;"

The law says that you can't record somebody unless you have their implied/explicit consent.

Of course, we can't tell if the go-between had consented to it...I'm guessing that he did not give consent.

So, where are the charges?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Quote the whole law:

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

(2) Saving Provisions:

(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 orginator thereof to receive it;"

This says that you need the consent of either the originator OR the receiver.

[kimmy]

Quote the whole law:

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

(2) Saving Provisions:

(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 orginator thereof to receive it;"

The law says that you can't record somebody unless you have their implied/explicit consent.

Of course, we can't tell if the go-between had consented to it...I'm guessing that he did not give consent.

So, where are the charges?

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 orginator thereof to receive it

Key word: "or". Surely Grewal had Grewal's consent to record Grewal's phone call?

As the call-recording software site contends: "one-party consent".

-k

[takeanumber]

That doesn't quite seem right...that you should be legally allowed to record somebody who doesn't know that they're being recorded...

[August1991]

That doesn't quite seem right...that you should be legally allowed to record somebody who doesn't know that they're being recorded...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't believe it!

TalkNumb has admitted (albeit indirectly) to being FACTUALLY INCORRECT!

[Kimmy deserves some kind of prize. The Persistent Ferret Award?]

[Argus]

Although it was not "illegal wiretapping", if Grewal did indeed approach the Liberals requesting a position first, then try to nail them for allegedly bribing him with said position, I think that might be bordering on entrapment.

Just a thought.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Entrapment is an American legal concept, and even in America it doesn't apply to private individuals.

[Riverwind]

That doesn't quite seem right...that you should be legally allowed to record somebody who doesn't know that they're being recorded...

Everytime I call customer support for many different companies I get told my conversation may be recorded for QA purposes. I assume that these companies would not have added that warning unless their was some legal reason. However, that legal reason could be related to civil suits.

[August1991]

That doesn't quite seem right...that you should be legally allowed to record somebody who doesn't know that they're being recorded...

Everytime I call customer support for many different companies I get told my conversation may be recorded for QA purposes. I assume that these companies would not have added that warning unless their was some legal reason. However, that legal reason could be related to civil suits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The message is, first of all, PR. Senior management is telling customers: "We care about what you say." Second, employees are being told: "You're being watched so don't be foolish." Third, a potential judge is being told: "Accept this as evidence because everyone was forewarned."

As Hugo would say, the market dictates such messages - not the government.

----

Brave New World, indeed. A gentleman does in private what he does in public. The talent of money is that no one knows whence it came nor where it goes.

[takeanumber]

Yes, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I misread the criminal code.

It just doesn't seem right that it would be perfectly legal.

----

Sounds like Grewal was asking the Liberals for a bribe...that's just the impression I get from the tapes.

[Guest eureka]

Whether this amounts to entrapment depends on whether Grewal can be described as a law enforcement officer. Or , whether Harper can be, and Grewal as his agent.

It would then be decided by consideration of whether the other party was predisposed to commit the breach of the Law or was induced by Grewal to do so.

I am not sure about the recording itself. That may be illegal, but, offhand, I don't know.

[Army Guy]

Take anumber:

Canadian law states that only one person in a party of two or more has to legally know that a conversation is being recorded. Therefore, reporters are not legally required to tell you before they begin recording your conversation, except when they plan to broadcast your voice.

In DND it is legal for a suborinate to record conversations with superiors,or peers with our consent.

It is illigal for a superior to record conversations with a suborinate unless he has been informed that the conversation is being recorded...You don't need thier permission just to inform them that a recording is being made...

[The Terrible Sweal]

Outside the military, in general, it is permissible for persons to record their own conversations without telling the other party. However, the uses to which the recording may be put are constrained by a range of laws.

Customer service lines tell you because telling you expands the range of use they could put the recoding to. Also, it probably keeps angry customers from teeing of on the hapless staffers.