Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

Tale of the Tape (Lisa Raitt Remix)

by kadyomalley on Monday, June 8, 2009 3:46pm - 61 Comments

090608s_raitttape[2]ITQ is doing her best to follow the latest tape-related controversy to ensnarl this government — Sidebar: Seriously, guys, what with Grewal, Cadman, that NDP tele-caucus call and now this, it’s turning into a running theme, like the Liberals and Things That Fly (Airbus, Pearson Airport, helicopters, Andy Scott, I could go on … ) which is why we’ve put up this handy dandy updateable post, which will be updated with all the latest developments. That’s the plan, anyway.

For up-to-the-second breaking news from the rest of the mediaverse, be sure to keep an eye on National NewsWatch, which has been on top of this story since the very beginning.

4:05:45 PM
Latest news from Halifax: The judge will rule on the injunction request at 6:00 p.m. EST.

4:31:17 PM
Just to clear up a bit of (understandable) confusion: As ITQ understands it, the court has imposed
a temporary publication ban on today’s hearing — which kind of makes sense, if you think about it, since the subject under discussion is the object of the application for an injunction — but has *not* rendered a decision on the injunction itself. So when the judge rules later today, we’ll either be able to:

a) report on everything, from the contents of the tape to the arguments made against allowing the Halifax Chronicle Herald to publish the story, if he rules against both the injunction motion and the request for a publication ban

b) report on nothing at all, if he rules against both requests, or

c) report on some aspects of the case, but not others.

If the court does impose a partial ban, you can expect the lawyers for every media outlet currently in the courtroom — which seems to be most of the major networks/papers — to appeal the ruling. In other words, stay tuned. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

5:01:20 PM
You know, I have to wonder if the minister has offered her resignation over *this* incident, or whether she’s pretty sure that this time, the prime minister would have to regretfully — or at least “regretfully” — accept.

Still waiting for details — and if you’re wondering at the lack of news coming from Halifax, it’s that darned (hopefully soon to be lifted) publication ban to blame. Nobody wants to risk raising the judge’s ire by letting slip even the most innocuous bit of inside info.

5:41:22 PM
Okay, so by a stroke of pure something, this is actually the night of the Liberal garden party – for MPs, reporters, Hill staffers; you know, the usual suspects – which is making things tricky on the logistical front.

6:09:20 PM
Still no word from the court — and again, apologies for the no-news-now updates. We’ve heard from one source inside the courtroom that the judge is saying “encouraging” things — encouraging to Team Media, that is — but no ruling yet.

6:20:04 PM
Still waiting for official confirmation, but the rumour is: DISMISSED!!! Injunction fails!

6:23:16 PM
Congratulations to the Halifax Chronicle Herald. Joseph Howe would be so proud, you guys.

6:47:15 PM
According to inside sources, the motion has been dismissed, but will be appealed. Waiting to hear what, if anything, can be reported in the meantime.

6:53:22 PM
It’s confirmed: the injunction has been thrown out. No word yet on a possible appeal.

Tags: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Newer Comments →
  • noobie

    "Libel Chill" would be an excellent name for a rock band.

  • http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

    I love stories about tapes.

    By the way, as Feschuk reports, O. Chow is redredging some old dirt on Raitt from her days with the Toronto Port Authority, the occasion being a new letter from several disgruntled Board members "out there" (dated March 30), and I've done a short thing on the TPA's response to that letter (available on CNW).

    • Tim

      I saw this too. Noticed that Kinsella's PR shop is handling the TPA spin.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    This is the day that Ms. Raitt's future leadership aspirations officially disintegrated. She obviously hasn't got what it takes – her managerial competence and credibility have taken a huge walloping in the past week.

    None of the stories have been earth-shattering, but the accumulation of embarassments must have taken its toll.

  • DAN

    I didn't see anything of substance in Chow's press release. She was a CEO. CEOs travel and travel costs add up — at least they do if you want to run a successful, competitive organization. She just don't know how things work in the real world of business…..

    Saying that, has anybody added up how much Ms. Chow's travel expenses are over the course of a year? All those government-paid business class tickets our MPs receive add up. Somebody should do an Access to Information request on the travel costs of her and her husband!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tdotlib tdotlib

      Dan – the other motive for Chow to bring this up is that the TPA is much-maligned by the NDP and Miller. It's seen as a federal agency meddling in municipal matters.

      This is just as much about pinning this on Raitt as it is about the NDP giving Miller support to his idea for scrapping the TPA.

    • http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com OldSchoolLiberal

      And with what companies, exactly, is the Toronto Port Authority trying to compete???

      She's entitled to her entitlements, afterall, eh, Dan?

    • Dave

      Why ATIP when they give the information away for free?

    • catherine

      Yes, expenses add up, but exactly how many managers did the TPA have that it cost $1000 for a single internal management lunch?

    • anonlinereader

      "Management expenses include $50,000 spent on hospitality and meals at a local steak house – with one internal management lunch alone costing about $1,000. Chow says Raitt also ignored standing policy by paying $65,000 to a law firm retained by a few board members who then held onto the legal advice exclusively. The NDP is calling on the auditor general to examine some $80,000 in travel and hospitality expenses that Raitt, now the natural resources minister, rung up in two years while she was CEO of the federal public authority. "

      "Transport Minister John Baird is facing allegations that he appointed additional members to the Toronto Port Authority to "cover up" claims of mismanagement against cabinet colleague Lisa Raitt. At a news conference, Chow alleged that Baird changed the constitution of the authority to "get his way."

  • DAN

    I'm seeing Twitter rumours of the judge making a ruling at 6 pm

  • John D

    Um, you do know that as a backbench opposition MP she only gets to spend so much on travel, so even if she maxed it out it's not exactly scandalous…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Silly_Walks Silly_Walks

      Hey, he's a poster, posters make up a lot of stuff — at least if they want to be successful. Don't come in here with your 'facts', and 'logic'. The man is trying to bring down the level of discourse here!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Tidewaters Chrystal Ocean

    Wish NNW used a feed for their site!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    They're both on salaries.

    Our dime.

    Our tape.

    ROLL 'EM!!!

  • Wayne

    Wow – people writing people off already … ROFL LMAO – don't hold your breath folks or you will get asthma when the inevitable resurrection occurs. First off I think that this situation may be the best thing that has ever happened to Lisa bad press is better than no press just ask Iggy!. All depends – as an example she seems to be developing a rep of late as one tough cookie and is handling herself quite well. I love the response to the Lib's .. check it out = after 5 ministers (lib) and nothing done or fixed and Iggy commenting when he wasn't even in Canada at the time (Ouch! Zinger score 1 for Lisa) Then the rest will play out as it always does – I wonder if the tape will ever see the light of day I would love to hear what's on it.

    • Ted

      "Wow – people writing people off already ."

      I know. You'd think we were Conservatives discussing Ruby Dhall, wouldn't you.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    They're both on salaries. Were, anyways.

    Our dime.

    Our tape.

    ROLL 'EM!!!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    hmmm…

    wonder is she had a better chance if she was still in the employ.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    hmmm…

    wonder if she had a better chance if she was still in the employ.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Silly_Walks Silly_Walks

    It appears someone took the illustrations out of a comic book.

  • M.A.N

    I don't know…Lisa Raitt has hired a new communications director. The guy's name?

    Steve Outhouse.

    Sometimes, the material writes itself.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

    The Toronto Sherry Authority?

    Just a guess. I'm from out of town.

    • http://liberalvideodepot.blogspot.com OldSchoolLiberal

      LOL.

      Exactly.

  • Anon

    Is this a government or a bad reality show?

    BTW, ITQ, Muttart's new home => http://www.mercurypublicaffairs.com/team-muttart….

  • MJ Patchouli

    Kady, or anyone: on what basis could the judge pronounce a publications ban? Because the tapes don't belong to the media outlet? Surely it isn't based on whether or not it's career damaging to the minister on the tape!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Threat to national security. Release of the tapes could cause a general revolt when Harper's peccadillos are exposed.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      If I understand correctly, the publication ban applies to the proceedings in court — *not* the contents of the tape — which is why it makes sense to impose one while the hearing on the injunction request is still going on.

    • Ted

      It is an interesting question. On what basis could she claim that an injuction is justified? Injunctive relief will only be granted where damages or other remedy would not sufficiently compensate the applicant for a wrong. So first, how is McDonell wronged by the disclosure of the tape and its contents? Second, how could damages or other remedies not be adequate to compensate her, if her claim of being wronged proved true?

      The first question depends on how the tape was obtained and perhaps we don't have the information. But McDonell would have to show that she would suffer damages from the article being published. Given that we already know that (a) the former aide recorded Raitt and (b) left the tape in a washroom, I'm not sure what she could claim. You can't get an injunction to protect yourself from your own screw ups.

    • Tim

      A great strategy would have been to claim that the tape was made on the other side of the river, so that Quebec's privacy laws kick in.

      Wonder if they're going to claim it's "doctored" again like with Cadman?

  • http://www.drudgereport.com Jacob

    A ban will just create the notion that the Conservatives are covering something up.

    • Tim

      And in this day and age, it will probably end up on an American site where bans don't apply, tweeted among friends, etc. This is like trying to unring a bell.

  • http://www.drudgereport.com Jacob

    Yes scf, its clearly a massive conspiracy where the Ignatieff cabal planted a tory staffer into conservative offices 5 years in advance, so she can record a conversation in the bathroom.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      God, I really hope it is. I would LOVE to have a man with that kind of foresight and the ability to pull off a plan like that working as Prime Minister. Hell, just a Prime Minister with foresight to the next fiscal year would do these days.

  • Ted

    [CONT.]

    But what harm could she suffer? The damage to her reputation is already done from the misplaced folder, the misplaced tape. That Raitt, Harper and the Conservatives who seem to be the ones who would be damaged is not a basis upon which McDonell could claim an injunction, I don't think. Maybe if she claimed that the Conservatives would sue her if the article was published?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

    So you're saying that Raitt is so incompetent she couldn't perform a simply internet search on the person handling her communications.

    This helps your case how?

  • Jenn

    If true, scf, I hope the Conservatives sue her for breach of fiduciary duty. While I'm a Liberal supporter, I absolutely do not support that kind of, well, spying and intentional trouble-making–and that's before I even consider the fact that she would have exposed SECRET documents out of spite or gotcha politics. That kind of thing has to be put down hard.

    If not true, of course, never mind.

  • Dot

    Lisa Raitt was on a temporary leave of absence from her Minister's position at the time of the recordings – so, no harm, no foul.

  • Cynic

    Why not just post the incriminating documents at Wikileaks or some other anonymous source?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

    In all honesty, the whole thing does bring up a pretty big ethical gray area for me. I found Grewal acting like 007, and the taping of the NDP conference call to be reprehensible , and I'm not sure *how* different this is, at least from an ethical perspective. Of course the first two were blatant attempts by a political party to embarrass their opponents, and this seems more about a mistake on the part of Ms. MacDonnel (although that could be linked *somewhat* to the NDP caucus call even though everyone and their mother knows caucus is to be confidential). Where does this all fit legally? Sounds like the reporter got a hold of this because of mistakes made by MacDonnel, so there may be in the clear from a legal perspective, but from an ethical perspective? i don't know. And does the subject matter count? Sounds like this is really just Hill gossip rather than actual *news* (I suppose one could argue there was much more news value in the NDP caucus call and the Grewal tapes)

    Regardless, and I'm as guilty as anyone for following it all day, in a story, who's overall arch has included the Conservatives hiding the true cost of AECL (an actual public policy issue) the focus has been on the gossip and inside baseball stuff which while entertaining is too bad for journalism overall in a way as this stuff seems to supplanting actual news more and more.

    One thing is for certain in my mind, each time something this or Dhalla-gate comes out, those on the other side better be very careful about how they approach this. Because if you hammer people on things in their private lives (and I suppose one could make the argument this convo didn't fall under private life) you better be sure you don't have so much as a parket ticket on your record, because you make yourself a target for the same kind of smears, innuendo and allegations,

    Most of the above is quite jumbled, so apologies for its lack of focus.

Newer Comments →

Previous

Next

From Macleans