Kinsella archives

One ping, Jonesy

2007-07-26T14:56:00.001-07:00

One ping only...

Folks, take my advice. You can dig up all kind of shit on Kinsella. I've posted a lot on the web. Or you can get a life and let the pols, the hacks and the ratfuckers fight it out.
Take your kid fishing. Write a poem. Make love. Go for a walk in the sun, rain or snow.

New address

2007-01-05T16:21:00.001-08:00

Looking for something on the self-styled Prince o' Darkness? The full archives are here.
You'll find:

The various threats Kinsella has made against bloggers.
Links to Ontario Legislature Hansards of debates in which Kinsella was denounced by Opposition MPPs. There are quite a few, especially regarding the Ontario Lottery Corp. scandal and cover-up attempt.
Kinsella's $40,000 libel settlement to a man libelled in Web of Hate
Discussions of Kinsella, sponsorship and Gomery
Nasty reviews of Kinsella's shitty book on punk rock
Links to Kinsella's denunciations of the National Post, Liberals, and lots of others.

Take some time. Stay a while. Have fun with it.

Wikipedia Warren

2006-12-16T08:12:00.000-08:00

This is what Kinsella's Wikipedia entry says:

Warren Kinsella

Warren Kinsella in his basementFor the Canadian author, see W. P. Kinsella.
J. Warren Kinsella, (born August 1960 in Montreal, Quebec), is a Toronto-based Canadian lawyer, author, musician, political consultant, lobbyist and commentator.

Contents [hide]
1 Education and career history
2 Politics
3 Gomery Commission
4 Legal action against bloggers
5 Involvement in punk rock
6 Personal life
7 Works
8 References
9 External links

Education and career history
After receiving a bachelor's degree in journalism from Carleton University, Kinsella worked at the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. He subsequently earned a law degree from the University of Calgary and was a partner at the law firm McMillan Binch.[1] He left McMillan Binch in 2002 to work for the Toronto-based lobbying firm Navigator. [2] In April 2006, Kinsella launched his own political consulting firm, the Daisy Consulting Group. Kinsella is also a media columnist for the National Post.

Politics
Kinsella worked as a staffer in opposition leader Jean Chrétien's office, a strategy advisor in the Canadian federal Liberal Party's 1993 election campaign "task force", and chief of staff to federal Public Works minister David Dingwall. In his book Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics, Kinsella describes how he cultivates the image of "Liberal attack dog", and the "James Carville" and "Prince of Darkness" of Canadian politics. Kinsella gained national exposure during the 2000 federal election when, acting on an idea by Liberal campaign staffer Sophie Galarneau[3], he appeared on television brandishing a toy Barney dinosaur as part of an editorial comment on Stockwell Day's Christian creationist beliefs. Kinsella ran as a Liberal candidate in the 1997 federal election in the riding of North Vancouver and lost.

Kinsella was a vocal supporter of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He criticized the Paul Martin Liberal campaign several times in the 2004 federal election, and 2006 election.

Kinsella is a member of the board of directors of the Canada Israel Committee.[4]

Gomery Commission
Kinsella's actions as an aide to a Liberal cabinet minister brought questions over his role in the lead-up to the 2004 Canadian sponsorship scandal. In 1995, while working for David Dingwall, then Minister of Public Works, Kinsella wrote a memo to deputy minister Ran Quail recommending that the government's communications be reorganized under a centralized delivery system and that Charles Guité be assigned to head the new agency. However, Ran Quail dismissed the memo as a "mistake by an inexperienced staffer." Dingwall testified that he didn't remember the incident, but assumed that he must have instructed Kinsella to write the memo. The Communications Co-ordination Services Branch that was created in November 1997 consisted of almost exactly the consolidation of functions that had been advocated by Kinsella and was headed by Charles Guité. In his report on the scandal, Justice John Gomery noted that the memo was "a highly inappropriate attempt by political staff to interfere in the internal administration" of the department. In testimony at the commission, Kinsella was revealed as the person who introduced Guité to Jacques Corriveau, the man who accepted the ad kickbacks for the Liberal Party and wrote a memo to Guité saying Corriveau should be given contracts.[2] [5] Kinsella was a witness at the Gomery Commission[6] and frequently mocked Judge Gomery on his web site. In 2006, Guité was convicted of defrauding the federal government and sentenced to 42 months in prison. [3]

Legal action against bloggers
In 2004, Kinsella threatened legal action against Canadian bloggers who he alleged libelled him. The matter was eventually settled without litigation when most parties involved came to compromise. The issue aroused controversy in the Canadian blogging community. In January, 2006, he threatened to sue a blogger for posting about Kinsella's role in hiring Chuck Guite in the lead-up to the sponsorship scandal.[7]

Involvement in punk rock

Front CoverIn his youth, Kinsella was the bassist of the Canadian punk band, "The Hot Nasties".[8] In 2005, Kinsella wrote Fury's Hour: A (sort-of) Punk-Rock Manifesto (Random House, 2005), a history of the early days of punk.

Kinsella is now playing in punk rock band Shit From Hell, which features several former or current Liberal Party of Ontario and Liberal Party of Canada staffers. They have one album.

He wrote the song, Barney Rubble is My Double, featured on the Hot Nasties long play cassette tape and the Shit From Hell self titled CD. It was also covered by The Evaporator's on their Ripple Rock album.

Personal life
He is the son of physician and medical ethicist Douglas Kinsella, C.M., founder of the National Council on Ethics in Human Research (NCEHR). He and his wife have four children. In late 2000, he established a weblog, "Latest Musings".[9]

Works
Unholy Alliances (Lester, 1992)
Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network ISBN 0-00-638051-4 (HarperCollins, 1997)
Party Favours (HarperCollins, 1997)
Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics (Random House, 2001)
Fury's Hour: A (sort-of) Punk-Rock Manifesto (Random House, 2005)

This is what Kinsella wants it to say:

Warren Kinsella
J. Warren Kinsella, (born August 1960 in Montreal, Quebec), is a Toronto-based Canadian lawyer, author, musician, political consultant, lobbyist and commentator.

Education and career history
Warren Kinsella has a Bachelor's Degree in Journalism (Honours) from Carleton University, as well as a law degree from the University of Calgary. He is the president of a new firm, The Daisy Consulting Group, recalling the name of a Democratic Party ad in the 1964 U.S. presidential election[[1]]. He worked as a strategist in the Canadian federal Liberal Party's 1993 election campaign "task force", as a staffer in Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's office before Chretien won the 1993 federal election, and as chief of staff to federal Public Works minister David Dingwall. He also ran the Liberal Party "war room" in the successful 2000 election campaign.

Politics
Kinsella's work as a political strategist has led to his being labelled by his opponents a "Liberal attack dog", and the "James Carville" and "Prince of Darkness" of Canadian politics. Kinsella gained national exposure during the 2000 federal election when he appeared on the CTV television show Canada AM brandishing a purple Barney dinosaur to highlight Stockwell Day's creationist beliefs. He ran as a Liberal candidate in the 1997 federal election in the riding of North Vancouver which he lost. The next year, Kinsella moved to Toronto to work for the Bay Street law firm McMillan Binch.

Kinsella was a vocal supporter of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and criticized Paul Martin for challenging Chrétien's leadership. He criticized the Martin campaign several times in the 2004 federal election, and 2006 election [2]. In December 2006, he revealed on his National Post blog [[3]]that his firm had been actively supporting the candidacy of new Liberal leader Stephane Dion.

Gomery Inquiry
Kinsella was, and remains, highly critical of the Gomery Inquiry into the federal sponsorship program. The program came into existence two years after Kinsella left government service[[4]], but the former Chretien aide often publicly defended Chretien's role in the affair, and attacked Judge Gomery for alleged bias. After writing to request an opportunity to appear before the inquiry, Kinsella was a witness at the Gomery Commission and frequently derired Judge Gomery on his web site and in the media. He also successfully sued one of his persistent online critics, blogger Mark Bourrie, over a post by Bourrie regarding Kinsella's role in the affair [5]. Kinsella's lawyer argued, "The way in which it was written leaves it to the reader to conclude that Mr. Kinsella was a participant in the kickback scandal and he was not". Bourrie issued an apology and made a payment in settlement: "The manner in which my January 14, 2006 blog entry was worded made it seem that Mr. Kinsella had been a party to illegal conduct when this was clearly not the case. I apologize without reservation to Mr. Kinsella for that error on my part.[[6]]"

Involvement in punk rock

Front CoverIn his youth, Kinsella was the bassist of the Canadian punk band, "The Hot Nasties".[1] In 2005, Kinsella wrote Fury's Hour: A (sort-of) Punk-Rock Manifesto (Random House, 2005), a history of the early days of punk.

Kinsella is now playing in punk rock band Shit From Hell, which features many former or current Liberal Party of Ontario and Liberal Party of Canada staffers. They have one album.

He wrote the song, Barney Rubble is My Double, featured on the Hot Nasties long play cassette tape and the Shit From Hell self titled CD. It was also covered by The Evaporator's on their Ripple Rock album.

Personal life
He is the son of physician and medical ethicist Douglas Kinsella, C.M., founder of the National Council on Ethics in Human Research (NCEHR). He and his wife have four children. In late 2000, he established a weblog, "Latest Musings".[2]

Works
Unholy Alliances (Lester, 1992)
Web of Hate: Inside Canada's Far Right Network ISBN 0-00-638051-4 (HarperCollins, 1997)
Party Favours (HarperCollins, 1997)
Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics (Random House, 2001)
Fury's Hour: A (sort-of) Punk-Rock Manifesto (Random House, 2005)

We'll be moving soon

2006-12-15T16:07:00.000-08:00

This site will be moving to a brand-spanking, ratfucker-proof new web site in the next few days (as soon as I'm finished marking exams and my wife's finished writing them).

I'll get the material into some kind of order, have more graphics and pictures, and much, much more on-the-record stuff about everyone's fave self-styled Prince o' Darkness.

BTW, what's the difference between Warren Kinsellout and James Carville?

About 100 IQ points.

Chemical Ali: On the Wrong Side of Environment

2006-12-14T11:56:00.001-08:00

Warren Kinsella: Chemical Lobbyist
Peter Rempel Fri Apr 8, 2005
(www.thepolitic.com)

Remember when Warren Kinsella, during the depths of his hair-pulling contest with Norm Spector, would refer to Norm as, “Norman Spector, Big Tobacco Lobbyist”? Well, it would now appear that Warren is not himself averse to lobbying for (and, of course, getting paid to lobby for) big corporate groups whose interests are not necessarily in keeping with those of the general public.

Yesterday the G&M reported that Warren had been registered as an industry lobbyist in Ontario, and here is the registration information. Honestly, it makes for interesting reading. Here are two interesting tid-bits I pulled out of it.

The group that Warren will lobby for is a coalition named the Coalition for a Sustainable Environment. Sounds wonderful, except that it is a coalition of industry groups and one of the groups represented in the coalition is the Canadian Chemical Producers Association. So Warren is now being paid to lobby for corporate chemical interests? Gotcha.
If this surprised you as it did me given Warren’s impecable progressive pedigree, you will be further surprised to learn that the reason Warren will be lobbying the Ontario government is to either water down or scrap entirely Bill 133 2004 - Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act in respect of enforcement and other matters. So Warren is now in the pay of corporate chemical interests, with the goal of watering down or trashing an environmental protection law.
Which might lead one to ask: What is so odious about Bill 133 that Warren would be willing to become a Chemical Lobbyist and work to see it watered down or trashed? Is it the part where an offense is created when a contaminant is discharged into the natural environment? Or maybe it’s the part where such contaminant discharges are required to be immediately reported? Both are such hideous infringements upon the chemical industry. If the chemical interests that Warren represents want to dump chemicals into waterways, then why shouldn’t they?!

Answers to such questions have not been forthcoming on Warren’s chatty website. Until they are, I hereby dub thee, “Warren Kinsella, Chemical Lobbyist.”

The North Vancouver Stomp

2006-12-14T11:51:00.000-08:00

Nortrh Vancouver
Canadian federal election, 1997

Party Candidate Votes % vote Expenditures
Reform Ted White 27,075 48.86% $63,443
Liberal Warren Kinsella 18,806 33.94% $62,704
New Democratic Party Martin Stuible 5,075 9.15% $11,938
Progressive Conservative Dennis Prouse 2,740 4.94% $14,159
Green Peggy Stortz 982 1.77% $173
Independent Dallas Lindley Collins 365 0.65%
Canadian Action Wayne Mulherin 203 0.36% $1,359
Natural Law Ken Chawkin 162 0.29%

Total valid votes 55,408 100.00%
Total rejected ballots 167 0.30%
Turnout 55,575 71.83%

Follow da Money

2006-12-13T08:16:00.001-08:00

Gillian Cosgrove, National Post, Jan. 23, 2004

gcosgrove@rogers.com
Now that Belinda Stronach is officially seeking the Conservative leadership, all the pontificators who routinely analyze politics should be man (or woman) enough to openly declare their conflicts of interest.
Working furiously behind the scenes for a candidate and then passing yourself off on a public forum as an "independent" observer is downright unprofessional.
Harsh scrutiny, in sum, shouldn't be just for politicians.
Last week, on TVOntario, Janet Ecker, the former finance minister of Ontario, commented on her colleague Tony Clement's candidacy. Could her glowing remarks about Ms. Stronach be somehow linked to her tireless work for Ms. Stronach? She neglected to mention it and Studio 2 host Steve Paikin conveniently forgot to point it out. Then Rick Anderson, one-time Preston Manning strategist, weighed in with an attack in the Toronto Star on Stephen Harper's campaign kickoff speech. He heaped scorn on Mr. Harper for portraying himself as Mr. Everyman going up against multi-millionaire politicians Paul Martin and Belinda Stronach. Ms. Stronach was a "bona fide Canadian success story." The success of people like Martin and the Stronachs "deserves commendation not derision." Yadda yadda. Guess who Rick is supporting?
Finally, before and after Belinda declared on Tuesday, on Newsworld's indispensible Politics with Don Newman, Tory lobbyist Geoff Norquay gave Ms. Stronach a gushing review. Only later in the show did he admit that he was contributing policy ideas to her campaign.
Nothing wrong with backing your own horse, but, when you have a public pulpit, you have to be up front. (As for yours truly, Belinda once sent me a bouquet of lilies after I wrote about her friendship with Bill Clinton. Go figure!)
WE FOLLOW THE MONEY
Leadership campaigns attract sundry mercenaries, from old war horses who direct strategy to keeners who pound pavements signing up new members. All are lured by rainstorms of cash. Bearing in mind that big egos often inflate what they earn, here are sums being bandied about. Top strategists in the Stronach camp are reportedly earning $150,000, plus a bonus if she wins. Navigator Ltd. -- kennel of pitbulls (three Tories, one Liberal) Stewart Braddick, Jaime Watt, Greg Lyle and Warren Kinsella -- is said to be banking $4,000 a day from the Stronach and Clement campaigns. That's $240,000 for a 60-day race. Not bad work if you can get it. Relative stiffs, advance men and baggage handlers are raking in a meagre $25,000 each for two months' toil.
A source out West says that when Calgary lawyer Jim Prentice dropped out, Stronach bagmen swooped in, offering his team double what they were making.

Loyalty is for dogs

2006-12-13T08:12:00.000-08:00

Gillian Cosgrove, Sept. 27, 2004

gcosgrove@rogers.com
Like cadaverous James Carville, the Bill Clinton pit bull, there seems to be no limits to which Warren Kinsella, Canada's own political pit bull, won't go -- even if it means sticking the knife into the back of someone he once supported.
The aptly named John Tory had barely finished celebrating his victory in the Ontario Conservative leadership race last weekend when Mr. Kinsella launched a cartoon Web site ridiculing the new leader as Richie Rich and his 24-member caucus as a bunch of Stone Age cavemen. This is the same Mr. Kinsella who eagerly backed Mr. Tory in his bid to become mayor of Toronto less than a year ago.
The animation, complete with Flintstones music, shows comic book character Richie Rich flipping ribs over a barbecue with other Flintstone characters looking on. Click on the stone tablets at www.cavemancaucus.org and Mr. Tory is described as "a member of the downtown Toronto elite."
Mr. Tory has shrugged off this attempt to portray the Tories as Neanderthals as a case of "Warren being up to his old tricks." You might recall that it was Mr. Kinsella who held up a purple Barney dinosaur on TV to ridicule the creationist ideas of Stockwell Day, the former Canadian Alliance leader.
Making fun of a politician because he is successful may very well backfire. It's also a tad hypocritical because there are many more well-to-do Liberals on the other side of the fence.
GRIT LEADERSHIP STAKES
When Mr. Kinsella is not stirring up trouble for Tories, he is feverishly working behind the scenes to promote the leadership aspirations of former Liberal finance minister John Manley.
In a thinly disguised criticism of Paul Martin's performance as Prime Minister, Mr. Manley was the first to openly question last week's $41-billion health accord with the provinces, with its Quebec side deal, as a sellout to Quebec that in effect gives it special status.
Then out of the woodwork came Maurizio Bevilacqua, formerly a pro- Martin MP who mysteriously has received zilch for his loyalty. He made clear his concern about the weakening of the federal government in what some old-timers from the Trudeau years are calling "Meech II."
The views of the Trudeau camp are best expressed by Senator Serge Joyal, a constitutional expert, who said that recognizing "asymmetrical federalism" could have the far-reaching effect of redefining the role of the central government.
Both Mr. Manley and Mr. Bevilacqua have been quietly criss- crossing the country to assess their support for a leadership bid.
Meanwhile, another long-shot contender for the leadership emerged this week to the delight of Bay Street. Scott Brison, the Public Works Minister, was in Toronto to tell the business crowd about his proposal to sell off some of the federal government's office buildings. He is well-liked on the Street because, as a former investment banker, he has always supported bank mergers, a view now being echoed by David Emerson, the Industry Minister.
When Mr. Brison defected from the Tories to the Liberals last December, I took pride in having predicted it two months earlier. Today, I'm prepared to go out on a limb and predict he will succeed Mr. Martin as Liberal leader. Age (only 37) and ambition are on his side.

Grim Spector of scrutiny

2006-12-13T08:10:00.000-08:00

Norman Spector,

Trail Daily Times, Jan. 12, 2005

Is it any wonder Jean Chretien's lawyers are attacking the chair of the sponsorship inquiry, Mr. Justice John Gomery?
Last week, former Public Works minister David Dingwall testified that Chuck Guite was the right man to run the program because he was "universally acclaimed" in Ottawa after the 1995 Quebec referendum. That would be the same referendum, by the way, in which Jean Chretien almost lost the country. I suspect that the real attraction in Dingwall's mind, as Guite testified, was that he'd not rat on those giving the orders.
This week, the minister responsible for ensuring that the nightmare was never repeated, Stephane Dion, testified he had no involvement with sponsorships. After he discovered and looked into the program in 2001, he found it was useless for national unity.
Later in the week, however, Alphonso Gagliano's chief of staff, Jean-Marc Bard, said the sponsorship program was well known in Quebec--especially to his minister. That would be the same Gagliano, by the way, whose responsibilities as political minister for Quebec included fundraising, organizing golf tournaments and electing Liberal MPs.
Bard replaced Pierre Tremblay, parachuted from Gagliano's political office into the public service to replace Chuck Guite. In Ottawa, unlike most provinces, this is standard operating procedure- -though the Tremblay example is more blatant than most.
Guite was "suggested" to the deputy minister as the right guy for the job by Dingwall's Executive Assistant, Warren Kinsella, who lately has been leading the charge against Judge Gomery and one of the Inquiry's counsels.
When his turn came to testify, he received soft treatment from the other counsel, a man who has deep links to Liberals, including Jean Chretien's closest confidants. For his part, Bard suffered repeated memory lapses related to documents showing he was the link between Liberal MPs and the lolly.
There's considerable evidence that the principal goal of the program was not national unity, but to elect more Liberal MPs in Quebec--a matter that figured prominently in Mr. Chretien's self- proclaimed legacy when he left office.
For example, the spending continued years after the 1995 referendum, when Quebec had turned its attention away from sovereignty to the deficit. With the decline in Premier Lucien Bouchard's popularity, it was pretty clear that he was in no position to call another referendum.
Moreover, Mr. Chretien's chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, took a hands-on approach in deciding which events received funding, how much they received and which advertising firms should get commissions for transferring cheques. Pelletier's principal responsibility as chief political adviser to Chretien was not national unity but to elect Liberals. country.
Over the course of its life, 40 per cent of the sponsorship budget of $250-million found its way to communications and advertising agencies known for their heavy donations to the Liberal Party. The same firms are also known to have contributed skilled staff as volunteers to work in election campaigns.
The Opposition parties are livid about the challenge to Gomery's impartiality, and there's even talk, especially by Stephen Harper, of bringing down the government. However, it makes no sense to hold Paul Martin accountable if Gomery refuses to resign and Chretien's lawyers take the matter to the Federal Court. In that event, we'd likely not see his final report before the next election.
It's still not clear whether Chretien--famous for the Shawinigan handshake and other tough guy moves--is trying to kill the commission, or merely to soften it up before he testifies. Whatever the reason, the Opposition--ideally with the support of the Government, assuming it wants answers--must seize the initiative from Chretien.
They should demand, in a Commons motion, that Martin immediately refer the legal challenge to the Supreme Court for an expedited hearing. They should also demand he commit not to call an election before the final report is complete.
In these circumstances, it would be wise to suspend Gomery's work, rather than have Chretien testify with a sword hanging over the Commissioner's and counsel's heads.

Andrew Coyne tests our faith

2006-12-13T08:09:00.001-08:00

National Post, Feb. 12, 2005:

ac@andrewcoyne.com
Here is what we are asked to believe.
We are asked to believe that Jean Chretien, having created the sponsorship program, having personally secured funding for the program out of the so-called "unity reserve," having personal authority over every ministerial request for funds from that allocation and having been warned in writing by the Clerk of the Privy Council that he would thus be personally responsible for every departmental grant made out of those funds, should accept no personal blame for anything that went wrong under the program.
We are asked to believe that, although the program was critical to achieving "the unity of Canada ... my number one priority," he had no knowledge of and indeed took no interest in the way the program was run because "I'm not a micro-manager"; that, in particular, he had no knowledge that a company controlled by Jacques Corriveau, a close friend and former vice-president of the Liberal Party, had received millions of dollars in sub-contracts under the program, nor that, prior to receiving these commissions, he had complained to Mr. Chretien's closest political advisers that he had not been paid for work carried out in the 1997 election campaign, nor even that he had contributed thousands of dollars to Mr. Chretien's personal election campaign.
We are asked to believe this, notwithstanding Mr. Chretien's demonstrated penchant for "micro-managing" on behalf of friends in search of federal funds. It was, after all, in those same post- referendum years when the sponsorship program was in its heyday that Mr. Chretien somehow found the time to make repeated phone calls to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada on behalf of the proprietor of the Grand-Mere Inn, the serial fire-victim Yvon Duhaime, who was mysteriously granted a loan for which he was ineligible.
And Mr. Duhaime was hardly the only friend of Mr. Chretien's to benefit from federal largesse. For example. there was Claude Gauthier, a long time friend and political contributor who was awarded a $6-million CIDA grant on which he was ineligible to bid, and who was later given a $1.2-million "job creation" grant for a company in bankruptcy proceedings, after Mr. Chretien's officials intervened.
We are asked to believe that Mr. Chretien was so insistent, when it came to federal advertising and sponsorships, that "all the rules, regulations and guidelines had to be followed," that he appointed Jean Carle, then his director of operations, to police it. That would be the Jean Carle who has admitted to having later participated, as vice-president of the Business Development Bank, in a scheme to launder $125,000 in sponsorship funding to a Montreal film producer through the Bank. But perhaps that was his only lapse.
We are asked to believe, likewise, that Mr. Chretien was so concerned to remove any partisan taint from federal advertising practices that he assigned the task to David Dingwall, his first Public Works minister; and that Mr. Dingwall and his executive assistant, Warren Kinsella, were so seized with non-partisan zeal that they went to unusual lengths to ensure Chuck Guite was put in charge of the program. Mr. Guite has testified that Mr. Dingwall explained his decision to keep him on, notwithstanding similar activities on behalf of the previous Conservative government, with the words: "You won't rat on them, you won't rat on us."
We are asked to believe that neither Jean Pelletier, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, nor Alfonso Gagliano, Mr. Guite's superior as minister of Public Works, though they met regularly with Mr. Guite, and though they admit to having offered "suggestions" as to which projects should receive funding, and though several witnesses and dozens of documents attest to their having closely directed the program in every respect, took any part in deciding how the funds should be allocated, i.e. through which advertising agencies.
We are asked to believe that the politicians responsible for a program that was conceived in secret, that appeared in no budget document, that was never divulged to Parliament and of which even cabinet ministers were unaware, should have been surprised to learn that bureaucrats answering to them were allocating millions of dollars in secret, without invoices or receipts.
We are asked to believe, last, that Paul Martin did not know about the existence of the unity reserve until 1996, three years after he had been named Finance Minister; that he did not know what it was used for, i.e. sponsorships, until some years after that; and that he did not know about the abuses that went on under the program until some years after that. And yet, ignorant as he was as to either the purpose or results of the program, he immediately signed off on the Prime Minister's request for funds, without question.
We are asked to believe that Messrs. Chretien, Pelletier, Gagliano, Carle, Dingwall, and Kinsella acted at all times throughout this affair out of an impartial devotion to the public good; or that if they did not, Mr. Martin had no clue that anything untoward was going on, and no reason to suspect it.
That is what we are asked to believe. Do you?

"My friend" Paul Wells, "My friend" Andrew Coyne

2006-12-13T08:07:00.000-08:00

Kinsella claims friendships with people with whom he exchanged these e-mails and blog postings, less than two years ago:

(Copyright National Post 2005, Feb. 14, 2005)
The ongoing Gomery inquiry into Adscam is months from completion. But it has already produced what may be the most memorable battle in the history of the Canadian blogosphere. What follows is a thumbnail chronology.
Jan. 25: Chretien-friendly blogger Warren Kinsella (warrenkinsella.com) takes issue with Norman Spector, whose blog (www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4) highlights a wire story on former Canada Post boss Georges Clermont's testimony before Gomery. In an e- mail that Spector later posts on his site, Kinsella calls Clermont "a liar," and warns Spector of what's to come. "You want a fight, Norman?" he asks. "You've got one. Ask Kim Campbell and Stockwell Day how much they enjoyed being a focus of my attentions."
Meanwhile, over at warrenkinsella.com, Kinsella attacks "Tobacco Lobbyist Norman" for being "up to his old Mulroney-esque tricks again."
Maclean's magazine blogger Paul Wells (macleans.ca/paulwells) then weighs in by poking fun at Kinsella's e-mail to Spector, despite the acknowledged risk of "giving [Kinsella] more attention than he has ever deserved."
Jan. 26: Kinsella posts an image of Wells with devil's horns, recounting in vivid detail Wells's objection to a similar cartoon being posted on his site amid a 2001 dispute.
Feb. 3: Following several further shots at Kinsella on Spector's site, Kinsella accuses Spector of being "obsessed." To explain "what's gotten up Norman's formidable nose," he offers a nine-round account of their battle, including transcripts of e-mails and libel notices, capped up by christening Spector "(Almost) Million-Dollar Crybaby."
Feb. 7: Spector takes aim at Kinsella in his Globe and Mail print column, repeating a previous suggestion that the Law Society of Upper Canada should look into his "antics."
Kinsella retorts by again implying legal action. "Am I going to respond?" he writes. "Yes. But not on a Web site."
Feb. 8: "You have to really wonder about a guy who thinks threats and attacks will scare people away from writing about this stuff," Spector writes on his site, noting that "Folks at The Globe tell me Warren Kinsella was mighty upset that I wrote about his role, and was even hinting he'd be speaking to his lawyer."
Feb. 12: Kinsella objects to Andrew Coyne's take in a National Post column about his alleged role in federal advertising policy during the 1990s. "I will give Andrew Coyne the benefit of the doubt, and not immediately conclude that he is a ... liar," he blogs. "I will merely assume, at this stage, that he is ... sloppy, lazy and blindingly partisan."
On his own blog (andrewcoyne.com), Coyne responds to the criticism by posting an e-mail from Kinsella -- complete with the requisite libel notice -- complaining about his column, along with his own detailed reply (an edited version of which would appear on these pages the next day).
Kinsella follows up by noting on his site that Coyne cc'd "energetic Warren-hater Norm Spector" in one of their e-mail exchanges. "Golly! I wonder if that means that Andrew wasn't planning on being altogether fair to Yours Truly, when he wrote about the sponsorship program (and tried to link me to same) in today's Post?" he writes.
Paul Wells rejoins the blog wars by cheering on Coyne.
Not to be left out, Spector questions the ethics of journalists who have been seduced by Kinsella's "black arts."
Feb. 14: Kinsella proposes a truce. "I am declaring an armistice with Coyne/Spector/Wells," he writes. "Hell, if the Israelis and the Palestinians can do it, so can Your Humble Narrator."
A fitting sentiment for Valentine's Day, Warren. You're a blogger, not a fighter.

Greg Weston: Why are Chretien's men so afraid?

2006-12-13T08:05:00.000-08:00

March 7, 2005
OTTAWA - Jean Chretien's junk-yard dogs are at it again, yapping and snapping at the Gomery inquiry into the AdScam mess, apparently barking for the commission's early demise.
In recent weeks, former Chretien operatives and other Liberal leftovers have been howling over the costs of the commission, with some estimates now running as high as $80 million.
Cost alone is reason enough to shut the inquiry down, they growl.
The latest cacophony from the Chretien kennel club erupted last Monday following an Ipsos-Reid poll on public attitudes towards the inquiry, now at its half-way mark.
The survey conducted for CTV and The Globe and Mail suggests 61 per cent of Canadians don't believe the commission will get to the bottom of AdScam, but 53 per cent think it is worth trying, even at a cost of $80 million.
About 37 per cent of those polled thought Justice John Gomery has shown a "bias" against Chretien, and perhaps with reason -- almost 80 per cent of respondents didn't believe the former PM's testimony.
The poll caused an instant roar from Warren Kinsella, the loudest and most vicious (and easily most annoying) of Chretien's barking bowsers.
Last Monday, Kinsella wrote the following commentary on his website (remember, this guy is a lawyer talking about a commission headed by a respected member of the judiciary):
"Well, let's see -- a majority of Canadians think this pile of judicial garbage won't find out anything.
"A whack of Canadians think its $80 million (and counting) price tag is obscenely high.
"And a huge number -- bigger even in Quebec, where they are paying the closest attention -- think Judge Gomery is biased against Jean Chretien, and has already written his final report.
"Apart from all that, public opinion on the Gomery Pyle Circus is just great. Just swell."
So much sniffing and snorting from Chretien's critters surely suggests only one thing: They have something to fear.
It all has the pungent smell of the Somalia inquiry, shut down in mid-stream by the Chretien government with all the same advance sniping now being used on Gomery.
The Somalia inquiry, we were told, was costing too much, taking too long, not getting to the bottom of the scandal, casting unfair aspersions on the public service, and was clearly biased.
Having successfully whitewashed the Somalia debacle, the Chretien crowd may have thought it could similarly bring about the demise of the Gomery commission with the same tactics. Good luck to them.
Most Canadians may not be enthralled with the ponderous proceedings of the AdScam inquiry to date, but taxpayers still want to know what happened to $250 million of their money that disappeared into what Gomery has already aptly described as the "catastrophically run" sponsorship program.
We know from last Monday's testimony that more than $10 million of it wound up in the family bank accounts of Jean Lafleur, former head of Lafleur Communications Marketing, one of the Montreal ad agencies at the centre of the AdScam fiasco.
And that's just the beginning.
But this is about a lot more than just missing money.
If the latest public opinion poll shows anything, it is that Canadians have become so utterly cynical about government management of our tax dollars, that there is now a widespread public skepticism towards even a royal commission headed by a revered judge.
At the same time, the Gomery commission is about far more than finding a way to fix a corrupted government program.
It is about restoring a sense of pride in ethical conduct to a public service that has been led for a decade by the worst possible example of amoral leadership.
Chretien's dogs can bark all they want.
Wethinks they doth protest too much.
Credit: Sun Media Corp.

Follow the money: Who's yer daddy, Warren, Part I

2006-12-13T08:00:00.000-08:00

April 8, 2005

TORONTO (CP) -- Allegations of backroom dealings dogged the Ontario government Thursday after it was revealed a longtime Liberal strategist who is now a chemical industry lobbyist attended a cabinet meeting.
The revelation comes just days after environmental legislation that's tough on industry polluters was sent to public hearings.
"They're admitting, if not publicly, they've made some serious errors in this legislation, or someone has convinced them that they've made some serious errors," said Conservative house leader Bob Runciman. "We need to know why that happened."
Warren Kinsella, who has served the Liberals in numerous advisory roles over the years, attended cabinet on March 23, raising eyebrows among the opposition parties.
"After no movement for six months on the environmental spills bill, suddenly it was referred to committee this week without having any debate in this house," Runciman told the legislature.
"Premier, this is the same bill for which your top political fixer Warren Kinsella is receiving big cheques as the lobbyist for those opposed to the bill. ... Do you not see a massive conflict of interest here?"

Globe and Mail version, April 7, 2005:

The Ontario government came under attack yesterday for allowing an influential Liberal Party strategist to attend a cabinet meeting just days after he was hired to lobby against proposed environmental legislation that would impose stiff penalties on polluters.
Progressive Conservative Bob Runciman asked Premier Dalton McGuinty why Warren Kinsella was allowed to attend the meeting on March 23, nine days after he signed on to help the chemical industry fight legislation that Mr. Runciman says is now at risk of being watered down.
"Do you not see a massive conflict of interest here?" the Tory MPP asked during Question Period.
"I can assure you that Mr. Kinsella did not in any way, shape or form broach that particular topic," Mr. McGuinty replied.
Mr. Kinsella, who played a key role in Mr. McGuinty's election campaign, also said there was nothing nefarious about his presence at the meeting. He said he met with the Premier's cabinet to share his insights with them into provincial Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory. Mr. Kinsella worked on Mr. Tory's mayoral campaign in Toronto last year.
"I did not, and would not, speak to cabinet about Bill 133," Mr. Kinsella said in an e-mail response to a request for an interview. "That would be improper, clearly. That's so obvious it barely merits saying."
Instead, he explained in the e-mail, he talked to cabinet members about his views of Mr. Tory: "I told cabinet that I did not feel John Tory handled pressure very well, at all, and that -- when facing a superior opponent -- John Tory tends to let members of his team make completely baseless and stupid allegations. And that's what happened today [in Question Period]," he said in the e-mail. "I also told them John is quite thin-skinned."
Brendan Howe, Mr. Tory's spokesman, retorted that the only one who appears to have thin skin is Mr. Kinsella. "He should really know better than to go into cabinet meetings as a high-paid lobbyist and the associated smell that creates," Mr. Howe said.
Mr. Kinsella appeared on the provincial lobbyist registry on March 14 as representing the Coalition for a Sustainable Environment, which speaks for more than a dozen industry groups.
Dwight Duncan, Energy Minister and cabinet chairman, told reporters that Mr. Kinsella would not have heard any cabinet debate.

National Post, same day (the Post now employs poluter lobbyist Kinsella as its "media columnist", which, I suppose, makes sense):

Tough new environmental legislation that would impose stiff penalties on polluters responsible for spills is in danger of being watered down now that industry has hired lobbyist and Liberal insider Warren Kinsella to fight the proposed bill, the opposition charged yesterday at Queen's Park.
"You bring forward Bill 133 about six months ago, with lots of rhetoric, and then for six months it languishes on the order paper. Nothing happens," NDP Leader Howard Hampton said in the legislature. "On March 14, Warren Kinsella signs up as the lobbyist for the chemical industry that wants this bill watered down. Now, just days later, the bill doesn't come forward for debate; it goes out the side door to committee."
Mr. Kinsella, a senior advisor and strategist for Premier Dalton McGuinty during the Liberals' 2003 election campaign, appeared on the provincial lobbyist registry last month representing the Coalition for a Sustainable Environment. It represents more than a dozen industry groups including The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, The Canadian Foundry Association, The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Canadian Plastics Industry Association.

Full Text (597 words)
(Copyright National Post 2005)
Anti-pollution legislation: Former McGuinty advisor now working for industry coalition
Tough new environmental legislation that would impose stiff penalties on polluters responsible for spills is in danger of being watered down now that industry has hired lobbyist and Liberal insider Warren Kinsella to fight the proposed bill, the opposition charged yesterday at Queen's Park.
"You bring forward Bill 133 about six months ago, with lots of rhetoric, and then for six months it languishes on the order paper. Nothing happens," NDP Leader Howard Hampton said in the legislature. "On March 14, Warren Kinsella signs up as the lobbyist for the chemical industry that wants this bill watered down. Now, just days later, the bill doesn't come forward for debate; it goes out the side door to committee."
Both Conservatives and New Democrats said it is unusual for a bill to be sent to committee after first reading. Environment Minister Leona Dombrowsky, however, said the Liberals have handled at least three other pieces of legislation the same way since coming to power.
"This is a legitimate manoeuvre that provides the people of Ontario, the members of the public, with an opportunity to comment on this proposed legislation," she said.
Mr. Kinsella, a senior advisor and strategist for Premier Dalton McGuinty during the Liberals' 2003 election campaign, appeared on the provincial lobbyist registry last month representing the Coalition for a Sustainable Environment. It represents more than a dozen industry groups including The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, The Canadian Foundry Association, The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Canadian Plastics Industry Association.
Art Chamberlain, a spokesman for Ms. Dombrowsky, said nobody in the minister's office has met with Mr. Kinsella, though officials have had telephone conversations with him about the legislation.
"We have met with literally dozens of other industry and environmental groups on this bill, and certainly some of those industry people would have been members of the coalition that he is now working for," he said.
The proposed legislation would allow environment officials to assign immediate penalties against a company or individual responsible for any illegal spills or emissions into the environment. Fines would range as high as $20,000 a day for individuals or $100,000 a day for corporations, with the money dedicated to fixing any damage caused by a spill. Corporations could also still face prosecution.
In addition, the new law would introduce a reverse onus provision requiring corporate directors and officers of a company that spilled illegally to prove the company took all reasonable efforts to prevent the spill. In certain cases, jail time could also be imposed by the courts for offences committed by corporate officers and directors.
Mr. Kinsella referred interview requests to Perrin Beatty, president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and spokesman for the coalition.
"We agree with the principle of polluter pay, and with the idea of the creation of a community fund that would help to correct problems created as a result of a spill," said Mr. Beatty, a former federal Conservative Cabinet minister.
Mr. Beatty said coalition members are questioning, however, why the proposed legislation would apply only to private sector companies and not to the public sector, including municipalities. He said companies are also concerned that the potential penalties for company directors will deter high-quality people from accepting directorships.
"We need good people on boards to supervise management," he said. The coalition is worried that companies' voluntary efforts to clean up spills will go unacknowledged when cleanup bills are assessed, and also wants to ensure that only high-level bureaucrats have the authority to assess penalties on the spot.

L Ian MacDonald serves up the nitty gritty on sponsorship

2006-12-13T07:56:00.001-08:00

(Copyright National Post 2005)
L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy Options, the magazine of the Institute for Research on Public Policy.
MONTREAL - What began as a sponsorship scandal is now also an advertising scandal. What began as a Quebec scandal is now also an Ontario scandal. What began as a big Liberal scandal is now even bigger, due to the explosive testimony of Chuck Guite before the Gomery commission.
Government advertising has always been awarded to friends of the party in power. These agencies, as Guite pointed out on Wednesday, "ran the campaigns for the system" -- election campaigns, that is, for the political system.
While the ad agencies have always hidden in plain sight, Gomery has now shone a bright light on their activities.
In September, 2000, the Toronto advertising agency Vickers & Benson was sold to the New York office of Havas, a French advertising firm. The buyer wanted to know, seemingly as a condition of closing the deal, whether V&B's two big government accounts would be maintained -- Tourism Canada and Canada Savings Bonds (CSB), together representing about $50-million a year of billings.
When the deal was in the works, in the winter of 2000, they called Chuck for help. No problem, said Chuck, who had left government as head of all sponsorships and advertising only six months earlier.
He took Alfonso Gagliano, the public works minister, to dinner at Mamma Teresa's in Ottawa and explained the situation.
"I told him what was happening," Guite said. "And I wanted assurance that the volume of business that V&B had from the government would be maintained ... and he said, 'I will look after that.' "
About a week later, Guite testified, he got a call from Pierre Tremblay, Gagliano's chief of staff.
"Saying what?" asked commission counsel Bernard Roy.
"Saying that it will be done."
"What will be done?"
"The minister had spoken to both ministers and the volume of business would be maintained."
The ministers in question, according to Guite's testimony, were Industry Minister John Manley for tourism, and Finance Minister Paul Martin for the CSB campaign.
This is second-hand evidence, and Tremblay is since deceased. But there is one person who can confirm or deny whether he spoke to his ministerial colleagues -- Gagliano himself.
No worries for Chuck, who received what he called "a $100,000 commission" for his work. Though he lobbied two senior government officials, he never registered as a lobbyist. And he was lobbying them only six months after leaving the government, when post- employment rules specify no contact for an entire year.
The tourism account was the subject of phone calls from high places in Chuck's earlier life. After the Chretien government took office, it fired the previous Conservative agency and in 1994 held a competition for the tourism account, the biggest jewel in the government's crown.
Vickers won the competition and was informed by letter, as were the losers, Chuck explained, "when I got a call from the PMO to put the thing on hold."
Guite testified that he was called by Jean Pelletier, chief of staff in the Prime Minister's Office, who ordered him to "stop the process." Why? "Because of the size of the account," Guite explained, "he wanted to split it with two agencies."
The other agency being BCP of Montreal, the firm that has done the Liberal party's campaign advertising in Quebec since the Trudeau years. BCP finished second in the competition, within a 10% margin in the evaluation point system, so PMO was acting within its discretion. It was also acting on a complaint from BCP.
In the end, as Chuck explained, they split the business. V&B got the United States and Asia Pacific, while BCP got Canada and Europe. Thirty million dollars a year each.
These are just two of the many stories Guite told during five long days on the stand. It was a different Chuck Guite from the flamboyant figure who appeared before the Public Accounts Committee a year ago, or before Gomery himself in Ottawa last fall.
This Chuck Guite purports to be giving up everything he knows and everyone he was previously protecting.
He told of being summoned by Warren Kinsella, chief of staff to then public works minister Dave Dingwall in 1994.
"You are going to meet this gentleman," Guite recalled Dingwall telling him, "a chap by the name of Mr. Corriveau, and he is a very, very close friend of the prime minister. And in fact he said, if ever you find somebody in bed between Jean Chretien and his wife it will be Jacques Corriveau."
Then Dingwall said: "You will look after him."
Then they went into the boardroom, where they met Corriveau. Or as Guite recalled, "There is Mr. Corriveau, with Mr. Jean Lafleur."

Why Norman Spector is Number 1, and I'm only Number 2.

2006-12-13T07:52:00.000-08:00

Copyright National Post May 6, 2005)
In February, we offered readers a blow-by-blow account of a flame war being played out on the personal weblogs of former Jean Chretien strategist Warren Kinsella and former Brian Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector. As this excerpted transcript of the latest Kinsella- Spector exchange shows, another round of blogging hostility is well under way.
SPECTOR: TIME TO GET NERVOUS, WARREN (MAY 2) WWW.MEMBERS.SHAW.CA/ NSPECTOR4/
In today's National Post, Warren Kinsella makes the case for sponsorships, falsely claiming that there were none in his day.
The Opposition parties have been wasting a lot of time trying to tie Martin directly to the sponsorship scandal. It's clear this was Chretien's baby, and that Martin was kept well away from control.
Partisanship has obviously gotten in the way of reason, judging from the number of MPs who gave credence to Kinsella's testimony at the Parliamentary Committee. The MPs who will be hearing him, [David] Herle and [Terrie O'Leary] today should get a quick briefing on what [Chuck] Guite had to say last week before making fools of themselves again.
As [Andrew] Coyne put it, does anyone believe that Kinsella and [former public works minister David] Dingwall were sent to Public Works to clean up the system, as opposed to taking control of it on behalf of Chretien? Is anyone really surprised that the Martinis, who wanted their man at 24 Sussex, would have resisted these efforts?
I'm constrained by what I can say about Guite's testimony, but let's just say that any testimony that takes the scandal back to the period before the 1995 referendum should be making Kinsella very, very nervous.
That kind of testimony would also explain Kinsella's attempts to smear Gomery, which appear to have failed.
KINSELLA: STOP BEING A COWARD, NORMAN (MAY 3) WWW.WARRENKINSELLA.COM
Oh, my, here we go again. This is getting tedious.
Every once in a while, I pop by Norman Spector's Web site, which has the production values (and the currency) of a 14th century woodcut. I laugh. I sigh. I remember who Norm is.
Who is Norm, you ask? Norm is another angry old white guy out there on the Left Coast, vilifying his many foes, real and imaginary.
I'm one of them, I guess. Norm hates guys like Dave Dingwall, and Jean Chretien, and me, and the Conservative party, and the Liberal party -- and, well, pretty much everyone.
On Monday, for example, Norm was in a spit-flecked rage over the column I wrote on sponsorships in the Post:
- Norm says I "falsely" claimed there was no sponsorship program from November 1993 to January 1996, when I was at Public Works. I sent Norm a note, quoting the Auditor General's November 2003 report, wherein she says that the sponsorship program was created in "November 1997." By my watch, that's after "January 1996."
I asked Norm to produce a single document showing the sponsorship program existed before that. He wouldn't. He couldn't. So who isn't telling the truth, Norm? Well, that would be you.
- Norm, after likening Chuck Guite to the Anti-Christ, is now championing whatever evidence Chuck is giving under a publication ban. Sitting in his dark little apartment somewhere in Victoria, Norm proclaims MPs who believed anything I had to say were "fools."
So, again, I challenged Norm to make his allegation right out in the open. But he wouldn't. He couldn't. So who is the coward? Well, Norm, that would be you.
- Finally, Norm says I should be "very, very nervous." He doesn't tell us why. But can't you just picture him, all sweaty, breathing heavily into the grimy receiver at a pay phone outside a 7-11, demanding of his source: "Give me something on Dingwall! Give me something on Kinsella!"
Well, here's the rub: I know what Chuck Guite has been saying in Montreal. It's the sort of stuff one would expect of a man who has been broken, and who has changed his story many times, and has been utterly condemned long before trial. I knew Chuck Guite, and I feel really sorry for him. I can't imagine what he is going through.
So, after all that, Norm, who is a jerk? Well, in my opinion, that would be you.

Lobbyist/political strategits/media columnist: Who's yer Daddy, Warren?

2006-12-13T07:49:00.000-08:00

Amendments make it harder for province to fine polluters: NDP
Ottawa Citizen, May 20, 2005

TORONTO - Ontario's Liberal government has changed a key piece of environmental legislation, and critics say it will make it more difficult to punish polluters.
New Democrat Marilyn Churley yesterday said hundreds of just- released amendments to Bill 133 -- the "spills bill" -- would raise statutory pollution thresholds, making it more difficult for ministry officials to punish corporations accused of polluting.
Ms. Churley blamed Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella, one of the architects of the party's electoral success in 2003, who was hired as a lobbyist by a coalition of industrial companies.
"The industry got its way in terms of making it harder for environmental inspectors to step in and slap an administrative fine on them," Ms. Churley said.
"This is as dirty as some of the biggest polluters in the province. The polluters and Mr. Kinsella are winning."
Mr. Kinsella denied the charge.
"On behalf of my clients, I can say that we continue to have concerns about Bill 133," Mr. Kinsella wrote in an e-mail.
"So her allegation is baseless."
Bill 133 was presented as groundbreaking legislation last October, when it was announced.
The bill would allow ministry officials to levy quick fines of up to $100,000 a day on corporations that pollute, and up to $20,000 a day on corporate directors or CEOs.
In an unusual move, the bill was sent to committee for changes earlier than usual -- after Mr. Kinsella was hired to lobby against it, Ms. Churley said.
Ramani Nadarajah, counsel for the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says environmental breaches will now be harder to enforce.
But overall, she said, the legislation "does strengthen environmental laws in Ontario."

Burman on Kinsella, Jan. 20, 2006

2006-12-13T07:48:00.001-08:00

Copyright National Post 2006)
Re: Ottawa's New Media Order, Warren Kinsella, National Post, Jan. 19
If "change is coming for Canada's media," as Mr. Kinsella predicts, let us hope that columns like his latest will be part of the past. This "one-time Liberal aide" represents the sleazy side to Ottawa politics that traffics in unverified innuendo and self- serving rumour.
Mr. Kinsella's criticism of CBC Television in Ottawa runs counter to recent independent surveys that indicate that CBC's campaign coverage has been far more respected by the majority of Canadians than its competitors. Readers would have better understood Mr. Kinsella's motivation if he had disclosed that the one television network he compliments in his piece -- one of CBC's competitors -- is the one that will employ him on Election Night. Conflict of interest, or what?
But his attack on the CBC's Keith Boag is unconscionable. It is, by any standard, a smear and one that has been invented out of thin air. Mr. Boag is an award-winning journalist who over many years has established a reputation for honest and insightful journalism. In his career achievements, he towers over Mr. Kinsella.
It was shameful for him to make these charges without a shred of evidence. If "change is coming," as many Canadians seem to be indicating, let's start by getting our politics out of Mr. Kinsella's gutter.
Tony Burman, editor-in-chief, CBC News, Toronto.

The garbagemen, the croakers, the drug company and the Pope: Lean times at Daisy

2006-12-12T10:03:00.000-08:00

Liar Kinsella's lobbying clients, as of Dec. 12, 2006. How will they fare after the next provincial election? It's all sooo punk.

DocuData Software Inc.
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
Pfizer Consumer Healthcare
Waste Management
Toronto Archdiocese
3M Canada Company
Ticketmaster, L.L.C.
Ontario Funeral Service Association
Ontario Grains and Oilseeds Safety Net Committee
Labatt Brewing Company Ltd.

Here's the entry for Daisy Consulting. Notice the scanty list of clients is shared by three people working out of the same high-rent Yorkville office owned by Michael Marzolini, owner of the Pollara polling firm and a sponsor of 50-year-old Pierre Bourque's ludicrous stock car career:

Organization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Client
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registration Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Declan Doyle Daisy Consulting Group Ontario Funeral Service Association
Declan Doyle Daisy Consulting Group Ontario College of Pharmacists
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group DocuData Software Inc.
Declan Doyle Daisy Consulting Group Waste Management
Declan Doyle Daisy Consulting Group Ticketmaster, L.L.C.
Declan Doyle Daisy Consulting Group Labatt Brewing Company Ltd.
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group Pfizer Consumer Healthcare
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group Toronto Archdiocese
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group Waste Management
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group 3M Canada Company
Declan Doyle Daisy Consulting Group 3M Canada Company
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group Ontario College of Pharmacists
Cameron Summers Daisy Consulting Group Ontario Grains and Oilseeds Safety Net Committee
Declan Doyle Daisy Consulting Group Ontario Grains and Oilseeds Safety Net Committee

Burman tears Kinsella a new one

2006-12-12T09:26:00.000-08:00

The CBC's Tony Burman points out liar Kinsella's basic inability to get facts straight:

Tony Burman, National PostPublished: Tuesday, December 12, 2006
When Warren Kinsella fails to get even the basic facts right in his Dec. 7 column about the CBC - by claiming there were 3,000 CBC positions lost in 2001 when the correct number was actually 235 -- it is difficult to take his assessment of plans to strengthen Cockneys seriously.
However, we thank him for the opportunity to reiterate how we plan to serve the changing needs of Canadians.
In the years since CBC Television cut back -- for financial reasons -- our local news, the media landscape has changed radically. New technologies increasingly allow Canadians access to the news and information they want -- when, where and how they want it. In turn, they create opportunities for news organizations to better interact with their audiences, and do it in ways that are cost-effective.
Last week, CBC News announced its response to the changing environment with a plan to meet Canadians' needs through a deeply local, multi-platform news service that embraces the diversity, unique interests and perspectives of Canada's communities.
The initiative is driven by two key principles:
- First, listen to Canadians and provide them with the stories and perspectives that are important to them.
- Second, do it in a way that encourages their greater participation in the public dialogue.
What this means is that we'll be looking for more user-generated content and more interactivity with our audiences. In turn, Canadians will be able to self- select the news and information programming they want from us.
CBC can no longer think of itself as a television or radio broadcaster.
Rather, we're a content provider and our objective is to provide news and information to Canadians via their network or platform of choice.
The new service, then, will be far more than a revamped TV supper hour newscast. Though television and radio remain important platforms for us, our newscasts will also be available online, on cellphones, Black Berries and, eventually, on new emerging platforms.
We are going to roll this initiative out gradually. Starting in Vancouver next spring, we will develop and test the new service, new work practices and, most importantly, learn from our audiences. After that, we'll expand to other locations across the country.
People deserve a choice. In a city like Vancouver, where 86% of the media is dominated by two corporate entities, Canadians should be able to choose their public broadcaster if they want to, when they want to and how they want to. That's what we'll be giving them.
- Tony Burman is CBC News editor-in-chief.

Kinsella lawsuit outcome

2006-12-07T17:41:00.000-08:00

Several web sites, including Wikipedia, say Kinsella's slap suit against me was settled by an apology I made. In fact, the agreement to settle the suit fell apart when Kinsella broke the confidentiality agreement. In fact, he did so the day of the apology, then kept doing it through the spring and summer. He threatened another of his trash suits in June, then skulked off when I threatened to counter-sue him for breach, among other things. All of these suits and threats of suits nhave timed out, so there is no litigation. Just to set the record straight.

Opening theme

2006-07-06T05:39:00.000-07:00

Barney Rubble in My Double
By Warren Kinsella
Performed by The Evaporators, 2005:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mVV_M0NoC4

We Are Not Afraid

2006-07-03T12:41:00.000-07:00

BIG hat tip to canadianobserver.wordpress.com.

Here's Warren

2006-07-03T12:39:00.000-07:00

Seems to be what people want... and he's just such a great target, going all nutso on his blog about Wikipedia. And I know some of this stuff isn't on the Net, so here it is for the ages, to be read, linked to, mined, and otherwise enjoyed.
If there are any retractions or corrections to the articles posted, please let me know immediately at mbourrie@yahoo.com.
I want only uncontested published articles on this site.
Pretty soo, I'll index this thing.

Kinsella career path

2006-07-03T12:34:00.000-07:00

In September, 2002, the National Post speculated on Kinsella's career future:

Warren Kinsella leaving McMillan Binch for Navigator Ltd
By Sandra Rubin, National Post

Sandra Rubin is the Senior Business Writer and a columnist for the National Post. The views expressed in her articles are strictly personal and in no way reflect the opinion of ZSA Legal Recruitment.

Warren Kinsella is leaving McMillan Binch on Sept. 17, less than two years after making partner. He is heading for Navigator Ltd., Toronto-based corporate lobbyists, oops, strategists.

Mr. Kinsella, who helped run the “war room” for Jean Chretien in the 1993 and 2000 election campaigns, is now close to Allan Rock, the Industry Minister and the man some believe may be the next prime minister. In fact, he is said to be helping orchestrate Mr. Rock’s leadership campaign.

It’s no secret politics can be a rough-and-tumble business. Mr. Kinsella found himself in a nasty public dust-up with Paul Martin supporters in February after calling a proposed change to party membership rules an exercise in “racial profiling.”

We hear he approached Graham Scott, the firm’s managing partner, and inquired whether the negative publicity was causing problems. We are told Mr. Scott spoke to partners and a few had concerns. Mr. Kinsella says he offered to “separate” himself from the firm but Mr. Scott (a former aide to Robert Stanfield), “refused to even discuss the matter and indicated that the firm would always support me.”

Well, here we are six months later and Mr. Kinsella is striking out for a new venture. Doesn’t life take some unexpected twists?

In any event, it’s a great catch for Navigator, which specializes in strategic planning and corporate positioning, given his ties with Mr. Rock. We understand that they have been after him for three years.

McMillan Binch is also very pleased, according to someone who knows, because “we like Warren. And he is going to a client and friend of the firm – we’ve worked with Navigator. So we’ll see a lot of him.”

Not one word was uttered about Mr. Kinsella’s profile now that the curtain is coming down on Mr. Chrétien’s reign. No one so much as hinted that should Mr. Martin assume the crown, his political currency may require a central bank intervention.

McBinch, for all its fondness for Mr. Kinsella, is no doubt quite cognizant of rule 36.2 sub-section xiii of the Code, dealing with person of political influence: “Never ignite, light, kindle, or otherwise cause to burn any bridge, span, link or viaduct to any possible future prime minister.”

Of course, section 36 would be inapplicable should the current conjecture prove correct and Mr. Rock bow out of the leadership race and return to private practice. The theory among some types is that the quid pro quo would be the Supreme Court of Canada. How crass.

Needed

2006-07-02T15:46:00.000-07:00

Please, folks, send me all the published material where Kinsella has slagged gays or used homosexuality as an insult.
As per usual, send them to mbourrie@yahoo.com

Also: Anyone have the PDFs of the legal documents in the Kinsella-Earncliffe et al and Navigator-Kinsella lawsuits?

Lawsuit update

2006-07-02T05:51:00.000-07:00

Lawsuit update

Notice, please, that I took the "offending passage" out of the Wong feast on Kinsella at www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com the minute I received his lawyer's letter. I've since added the Globe's "clarification".
Kinsella continues to post his libels about me, despite receiving a libel notice.
He may want to dig out his old law school texts and look at the lines about punitive damages in libel suits.

Everything's coming along fine. I just read a dreadful book on political campaigning. The author thanks Chuck Guite for his help in researching it. Maybe he can send Chuck a few Shit From Hell CDs to play in the slammer. I'm sure the other cons will want their own, too.
Thanks to those who e-mailed. Turns out that if you want to find back issues of blogs that don't have archives, the best way to get them is to google the name of the blog and the month/year. I've got them all on paper now and they're in a binder.
Experience does help in this situation. I had time to think of how I would have done it differently in February: where to get the money, how to handle issues like a counter-claim, and I feel much more grounded and confident. I also have good support from an Internet law public interest group.
And this time, I do realize that it's worth shelling out the price of a car to deal with this, as any settlement will simply be twisted and misrepresented, and what might seem at the time as an agreement between two reasonable people will be spun into a humiliating climb-down.
But I guess a brilliant political tactician like my opponent would have foreseen that and realized this time there can, for the sake of my own reputation, career and self-esteem, be no climb-down.

CTV Gomery story

2006-07-02T05:07:00.000-07:00

Guite hand-picked by Liberals, memo shows
Updated Thu. Sep. 16 2004 6:40 AM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Controversial bureaucrat Chuck Guite was hand-picked by the Liberal government to overhaul federal advertising policy after the 1995 Quebec referendum, evidence at a public inquiry shows.

A memo tabled Wednesday made it clear Guite was recommended for the job by the office of Dave Dingwall, then federal public works minister. Warren Kinsella, who served as Dingwall's chief of staff, wrote on Nov. 23, 1995 -- less than a month after the referendum -- that "recent experience" had shown the need to centralize federal ad strategy.

The same centralized approach should apply to public opinion polling and other communications programs, he said.

Public Works was the logical department to review past practices and put new procedures in place, Kinsella wrote.

"In my view Mr. J. C. Guite ... should be assigned to carry out this review on a full-time basis," he told Ran Quail, the deputy minister at Public Works.

"It is requested that he (Guite) be assigned to a position that will allow him to carry out these tasks."

Guite eventually went on to run the federal sponsorship program, which spent $250 million between 1997 and 2002 to raise the federal profile in Quebec and fight separatism.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser has estimated that about $100 million went in fees and commissions to ad agencies and other middlemen with Liberal party connections.

Guite, who has since retired form the public service, currently faces fraud charges along with Montreal ad executive Jean Brault. Both are awaiting trial.

Justice John Gomery is heading the inquiry into the wider program to find out what went wrong.

Much of the evidence presented to Gomery this week has dealt with the political lines of authority for advertising and other elements of national unity policy.

Kinsella, in his memo to Quail, indicated that Dingwall wasn't acting on his own in revamping federal strategy. There had been consultation with the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office, he said.

Quail replied a day later, saying it was the prerogative of then-prime minister Jean Chretien to modify the "machinery of government" if he wanted to.

Quail asked for assurance, however, that Chretien's office and the Privy Council had indeed delegated authority for that task to Dingwall.

There was no indication whether that official assurance was ever given.

Other documents tabled Wednesday showed Chretien had come to office with the hope of opening up advertising and other government contracts to competitive bidding.

In a memo to cabinet ministers on May 9, 1994 -- less than six months after the Liberals replaced the previous Conservative regime of Brian Mulroney -- Chretien wrote of the need to "ensure integrity in the contracting process and to contain overall expenditures."

He said there would be a $65-million ceiling that year on federal spending for advertising, polling and research, a cap that was later abandoned.

Chretien also insisted that "contracting procedures for polling, advertising and communications must follow a competitive process similar to the procurement of other services purchased by the government."

The bidding should be open to "all qualified suppliers based on clear criteria," he said.

Cabinet members should not intervene unless two bids came in at essentially the same level - in which case ministers could use their discretion to choose a winner.

The rules were supposedly aimed at reducing political interference in the contracting process, something the Liberals had denounced Mulroney's Conservatives for doing.

It appeared, however, that the new rules were forgotten when the Chretien government launched the sponsorship program following Ottawa's narrow victory over separatist forces in the 1995 referendum.

"Despite the fact that he (Chretien) said there should be a competitive process based on clear criteria ... none of that subsequently happened in the sponsorship and advertising area," declared Neil Finkelstein, co-counsel for the Gomery inquiry.

Jim Judd, the senior bureaucrat at Treasury Board, the federal financial watchdog, needed only one word to agree with that assessment.

"Correct," he said.

One for the ages

2006-06-29T13:34:00.000-07:00

On his masturbatory site, Warren Kinsella says he won a lawsuit over a column that suggested he traded on his son's near-drowning to sell books:

Kinsella's blog today

June 28, 2006 - I've been called a whore, a douchebag and an AIDS carrier - all in one week, and on one web site, too. Whatever.

But when someone publishes that I would use the near-death of our son to sell books, that's going too far.

I've successfully sued over that calumny before, and I am about to do so once again.

That's all I can say right now, for obvious reasons

This is what he got from the Globe when he bawled about a Jan Wong column:

News
CLARIFICATION
41 words
27 February 2002
The Globe and Mail
Metro
A2
English
"All material Copyright (c) Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved."
In a recent column about Warren Kinsella, a reader might have drawn the conclusion that Mr. Kinsella used a near-tragedy concerning his child in order to sell books. The Globe and Mail accepts that this was not so.

Lord, how could I have missed that? It is, indeed, a textbook case, and I'm a diploma-wielding Master of Journalism and damn near a Doctor of Philosophy in Canadian media history, so certainly I must have seen all the academic papers and case law on this.
Have you ever seen such a non-retraction correction? The word "retraction" isn't in there. Neither is "apology". They didn't even use the standard "Globe and Mail regrets the error" tagline.
I didn't know papers ran corrections that said so little and showed such a miniscule amount of remorse.
But, to Warren, this is victory in a "lawsuit".
Do you think he got any dough?
I'll ask Jan tomorrow.

Slap Suit II: The Kinsella Zombie is rinsen!

2006-06-29T12:17:00.000-07:00

How many "(sic)s" can you find in this crap?
I'd fail a first-year History student who handed in a paper with this many errors in proper names:

Dear Mr. Bourrie:

We enclose and serve upon you pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act, a Notice of Libel. we (sic) strongly urge you to contact legal counsel, and remedy your misconduct forthwith.

Our Statement of Claim will be provided to you shortly. We are instructed to advise you that all time limits as set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure will be strictly applied.

Brian Shiller
Shillers LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
445 King Street West
Suite 202
Toronto, ON
M5V 1K4

Tel: (416) 363-1112
Fax: (416) 363-5557

IN THE MATTER OF the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, e. L.12
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN INTENDED ACTION
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
WARREN KINSELLA
Plaintiff
- and -
MARK BOURRIE also known as Arthur Fister (sic), also known as Arthur ellis (sic), also known as Isotelus, also known as Ceraurus, OTTAWAWATCH.BLOGSPOT.COM, KINSELLASUX.BLOGSPOT.COM Defendants

NOTICE OF LIBEL

TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, Warren Kinsella complains of a posting on the web site Ottawawatch.blogspot.com on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 and on kinsellasux.com (sic) on or about June 28, 2006 that was published by the proposed defendants (`the Posting").
Mr. Kinsella objects to and complains of the Posting and states that it is an intentional and malicious re-production of completely false and libellous words of and concerning Mr. Kinsella personally and in the way of his occupation by Jan Wong on December 8, 2001 and that the proposed defendants are liable to Mr. Kinsella for the said republication.

The Posting reads in its entirety:

Wong's Lunch on Kinsella

Here's the famous Lunch with Jan column on Kinsella. Delightful stuff

Warren Kinsella is "someone that politicians across Canada know, admire, love or loathe . . . and fear." At least, they do according to the press release promoting his new book, Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics .
But mention his name to a non-politician, and the reaction is: Isn't that Evelyn Lau's boyfriend? No, that would be W. P. Kinsella, an aging writer, who several years back had a very litigious breakup with Lau, a youthful writer.
Ask if he's even related to W.P., this Kinsella nearly chokes on his Diet Coke. "Not a [f-word deleted] chance," he says. "He's this Reform Party reptile."
Not that this Kinsella has anything against sharp-toothed animals. For his part, he'd like to be known as "the Liberal Party's resident pit-bull politico." (See same press release, which, by the way, also describes him as the "master of the Liberal war room" and "the architect for the Grit victory.")
He also wouldn't mind being called "Canada's own Prince of Darkness." (See book jacket.)
But perhaps Kinsella, 41, is merely a legend in his own mind. At this lunch at Toronto's Patriot Restaurant, a kick-ass question is put to Kinsella: Are you actually a nobody masquerading as a somebody?
He grimaces, especially when reminded what a reporter at Canada's Other National Newspaper wrote. "Mr. Kinsella was not the 'architect for the Grit victory.' He was not 'the master' of the war room. In private moments, he has even been known to admit as much,' " the reporter, Paul Wells, wrote in the National Post last June.
"I really thought Paul was an [a-word deleted] for doing that," Kinsella says. "I wanted to murder him at first. I mean, to push a theory using information I provided."
But isn't Kinsella supposed to be the master of the spin? So much for kicking ass. At lunch, he orders a lamb burger, fries and a second Diet Coke. He's wearing a charcoal J. P. Crew blazer, crisp white shirt and faded jeans, the dress code for lawyers at McMillan Binch in Toronto. At 6 foot 1, his grey hair is receding, though he goes to rock concerts whenever possible.
Kinsella got into politics as a speechwriter for Jean Chretien, a man who famously can't read a speech. "Part of this guy's appeal is that he's unscripted," Kinsella says diplomatically. In his book, he calls the Prime Minister "a truly remarkable guy."
Currently, Kinsella is a paid lobbyist in Ottawa for Random House, the publisher of his book. In his past, he was an executive assistant to David Dingwall, then federal rninister of public works and government services. He was also a legal adviser to Frank magazine, which he now detests because he's been caught in its satirical cross hairs.
But Kinsella's main claim to fame is that he played "key roles" (see book jacket) in two Chretien election campaigns. The emphasis is on the word "claim." He wasn't the main organizer, someone else ran the "war room," nor was he in charge of opposition research.
But he was usually available to appear on television. His big moment came when he mocked Stockwell Day's beliefs about creationism by flashing a purple plush dinosaur on live TV. Even so, the Barney stunt was someone else's idea.
"I say that in the book," Kinsella says a tad defensively.
Alas, his magic touch didn't work when he ran as a Liberal for Parliament in North Vancouver in 1997.
So much for kicking ass.
"I got clobbered," Kinsella says, modestly adding, "I was also probably too controversial for some people." He's referring to the accusation, by the Reform incumbent, that the Liberals parachuted Kinsella into the riding. He had lived there less than a year when he ran for office.
In his book, Kinsella styles himself after James Carville, the squinty-eyed Democratic operative whose own wife says he looks like an axe murderer. (Okay, she works for the Republicans.) For his part, Kinsella happily points out that his wife, Suzanne, who attended a private girls school in Montreal, once worked for Brian Mulroney and that her father was Mulroney's law partner.
But Kinsella is no Carville. The press kit for Kicking Ass offers an "insider's" list of "dirty tricks." At lunch, we go through the checklist one by one.
Did he monitor an opponent's cellphone conversations? "No." Did he steal documents? "No."
Did he disrupt opponents' events by calling in cancellations to hotels? "No." Did he dumpster-dive for scandalous garbage? "No."
"Random House did that list," he concludes lamely. "You get caught. It's not worth it."
So much for kicking ass.
His lamb burger arrives, oozing grilled peppers, onions and sauce. Kinsella grabs it with both hands and tries to take a bite. He can't quite get his jaw around it. "My mouth isn't big enough," he says. Too late, he realizes he's just uttered a quote for the ages. He stops talking about the food, pushes off the bun and proceeds to eat the burger with a knife and fork.
The son of a doctor at Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital, Kinsella attended the Jesuit-run Loyola High School. At 15, his family moved to Calgary, where he played in a rock band. Later, he took a four-year journalism degree at Carleton University, working summers at the Calgary Herald and the Ottawa Citizen. He studied law at the University of Calgary.
At McMillan Binch colleagues had hoped that he would bring in lots of government-related work. But Kinsella hasn't exactly been a rainmaker: He bills about 1,800 hours a year, average, not fabulous, but not so low he's in danger. Kinsella does appear on television frequently, a feat he touts on his Web site. Within nine hours of the birth of his fourth child, he was flogging his new book on a morning show. The paid announcement in The Globe and Mail began, "As previously announced on Canada AM . . . Warren and Suzanne . . . are delighted to welcome another miracle . . ."
Asked how the birth went, Kinsella takes another bite of burger. "Great this time. You see, we're infertile." Emma, of mixed Inuit and native Indian descent, was adopted in Whitehorse. Ben was the product of in-vitro fertilization. "Sam was an expensive dinner in the Eastern Townships," Kinsella says, adding that Jake, the new baby, was a surprise.
In an e-mail announcing Jake's birth, Kinsella added this promotional twist: "To ensure that Jake et al receive a solid post-secondary education, mother Suzanne . . . insisted that father Warren go ahead with a scheduled book promotion spot Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics available now at bookstore near you) . . . Kinsella, who hopes to run again for public office some day, draws no sharp line between public and private life. In a column for the Ottawa Citizen, he wrote about the near-drowning of his toddler son, Sam, on Sunday, Sept. 9.
His book launch was that same week. He considered cancelling it. After all, he'd spent two days in the hospital with Sam. But then he had second thoughts. He could bring am to the launch. Everybody could give his little boy a squeeze -- and buy the book.
Then came Tuesday, Sept 11. Only then did he cancel the launch. "It was like this seismic shift," Kinsella says. "There isn't a media guide book on how to proceed." So much for kicking ass, jwong@a globeandmail.ca

posted at 7:46 AM 2 comments

To further aggravate matters, Mr. Bourrie created a new website entitled Warrenkinsellasux.blogspot.com (sic) on or about June 27, 2007 but falsely explained to his readers that the site was being operated and the content written by an individual named Arthur Fister (sic). Mr. Bourrie is, in fact, Mr. Fister. Mr. Bourrie posted on the Ottawawatch site the following entry on June 27, 2006:
Tuesday, June 27, 2006

The last thing you'll read about Warnout at Ottawa Watch
Yup. It's all gone.
Today, a dear friend, Mr. Lloyd Fister, asked if he could take up the torch.
I've set him up with a template for an all-Kinsella "For the Record" site of Warren's Greatest Hits.
It's at www.kinsellasux.blogspot.com.
I'm rid of him.
It's like the last day of school. I feel so much cleaner now

On the web site kinsellasux.com (sic), Mr. Bourrie once again posted the article by Ms. Wong.
The intentional republication of the words complained of were meant and understood to mean that Mr. Kinsella exploited his son's near drowning to promote the sale of a book that was published in the fall of 2001.

Mr. Kinsella previously objected to the bolded portion of the Posting in a Notice of Libel that was served upon Ms. Wong and the Globe and Mail on or about December 19, 2001 and was subsequently the subject of court action numbered 02-CV-225365CM.
The Globe and Mail and Jan Wong settled the claim by Mr. Kinsella and printed a correction stating that Mr. Kinsella sis (sic) not exploit the near drowning of his child to sell books.
At the time of publishing the Post, Mr. Bourrie was keenly aware of the action commenced by Mr. Kinsella against Ms. Wong and the Globe and Mail. He also knew of the fact that Mr. Kinsella complained of the article and that the Globe and Mail and Ms. Wong had clarified the inaccuracy and hurtful content.
Despite this, Mr. Bourrie, (sic) maliciously republished Ms. Wong's article and even described it as "delightful stuff'. Mr. Bourrie did so as part of his campaign to seek to harm Mr. Kinsella.
Mr. Kinsella demands an apology and immediate removal of the Posting.
Mr. Kinsella claims general, punitive and aggravated damages from the defendants, or either of them.
Mr. Kinsella hereby gives notice of his intention to seek pre judgment (sic) interest from the date of this Notice to the date of Judgment.
Dated at Toronto, this 28th day of June 2006.

SHILLERS LLP Barristers & Solicitors
Suite 202, 445 King Street West
Toronto ON M5V 1K4
Brian G. Shiller (34470G)
Tel: (416) 363-1112 Fax: (416) 363-5557
Solicitors for the plaintiff
TO: MARK BOURRIE
OTTAWAWATCH.BLOGSPOT.COM
KINSELLASUX.BLOGSPOT.COM
11-190 Booth Street Ottawa, ON
K1R 7J4 (613) 230-0166

Slap suit II: My libel notice to Kinsella

2006-06-29T12:16:00.000-07:00

I should have done this a long time ago:

To:
Brian G. Shiller
SHILLERS LLP Barristers & Solicitors
Suite 202, 445 King Street West
Toronto ON M5V 1K4

Solicitors for the Defendant Warren Kinsella

IN THE MATTER OF the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, e. L.12
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN INTENDED ACTION
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

MARK BOURRIE
Plaintiff

- and -

WARREN KINSELLA and WWW.WARRENKINSELLA.COM
Defendants

NOTICE OF LIBEL
TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, Mark Bourrie complains of a posting on the web site www.Warrenkinsella.com on Tuesday, June 27.

Mr. Bourrie objects to and complains of the posting of intentional and malicious, completely false and libellous words concerning Mr. Bourrie by Mr. Kinsella on www.warrenkinsella.com and the defendants are liable to Mr. Bourrie for the said publication.

The Posting reads in its entirety:

Jay Currie and Mark Bourrie - One proclaims he is a "bigot," the other was successfully sued for claiming Warren was involved in the sponsorship mess. Spend their days rewriting Warren's Wikipedia entry, or posting nasty things about him in chat rooms - usually anonymously. With enemies like this, who needs friends?

Mr. Bourrie contends Mr. Kinsella has never successfully sued him for anything, and that Mr. Kinsella’s claim to have done so has damaged Mr. Bourrie’s reputation as a journalist and academic.
Mr. Bourrie also contends breach of contract for publishing the details of the settlement in Kinsella v. Bourrie (2006).
Mr. Bourrie also contends Mr. Kinsella has made similar postings in breach of the confidentiality promise.

Mr. Bourrie also alleges deliberate and malicious intent in the publication of the following statement on www.warrenkinsella.com/musings:

June 23, 2006 - Oh, and I'm doing some research for a piece I plan to do on the unreliability of Wikipedia - and how it has become a forum for all sorts of garbage.

Any facts you have about Wikipedia's lack of facts are welcome. If you need a case study, look no further than Ottawa net nutbar Mark Bourrie, who I successfully sued for libel a few months back (Bourrie retracted, apologized and made a payment in settlement) - and who uses Wikipedia (and chat rooms) to settle scores, make anonymous smears, and so on. His unusual Wikipedia preoccupation with Rachel Marsden, for example, could be the subject of a important psychological study.

I don't want to pick on poor old Mark too much - he seems to have quite a few demons as it is. But I am certainly interested in others like him, who have used Wikipedia in a way in which it was never intended. (Or maybe that was the intent - I don't know.)

You can get me at the usual place, at wkinsella@hotmail.com. Many thanks and have a weekend that is filled with sunshine and karmic flotation devices.

Mr. Bourrie contends he has not posted anything inaccurate about Mr. Kinsella on Wikipedia. Mr. Bourrie also contends that Mr. Kinsella knew that Mr. Bourrie had not posted anything inaccurate on Wikipedia about him or any other person.
Mr. Bourrie contends that Mr. Kinsella posted these libels knowing that his site is well-read among media and political executives, and that his allegations would do damage to Mr. Bourrie’s reputation.
Mr. Kinsella knows Mr. Bourrie is a freelance writer whose livelihood is seriously damaged by Mr. Kinsella's actions.
Mr. Kinsella knows Mr. Bourrie will soon complete his PHD and be searching for work as a professor, and Mr. Kinsella's posting of this material on the Internet can damage his prospects of employment.

Mr. Bourrie demands apologies for these libelous statements and immediate removal of the Postings.
Mr. Bourrie claims general, punitive and aggravated damages from the defendants, or either of them.
Mr. Bourrie hereby gives notice of his intention to seek pre-judgment interest from the date of this Notice to the date of Judgment.
Dated at Ottawa, this 28th day of June 2006.

Mark Bourrie BA, MJ, PHD (cand)
11-190 Booth St.
Ottawa, ON
K1R 7J4
613-230-0166

Hard copy to follow by registered mail.

February's statement of claim

2006-06-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

Kinsella v. Ottawawatch.com and Mark Bourrie

CLAIM

1. The plaintiff claims as against the defendants jointly and severally:
(a) General damages for libel in the amount of $250,000.00;
(b) Aggravated damages for libel in the amount of $250, 000;
punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00;
(d) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.43;
(e) payment of applicable Goods and Services Tax on any sums awarded in favour of the plaintiff including costs in accordance of the Excise Act, R.S.C. 1985, s. E15 (as amended);
(f) costs and disbursements of this action on a substantial indemnity basis; and
(g) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.
2. The plaintiff is an individual who resides in the City of Toronto and at all times material to this action was a barrister and solicitor in good standing with the Law Society of Upper Canada. Mr. Kinsella acted as Executive Assistant to Public Works Minister David Dingwall until the end of February, 1996.
3. The defendant Mark Bourrie is an individual who resides in the City of Ottawa and at all times material to this action was the owner and operator of a weblog, or blog, located at the domain http://www.ottawawatch.blogspot.com
("Ottawa Watch"). Mr. Bourrie is the alter-ego of Ottawa Watch.
4. Mr. Bourrie's entry on Ottawa Watch at 4:15 a.m. on January 14, 2006 read, in part:
And they remember Kinsella was executive assistant to Pulis [sic] Works minister (sic] David "I'm entitled to my entitlements" Dingwall. Kinsella was the guy who foisted Chuck Guite on the bureaucracy. He was a key actor in the sponsorship kickback scandal. And that scandal is about half the reason Paul Martin is on the skids. (Hereinafter the "Libelous Words")
5. The plain and natural meaning of the Libelous Words is that Mr. Kinsella acted unethically and/or illegally while Executive Assistant to Mr. Dingwall and in his dealings with Mr. Guite.
6. Alternatively, the Libelous Words, by innuendo, imply that Mr, Kinsella acted unethically and/or illegally while Executive Assistant to Mr. Dingwall and in his dealings with Mr. Guite.
7. The Libelous Words are false and defamatory and refer directly to Mr. Kinsella.
S. A notice of intended action was served upon the defendants on or about January 25, 2006 pursuant to the Libel and Slander Act.
9, The defendants have persisted in the publication of the aforesaid libels and malicious falsehoods despite having been served with the aforesaid notice.
10. The plaintiff will be relying upon the complete web log entry that appeared on the Site on January 14, 2006.
11. The plaintiff pleads that the Libelous Words are defamatory of the plaintiff and have brought him into hatred, ridicule and contempt, and he has suffered damage.
12. To further aggravate matters, the defendant Mark Bourrie has gone on a vicious campaign against the plaintiff both on the Site and elsewhere attempting to deflect from his tortuous conduct and amass supporters for his defence to this claim. In particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Mr. Bourrie posted the notice of intended action on the Site on January 25, 2006 thus further aggravating the damage caused to the plaintiff by repeating the Libelous Words. Mr. Bourrie then states in his entry: [t]here will he no apology, there will be no retraction. 1 just wish I had typed the post more carefully."
13. Mr. Bourrie has also taken to vindictive tactics. In particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Mr. Bourrie went to the web site Wikpedia.com which is an on-line encyclopedia that allows viewers to modify entries. The purpose of Wikpedia is to do nothing more than provide readers with relevant background information on various subjects. Mr. Bourrie modified the plaintiff's biography to, inter alia, include the following in relation to the plaintiff's politics.
"Kinsella had his lawyer write a letter threatening libel action against Mark Bourrie, an award-winning Ottawa Journalist, author and doctoral student, in January 2006, when the journalist published on his blog that Kinsella, when he was a political staffer, was instrumental in the Chretien government's hiring of Chuck Game, a key figure in a later political kickback scandal, to run the government's ad system. (the "Wikpedia Entry")
14. The defendants published or caused to be published the Libelous Words knowing them to be false, and with no honest belief they were true. In so doing, the defendants were actuated by the dominant motive of damaging the plaintiff.
15. The plaintiff pleads that the defendants were actuated by malice in publishing the Libelous Words. The Wikpedia Entry is but one example of the malicious intent of the defendants.
16. The plaintiff pleads that the conduct of the defendants was outrageous and reprehensible. Their conduct therefore warrants an award of punitive damages.
17. The plaintiff proposes that the trial of this action take place at the City of Toronto.

DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2006

SHILLERS LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Suite 202, 445 King Street West
Toronto ON M5V 1K4
Brian Shiller (34470G)
Tel: (416) 363-1112 Fax: (416) 363-5557
Solicitors for the plaintiff

Mr. Consistency

2006-06-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

Kinsella on Mike Harris:

November 13th, 2002- There's one thing you could always say about former Ontario Premier Mike Harris: love him or not, you at least knew where he stood. He was a conservative, and proud of it. His hallmark, and that of his brain trust - the smart youngsters who fashioned the Common Sense Revolution - became this: "Did what we said we were going to do." In electoral terms, it worked like gangbusters.

February 14, 2006 – And, when you turn on your TV news tonight - after first celebrating the pair of silvers Canada won - watch for the stories about Mr. Harris. Take a good, hard look at him, and remember what it was like with his party in power - the social dislocation, the brutality, the complete disregard for anybody but their well-heeled friends. Remember Dudley George, too.

Pierre Dourque

2006-06-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

Here's the skinny on Internet news clipper Pierre Bourque, Kinsella's bumboy:

The Wrong Man

I thought Pierre Bourque would turn out to be Canada's Matt Drudge. Boy, did I make a mistake

by Joshua Heller
Ryerson Review of Journalism, Summer 1991

~~Bourque Exclusive~~ Trudeau back in hospital. Breaking: Former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is back in hospital. This afternoon a source reported that the ailing 80 year old statesman had been admitted to Montreal's General Hospital yesterday.

Before running this item in mid-September on his website, Bourque Newswatch, Pierre Bourque says that he received a tip via e-mail from a Trudeau family friend and confirmed it via e-mail with a top Liberal insider. Patient Services then confirmed Trudeau's status to Bourque over the phone. A short time later, after Ottawa Citizen national editor Anne Trueman read the report on her daily trip to Bourque Newswatch, she called reporter Zev Singer and asked him to look into it.

At the time, Singer happened to be sitting in his car in the parking lot of Montreal General Hospital where wounded Journal de Montréal reporter Michel Auger was being treated. He spoke to a PR person at the hospital, who told him there was no patient registered under the name "Pierre Trudeau," but couldn't rule out the possibility Trudeau was registered under an alias. After spending about 20 minutes fruitlessly surveying the hallways, he concluded that Trudeau wasn't there, although he admits, "It's not impossible that he was tucked away in some corner."

Another source, a well-placed political operative, reported that a number of street-level news hounds are worried that their corporate masters may be preventing them from fully investigating, indeed even repeating, what was reported exclusively by Bourque Newswatch last week.

According to our source, "it is likely that the Prime Minister's Office has exercised every means, including direct approaches to the owners of Canada's national media properties, to ensure that Mr. Trudeau is afforded every privacy."

While no press outlets reported Trudeau's being back in hospital, those who followed up the story denied they were prevented from investigating. CTV senior vice-president of news Kirk LaPointe, who was then editor of The Hamilton Spectator, doubts the mainstream press buckled under pressure from the PMO, though he concedes that "it's plausible." If Bourque is right and a website reported a story that the mainstream press knew to be true but refused to print, it wouldn't be the first time. Two years earlier, Matt Drudge became a household name after breaking the Clinton-Lewinsky story that would have been a Newsweek exclusive had its top brass not withheld the story. Although Trudeau's second hospitalization pales in comparison to Drudge's story, which ultimately resulted in the impeachment of a president, the principle is the same.

Drudge has been an idol of mine ever since I ended up on his e-mail mailing list in 1997. Having been interested in politics for most of my life, and in the Internet since I first logged on in '94, I was intrigued by the idea of a career that combined both. The notion that one man, in a seedy Los Angeles apartment, could expose what became the biggest story of the decade, despite the efforts of a major newsmagazine like Newsweek to conceal it from the public, was mesmerizing. Drudge's track record wasn't perfect, and sudden prominence brought high-profile criticism (Drudge prides himself on being the only reporter ever to be sued by the White House). But Drudge persevered and continued breaking stories about the Lewinsky saga, being first to reveal the existence of the now-infamous dress and Lewinsky's intimacy with Clinton's cigars. More recently, he was first to report that Clinton was negotiating with NBC to host a TV show following his presidency. Drudge landed a TV show of his own on Fox News, though he eventually walked off the set to protest what he regarded as editorial interference, never to return. Following his TV debut, Drudge began hosting a radio show. After being booted off ABC Radio by top network executives, Drudge continues to host a nationally syndicated radio show, now on the Premiere network. But despite dabbling in other mediums, Drudge remains renowned for the stories he breaks on the Internet.

In the fall of 2000, I set out to find a similar citizen-journalist in Canada who would dare to print what others sought to withhold. I began logging on to Bourque Newswatch, hoping to find Canada's Matt Drudge. Instead I found Pierre Bourque, a man who has adopted the Drudge persona but lacks his credibility and investigative zeal.

Pierre Bourque launched Bourque Newswatch in 1998, shortly after Drudge broke the Lewinsky story. The layout of the site, bearing the slogan "Tomorrow's News Now," is similar to that of the Drudge Report. Both provide headlines linking surfers to current stories reported on other websites, permanent links to news organizations, columnists and other Web-based resources, and original reporting. While Bourque says he was "very inspired" by Drudge, he shies away from calling himself "Canada's Matt Drudge." However, a quote he posted on his site by literary agent Lucianne Goldberg refers to him as such. Bourque's site eventually acquired a feature that the Drudge Report lacks: a chatroom.

Bourque has never had a story on the scale of Lewinsky to put him in the category of Drudge, whose site was named one of the "10 Web Sites that will change the world" by global leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in January 2000. But the Drudge Report has been online since 1994, and initially, Bourque seemed to be well positioned to equal Drudge's accomplishments.

At first, Bourque's background appeared to offer more opportunities than Drudge's. Growing up in a middle-class Washington suburb and abandoned by his father when he was young, Drudge finished high school and was a nobody who launched his career while working in the gift shop of the CBS building in Los Angeles. (His first scoops consisted mostly of being first to publish box office returns and overnight Nielsen ratings obtained by rummaging through trash bins at CBS and salvaging memos before they hit the shredder.) Bourque, on the other hand, grew up in a more privileged environment in Ottawa. His politically connected father, a wealthy real estate developer, was close with top aides to Brian Mulroney, including Patrick MacAdam, and was a major fund-raiser for Jean Chretien in the '97 election. (Not that Bourque's family is without tarnish: in January 2000, his father pleaded guilty to tax evasion.) As a young man, Bourque gained political experience as an Ottawa alderman and candidate for MP, and journalistic experience writing a column for the parliamentary weekly newspaper The Hill Times, as well as publishing four books.

But to my surprise, further research revealed a less-promising side of Bourque. A year before graduation, Bourque dropped out of business administration at the University of Ottawa and took a job as an overnight weekend DJ at a local radio station. While studying real estate at Algonquin College, longtime family friend Pat MacAdam recalls Bourque's father sending him to a car-racing school. Bourque's latest co-written book, Car Buying Online for Dummies, mentions that he's competed in Canada, the U.S. and Europe "at a high professional level." However, when I asked him about it, he couldn't name a single race he's won. After working in the family real estate business for a while, The Globe and Mail reported, Bourque acquired an electronics repair company in partnership with his father and became its president. Two years later, the company was bankrupt and the Ontario Labour Relations Board found it in violation of Ontario labour law for its negotiating tactics with the union. The board's majority decision also held Bourque personally liable, finding him to be "an evasive and untruthful witness, whose testimony was highly influenced by self-interest."

In 1991, Bourque was appointed an interim alderman to fill a vacancy on Ottawa city council. The reporters I spoke with who covered local politics for the Ottawa Citizen at the time couldn't recall a single legislative accomplishment of his, although to be fair, Bourque only served for eight months. MacAdam recalls Bourque's father assisting in Bourque's subsequent election bid. Nonetheless, Bourque lost his seat and didn't fare any better as a candidate for the federal Liberals in the '93 election.

It was during this campaign, communicating via e-mail with party headquarters, that Bourque first became interested in the Internet. Six months later, after losing another run for Ottawa city council, Bourque combined his new interest in the Internet with his love of politics by writing a column about the Net for The Hill Times, a weekly that serves as the newspaper of Parliament Hill. Hill Times editor Jim Creskey remembers meeting a "buttoned-down kind of guy. He looked like a politician." As Creskey explains, Bourque's column is basically a listing of websites with Bourque's opinions about them. Later, his name appeared on two books about the Freenet, but according to co-author Rosaleen Dickson, he didn't actually write them, he only participated in the research phase. The only book Bourque ever wrote on his own, Government Online in Canada, features a two-page preface by Bourque, some guest columns, and 303 pages listing URLs, with occasional descriptions of sites.

Contrast that with Matt Drudge, whose recent book, Drudge Manifesto, deals with the impact the Web is having on the mass media through his experiences as an Internet-based "citizen-reporter." This illustrates a significant difference between these two men: Drudge is eager to express and exercise his vision of how the Internet can empower individuals to take on the powers that be, while including some links to relevant websites. Bourque is primarily a lister of links, who sprinkles a few reports of his own on the side.

Bourque told me that Bourque Newswatch gets over 100,000 hits per day, although he refuses to release exact numbers. Considering that Canada has about a tenth the population of the U.S., this would make him competitive with Drudge, whose site receives over 1,000,000 hits per day. When I contacted Media Metrix, a company measuring Web traffic whose press releases Bourque links to, its figures revealed that out of the 6,500 randomly sampled Canadians' home Internet use it tracked during September, none had logged into Bourque Newswatch.

Perhaps Media Metrix's sample was too broad to gauge its readership among journalists. After all, at the beginning of my research, National Post columnist Paul Wells told me, "If you throw a brick in Ottawa, you hit a Bourque reader." Indeed, finding political PR people who log in wasn't difficult. However, among daily reporters, I discovered that while almost all of them had heard of it, finding ones who use it often proved more elusive than Wells suggested. Some journalists who didn't log in regularly thought they were the exception. "Now you're going to use me as the example of the idiot who doesn't read him," said Ottawa-based Canadian Press reporter Nahlah Ayed. She wasn't the only one, though. CBC-TV parliamentary bureau chief Chris Waddell has heard of it, but never logs in. National Post Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife rarely does, and then, it's only for the links. The same goes for former Sun Media parliamentary bureau chief Sean Durkan and Globe and Mail Ottawa bureau chief Shawn McCarthy. When I asked Globe and Mail reporter Paul Adams about it, he told me: "I don't hear it coming up frequently in conversations I have with other journalists and with political people."

A few journalists did tell me they logged in regularly; however, it was usually for the links to other sites. Michel Vastel says he finds Bourque's links to headlines useful, particularly early in the morning before reaching his office, where the newspapers arrive.

Richard Madan checked in at least once a day while an assignment editor at local Ottawa station The New RO, but he doesn't consider Bourque a reporter. "I consider him a news provider," says Madan. "Meaning he spends a good four, five hours scanning the papers and scanning the wires, which is something that's vital to me." A former political aide, Madan believes that most Bourque readers are low-level staffers and aides to backbench MPs.

CTV commentator Mike Duffy, to whom Bourque would later suggest I speak, also told me he uses the site primarily for the links. "It's not critical to me. If it disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't be a big deal." Bourque himself told me that he doesn't mind if people ignore his content and only use the links. "Ninety-nine percent of what I do is make sure that I have appropriate news links," says Bourque. "As long as they come, I don't care why they come."

Not that Bourque isn't sensitive about his site. "I think it's a great lead provider to a lot of legacy media journalists," Bourque would later tell me. "Journalists have a public stance and then a private one." Indeed, some journalists need to be off the record to fully explain why they don't visit the site, as the following exchange with a veteran Ottawa reporter who agreed to be quoted on condition of anonymity demonstrates:

"Is this on the record?"

"I'd prefer it that way."

"Then, I can't really tell you that—I'm indifferent."

"Okay, off the record" (He later agreed to my use of the conversation.)

"He's wrong at least half the time and it's busy enough in here without having to chase down erroneous rumours."

Throughout these interviews, I remembered journalists attacking Drudge's credibility on television talk shows. Yet in the end, Drudge was right: there was a dress containing physical evidence. I wondered if, perhaps, journalists are trashing Bourque because they're jealous he's breaking stories they haven't. After all, CTV's Kirk LaPointe, with whom Bourque would later suggest I speak, says that while he logs in mostly for the links, Bourque's accuracy is "no worse than the typical Ottawa pundit."

As I fact-checked Bourque, I discovered that he has broken a number of stories and gotten them right. Mainstream news outlets like the Vancouver Province credited him with being the first to report that Jean Charest was moving to the Quebec Liberals. More recently, he was first to reveal that Brian Pallister would make the move from the federal Conservative Party to the Canadian Alliance, and that House Speaker Gilbert Parent would retire, both two days before the fact. Bourque also beat the rest of the pack by a few hours in reporting that Tom Long was a dual citizen and calling the date Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow announced his retirement. His biggest scoop, however, was his September report that Prime Minister Jean Chretien was going to call an election in the fall.

Notwithstanding these triumphs, it's easy to see why some are less than bullish on Bourque when one considers how many stories he's gotten wrong. A day before reporting that Chretien planned to call a fall election, Bourque boasted about being first with the news that there would be no fall election. Bourque's July reports on who would get which post in Stockwell Day's shadow cabinet managed not only to get all but two of the positions wrong, it also misreported the date Day was supposed to announce it. Bourque's August 14 report that CA leadership hopeful Keith Martin would end up sitting as a Tory or an independent when Day won the by-election proved false, as did his September 27 item that "lovestruck" Ontario Premier Mike Harris would announce his retirement by the end of the year. Tory MP Elsie Wayne did not resign the following Monday and accept a Senate appointment, as Bourque suggested on October 13. And contrary to Bourque's October 16 report, Liberal MP Mac Harb was not appointed to the Senate later that week, nor did Penny Collenette, "wife of Chretien stooge David," replace him in the House.

"It's almost like a stock rumours board," says Globe and Mail reporter Mark MacKinnon, comparing news tips on Bourque Newswatch with stock tips on the Internet. "Sure, if you went and sat on Yahoo Stock Chat, you'd eventually hit gold, but if there are 10 rumours and you bet $10 on each of them, your odds aren't that strong." MacKinnon chuckles while skimming through Bourque's archive of notes, "If he was a mutual fund manager, I wouldn't recommend him to my friends. It's just better to do your own research."

If Bourque were a funds manager, he would specialize in small caps and penny stocks. Most of Bourque's reporting deals with such mundane matters as party youth squabbles, the musings of backbench MPs, nomination battles in remote ridings and appointments to obscure committees. I've been called a political junkie by many, but even I don't care about University of Toronto student and PC Youth member Patrick Brown "eyeing" a run for Barrie city council, as Bourque reported on August 24. It's as though Bourque is more concerned with quantity than quality. Drudge, on the other hand, often goes for a week or two without filing any reports, but when he does, the reports are often accurate and always interesting. Also, Bourque's frequent spelling errors—including cabinet ministers' names—and his often ungrammatical sentence structure demonstrate carelessness. Would anyone blame readers if they wondered whether Bourque is equally careless when it comes to his reporting?

October 26: Harris to Endorse Day?

"Absolutely no supporting information and it turned out to be completely false," says Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen reporter and editor of the paper's "What the Gargoyle Heard" gossip column. "In fact, that very day Harris was giving a speech kinda making it clear that he was staying out of the federal election."

Actually, there was some supporting information, though it wasn't posted on Bourque's site. I know. I was the source. I needed to know for sure what kind of standard Bourque applies to his sources and their stories before posting them, so I set up Hotmail account under the pen name "Brother Blue" and e-mailed Bourque a fictitious "tip." It claimed that at the previous day's PC party convention, at which I was an "observer," I'd heard that Mike Harris was facing increasing pressure from his cabinet to endorse Stockwell Day. I didn't identify myself and Bourque never asked. After posting my tip on his site, he replied to the Hotmail account saying: "Thanks for this!" When most journalists attribute information to an anonymous source, generally they at least know who the source is. If Bourque had done even a cursory follow-up on the tip I sent him, he would have immediately realized it was baseless.

The following day, when I looked for the item in Bourque's archives, the story wasn't there. It's a good thing I had kept the e-mails Bourque sends out periodically, because when I later looked for Bourque's erroneous item predicting that Chretien was not going to call a fall election, it too had disappeared.

When I began work on this story last fall, Bourque agreed to cooperate. After I briefly interviewed him over the phone and began my research in earnest, however, most of my e-mail requests to schedule interviews went unanswered. When he did reply, he wrote, "What's in it for me?" or "I've been trying to figure out how this interview request is in my best interests." To me, his indecisiveness and concerns about his "interests" suggested a sense of angst. His steadfast refusal to send me a copy of his archive of reporting going back beyond what was on his site also suggested to me that he lacked pride in his work. Finally, he agreed to an interview, but an hour was all he could spare over a period of weeks. When the big day came, Bourque didn't answer the phone. He e-mailed me later that day with another phone number and told me to call him the next day. Again there was no answer at the time we'd agreed, but I kept calling and eventually got in touch. Though Bourque never apologized for his abuse of my time, he did threaten to cut the conversation short when I asked him to provide details about his car-racing career. He wouldn't refer me to anyone who knows him personally, and his brother, whose car dealership for a time was Bourque's only sponsor on his site, refused to return my calls. Other than Rosaleen Dickson, who worked with Bourque on two books about the Freenet, I couldn't find anyone who knows him well and often spends time with him socially. "He's a bit of a Howard Hughes," said Kirk LaPointe.

As long as he doesn't have to provide too many details, Bourque likes talking about himself: "I'm not a journalist by profession, I'm just a news junkie," he told me. "And their [news junkies'] tips are as important to me as a tip I get from an operative in the parliamentary press gallery, and I get a lot of those."

When confronted with the critiques of his site by members of the press gallery, Bourque provided substantive answers to only two of them. To the question of his archiving policy, Bourque made it clear that 99 percent of what he posts on his site can be found in his archives. He defended his report claiming there would be no fall election by insisting that he was asking a question: Would there be a fall election?However, I'd kept his original e-mail, marked "urgent." Though it ends with a disclaimer reminding readers that "with Jean you never know 100%," no question mark appears in the entire e-mail.

Bourque couldn't think of any stories he's posted that in retrospect he wishes he had waited on, or not posted at all. He responded to the rest of the criticisms by dismissing the reporters making them, rather than on the substance of the critiques. "I think Globe and Mail reporters hold themselves in a high opinion and it behooves them not to lend any weight to others who are outside their immediate sphere of camaraderie," Bourque told me. "What's happening here is going to transcend them and they're ill-prepared to adapt to it." A little later, he added, "I mean, if you're a Mark McKinnon or Paul Adams, you've gotta be defecating in your pants if you're on the Internet."

Putting others down is one of Bourque's least-charming characteristics. After the National Post published an unflattering story about Bourque's father's financial dealings, Bourque struck back, posting personal financial information about the real estate holdings of a number of journalists in the Southam chain. When he actually gets a story right, he isn't above using his site to jibe reporters who write it up the next day. Perhaps putting down others is Bourque's way of elevating himself. But when it comes to put-downs, the savagely satirical Frank, located right in Bourque's hometown and a must-read around Parliament Hill, is king. Frank has taken to pointing out Bourque's factual foul-ups for fun. When I asked him about it, Bourque denied having heard of Frank, which is like a member of the Hollywood paparazzi claiming he's never heard of The National Enquirer.

Perhaps a more constructive approach might be for Bourque to formulate a detailed plan of how to run the site and follow through in a consistent manner. When I spoke with him, he told me that he decides whether to post a tip on his site by "gut instinct." As he says, "It just follows from how I particularly feel. Y'know, do you like the colour blue, over red? It just depends."

When I asked Bourque what goals he hopes to accomplish with his site, he told me, "The mission of my site is to provide as complete a list—. I don't really have a statement, except that my statement is 'Tomorrow's News Now.' That's my slogan, 'Tomorrow's News Now.' So it's the site you go to to read about news first." Is it any wonder that in three years, Bourque has not come near to enjoying Drudge's success?

Bourque's dismal batting average would likely not have surprised famed Yankee outfielder Joe DiMaggio. "A ball player's got to be kept hungry to become a big leaguer," observed DiMaggio in the spring of '61. "That's why no boy from a rich family ever made the big leagues." Maybe Bourque just isn't as hungry as Drudge. It's not inconceivable that Bourque will one day stumble upon a major scoop. However, according to Stockwell Day's former communications director, Phil von Finkenstein, Bourque doesn't even have to because, von Finkenstein believes, Bourque already is "the Matt Drudge of Canada." Yet not only could von Finkenstein not think of a story Bourque has broken that comes close to the Lewinsky scandal, he couldn't name a single story Bourque has broken at all.

Dave Mitchell, program director of Ottawa talk radio station CFRA, who hired Bourque to replace Dr. Laura during last fall's election campaign, points to Bourque's reporting on the ailing Trudeau. While a number of journalists acknowledge Bourque being first with the story that Trudeau had cancer (it was already known that he had pneumonia, Parkinson's and a few other ailments), no one was able to confirm that he was in hospital, as Bourque reported. As for Bourque's allegation of a conspiracy to pressure media outlets into withholding the story from the public and preventing journalists from investigating, most think it far-fetched and bizarre, since those who pursued the story say they did so without interference.

But some will defend Bourque to the bitter end. "Maybe he [Trudeau] had been there and then gone home," speculates Mitchell. Maybe. Or maybe it was just the contents of an anonymous e-mail prank.

Back to the top

Masthead

Editor: Julie Alnwick
Managing Editors, Production: David Dias, Valérie Michaud
Features Editor: Jay Somerset
Senior Editor: Monica Alcalde
Copy Editors: Justin Anderson, Melanie Chambers, Danielle Dobi, Jennifer McPhee
Online Editors: Joshua Heller, Jessica Wong
Visuals Editors: David S. Lee, Bob Sexton
Associate Editor: James Cain
Managing Editor, Advertising: David Fielding
Managing Editor, Circulation: Liam Eagle

Home | Issues | Online Articles | Editorial Blog | Letters to the Editor | About the RRJ | Subscribe | Contact us | RSS Feed

I'm sorry... so sorry...

2006-06-28T08:17:00.000-07:00

Document types: Correction Section: News
From the Ottawa Citizen, October 22, 2001

In my column last Monday, I made several observations about Mark Steyn of the National Post. Unfortunately, in reprinting Mr. Steyn's remarks about wheelchair-bound employees trapped in the World Trade Center, I did not correctly reproduce a quotation from his original piece, giving an incorrect impression about his views. The Citizen and I very much regret this.
The full quotation should have read: : "Yesterday's atrocities were a rude awakening from the indulgences of the last decade, with some awful stories to remind us of our illusions -- disabled employees in wheelchairs, whom the Americans with Disabilities Act and the various lobby groups insist can do anything able-bodied people can, found themselves trapped on the 80th floor, unable to get downstairs, unable even to do as others did and hurl themselves from the windows rather than be burned alive."
I also wrote that Mr. Steyn "pronounces on the inadequacies of Canadians, and Canada, from his perch in New Hampshire." The Citizen and I happily accept Mark's assurance that his pronouncements on the inadequacies of Canada, and me in particular, are made from his home in Quebec. The Citizen and I regret and d apologize for any distress caused to Mr. Steyn.
***** (From the Ottawa Citizen, November 22, 2001) The Ottawa Citizen and Southam News wish to apologize for our apology to Mark Steyn, published Oct. 22. In correcting the incorrect statements about Mr. Steyn published Oct. 15, we incorrectly published the incorrect correction. We accept and regret that our original regrets were unacceptable and we apologize to Mr. Steyn for any distress caused by our previous apology.

--------------------------------

Author(s):Joan Bryden Document types:Opinion Dateline: OTTAWA
Publication title: National Post

OTTAWA - In a bid to cool down the raging public brawl over Liberal party membership rules, Warren Kinsella, a strategist for Industry Minister Allan Rock's leadership campaign, apologized for hurling insults at two MPs.
The apology came shortly after Rock was repeatedly raked over the coals during a stormy Liberal caucus meeting for Kinsella's assertion that recent rule changes are aimed at keeping ethnic groups out of the party.
Insiders said Rock refused to back down from his own assertions that the new membership restrictions adopted in Ontario will turn the party into an elite club in which only supporters of Finance Minister Paul Martin will be able to get unlimited access to membership forms.
But Rock did distance himself from Kinsella, whose charges have gone considerably further and have been much more personal.
According to MPs, Rock said he's not responsible for what others say about the controversy. He added that he was "appalled" by Kinsella's attack on John McKay, chairman of the Ontario caucus.
On his Web site, Kinsella had posted a picture of McKay and posed the question: "Is this man a real Liberal? Not a chance." He took issue with McKay for saying he finds it bizarre that "non-citizens" get to choose the party's next leader, saying those kinds of comments "reflect intolerance."
By Wednesday afternoon, the Web site references to McKay were deleted and later in the day Kinsella sent the MP a letter of apology.
"While I remain very concerned that the new rules may in some way exclude ethnic communities, I voiced that concern in a way that diminished both me and the seriousness of the issue of intolerance," he wrote.
"For that, I want to apologize without qualification."
Kinsella sent a separate letter of apology to Ontario MP Dan McTeague, to whom he'd previously sent a letter calling him a liar and accusing him of ignoring "intolerant statements" by colleagues such as McKay.
"Mutual friends have suggested to me that you genuinely interpreted my personal and confidential note . . . as threatening and insulting. I obviously did not express myself well so let me be clear.
"I apologize unreservedly if you felt threatened or offended by what I wrote."
In both letters Kinsella says the membership debate needs to be "conducted with a lot more civility" and vows to do his part to raise the level of debate.

Kinsella craps on National Post

2006-06-27T19:24:00.000-07:00

Here's Mr. Consistency himself talking about the his present employer, the National Post, to a Canadian Association of Journalists meeting, likely in 2002. Please feel free to clip and send to David and Lenny Asper to let them know (a) what a poor analyst of the media he is and (b) what a two-faced asshole he is:
(here's a link: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/words_speeches_caj.htm)

The subject I want to talk about, today, is the political impact of the National Post. The way I figure it, most of you are also talking about the Post, this weekend, so why should I deny myself some fun?

At the outset, let me declare a conflict: way back in the last millennium, when the Post got started, I wrote the occasional pro-Liberal column for them. I was under no illusions as to why I had been permitted access to the neo-con sanctum sanctorum: they needed a Liberal as an excuse. One pro-Liberal column, thus justifying 15,000 anti-Liberal columns. In the news business, that's called balance.

Anyway. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm not invited to too many parties by folks at the Post, these days. I can't say I blame them.

They seem to be mad at me. On just one day, recently, the Post published that I was "Canada's Al Sharpton," an "asshole," and - my personal favourite - a "jerk off." This, from the same group of folks who used to call me, when I wrote for them, a "scholar." Go figure.

My neutrality thus established, I will make three observations, all of which are the product of the feverish imagination of a partisan Liberal big mouth. Feel free to heave things at me at the end.

Observation one: the Post is toast. The 127th re-launch of Saturday Night is a hopeful sign. But, generally, I think the odds are excellent that the Post will go the way of the way of the Montreal Star, the Ottawa Journal and the Telly in the next year. What do Liberals think about this? We don't think about it at all, actually.

When the Post was launched by Conrad Black's ego, about three years ago, it probably made some Liberals nervous. It was so obviously designed to propagandize on behalf of the Reform Party, then the United Alternative, then the Canadian Alliance, that I actually referred to it as "the pamphlet." As in, an election pamphlet. Someone should have declared it as an election expense, in fact. In retrospect, it is amazing that we would even listen to lectures about the deficit from people who were pissing away $100 million a year.

What will Liberals think when the National Post slips this mortal coil? Again, not much. In election year 1997, when the Post didn't exist, we won a lot fewer seats than in election year 2000, when it did. You can plausibly make an argument, I believe, that the Post actually helped us.

Here's my theory on that, in two parts. Part one: most voters hate politicians, but they're apparently not too wild about the journalistic class, either. So the Post's attempts to demonize Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party couldn't ever be effective, no matter how much Conrad Black tried. There was no way Andrew MacIntosh could overcome, in 36 days, the tons of goodwill that Jean Chretien had built up over 36 years. No way.

Part two: voters aren't stupid. They know when someone is trying to bamboozle and beguile them. They knew Conrad Black hated Jean Chretien over some knighthood thing, and they weren't about to let his grudges become their own. The fact that Mr. Black had become a bit of a caricature of a rich guy didn't help his newspaper's case much, either.

In politics, unlike in life, it's usually a good idea to have an identified enemy: it helps to identify you. So we nasty Liberals made Conrad Black and the Post our adversary. It worked.

When and if the Post buys the farm, I guess we'll have to find a new enemy. In the meantime, I'm lobbying for a Royal Commission to investigate whether Stephen Harper has a personality.

Observation two: the National Post's Shawinigate obsession didn't hurt Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party. It helped Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party.

I won't bore you with all the details, because you've already been bored by them. Hotel, golf course, BDC, RCMP, CBC, BBC, ABC, blah blah blah.

Shawinigate was called Shawinigate because opposition parties, or hostile media, always glue the suffix "gate" to the tail end of some scandal, real or imagined. Irangate, Filegate, Travelgate, Nannygate, Zippergate in the U.S., Bingo-gate Hydro-gate in B.C., and so on and so on.

Therein lay the mistake. Never, as my hero James Carville once told me, criminalize your political differences. Politicize them. Politicize, don't criminalize.

The Post threw more ink at Shawinigate than any other public policy issue has recently commanded. No adjective was spared. No insult was left unused. If Jesus Christ Almighty had returned to Earth at the height of Shawinigate, the National Post would have placed the resulting story below the fold. Unless the Messiah had something to say about the Affair Grand-Mere, of course, in which case he would have been the line story.

Was the Shawinigate stuff over the top? Is the Pope Catholic? Does a Bear shit in the woods? Does a one-legged duck swim in circles? Is a frog's ass watertight? Does a one-legged Pope with a watertight ass shit in circles in the woods?

Well, yes, in a word. Don't just take my word for it. Some days, I think the Aspers actually bought Southam simply so they could do Canada a service, and put that Shawinigate non-story out of its misery. That may even be why they hired me to write a column for a few months in the Ottawa Citizen, in fact - until I was summarily fired after I refused to apologize to Mark Steyn, having pointed out that Steyn calls Chinese people "chinks."

Chinks isn't a racist term, an editor of the Citizen told me. The only time "chink" isn't racist is when you are talking about imperfections in suits of armour, said I.

I digress. What happened, at the end of the Shawinigate Swindle? Well, let's see. Jean Chretien's popularity went up - and 81 per cent of Canadians wanted the subject dropped. The popularity of Stockwell Day and Joe Clark went down - and in Day's case, it actually never recovered. The Liberals got re-elected with a bigger majority than it had in 1997.

Moral of the story: the scandal-fabrication machine at the Post must be kept alive, at all costs. The government could fall without it.

Observation three, and the final one: I loved the National Post in its heydey. Loved it. Sure, it was fanatically anti-Liberal, and anti-Medicare, and anti-poor people, and anti-feminist, and anti-immigrant, and anti-affirmative action, and anti-tolerance, and anti all of those things bleeding hearts like me care about.

But I'm an avid consumer of political news. And getting surprised by a newspaper is a rare event, these days. Back when Conrad owned it, the Post was often mean, and miserly, and misogynistic, and maddening. But it was never dull. It always contained a curve ball, tucked away in one of those well-designed pages. It was cheeky. It was snotty. It was well written - even if Mark Steyn was allowed to call Chinese people "chinks," and Japanese people "japs."

The big question, at the end of the day, is whether the National Post did what it most wanted to do - which is in some way alter or affect Canada's political scene.

Political hacks like me believe the Post had, and still has, some outstanding writers and editors. Political hacks like me loved the fact that the Post gave over so many column inches to politics - even if, for Liberals, the coverage was usually slanted. Political hacks, like me, will probably miss the Post if it goes.

But it did not do what it set out to do - which was render Canada a more politically conservative place. It did not persuade voters that only conservatives belonged in government, before they set about dismantling it. It failed at those things, utterly.

The conservative guy who created it, who was its soul, has fled to Europe and is named after a train station or something. Many of its top conservative writers and editors have been let go, or have quit. And - this is the most significant thing of all - conservative parties like the Canadian Alliance and Tories remain far less popular than they once were.

Conservatism, as a political choice, ain't dead. But its most enthusiastic champion, the National Post, probably is. It just doesn't know it yet.

I will now step away from the podium so that you have a clear shot. Fire away.

Wells on Wornout

2006-06-27T19:23:00.000-07:00

Here's what Paul Wells said about him in February, 2002, in the National Post.

Paul Wells
OTTAWA

OTTAWA - In a torrent of news releases, press conferences and newspaper and magazine columns, the slumbering Canadian nation is being enjoined this week to ponder the magnificence of Warren Kinsella. As trivial pursuits go, Warren-worship at least has the virtue of being entertaining.

Mr. Kinsella is a lawyer just past his 40th birthday with a nice view of Toronto from his office in a shiny Bay Street tower. He used to write speeches for Jean Chretien when Mr. Chretien was doing a bad job as Opposition leader, although not as bad as the job can be done. He has stayed in touch with Mr. Chretien since the boss found better work. He was present in the rapid-response "war rooms" during the Liberals' 1993 and 2000 campaigns. In 1997 he was absent, busy losing as a Liberal candidate in British Columbia.

At a Toronto news conference yesterday, Mr. Kinsella was "revealed" as the "mystery" author of a fab new book, Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics. The book isn't actually available yet. It will be in the autumn and Mr. Kinsella's publisher figures it's never too soon to start beating the drums. His publisher has collected a number of media quotes about Mr. Kinsella's place in the politico- punditocratic firmament.

"He has been called 'The master of the Liberal war room' (Montreal Gazette), 'the architect for the Grit victory' (The Hill Times), 'the Liberal party's resident pit-bull politico' (Canoe) and 'a political hit-man' (The Toronto Sun)," the promotional material informs us.

Once we scribes convince ourselves of a figure's importance, we can be hard to dissuade. Here's Peter C. Newman informing us in this week's Maclean's that "Perhaps [Allan] Rock's most astute move [in the Liberal pre-leadership race] has been to sign up Warren Kinsella," a fellow Mr. Newman adjudges "impressively networked."

With the advent of a weekly Kinsella column in The Ottawa Citizen and the attention of the bored press gallery turning to internal Liberal politics, the Cult of Warren threatens to become even more overwhelming than it has already been. So perhaps it is not too early to do a little truth-squad work.

Fun facts: Mr. Kinsella was not "the architect for the Grit victory." He was not "the master" of the war room. In private moments, he has even been known to admit as much. (Full disclosure: We had lunch in a swishy Hogtown bistro last week, our second lunch date in three years.)

The election was won by a smallish army of Grits whose distinguishing feature is an aversion to self-promotion. The main campaign organizer was John Rae, a Montreal lawyer so self-effacing most Ottawa scribes couldn't pick him out of a police lineup. Mr. Rae would chair morning campaign meetings with a stern warning that nothing said around the table could leave the room. The first thing he did when the staff moved into campaign headquarters was to hang signs on every floor: "When losing, say little; when winning, say less."

The "war room" -- the communications and quick-rebuttal side of the campaign operation -- was run by John Milloy, who is on TV even more often than Mr. Kinsella: As a senior advisor to Mr. Chretien, he can generally be seen trailing behind as the Prime Minister strides into the Commons. Mr. Milloy is hard to miss. He's the tall, nervous-looking guy whose mouth is shut.

Under Mr. Milloy's organization, the campaign message was honed by Francie Ducros, Mr. Chretien's much-maligned communications director. She was helped by Ken Polk, a speechwriter who came up with most of the funny lines that get attributed to Mr. Kinsella; and by the campaign's undisputed MVP, a bespectacled Albertan named Kevin Bosch.

Mr. Bosch was responsible for opposition research against the Alliance. He showed up at Liberal HQ toting a pile of briefing books taller than himself, each crammed with quotations from every important Alliance official stretching back more than a decade. He is said to have the sort of eerie memory that allows him to remember everything Stockwell Day ever said, when he said it, and in which context.

He was a devastating weapon. "I don't know that I can say enough good things about Kevin," another war-room denizen told me yesterday.

Mr. Kinsella? He was designated a "floater," which means he had no specific job at all. He was there because of Jean Chretien's personal affection for him. He chipped in, as everyone did, at idea- generating bull sessions. He went on TV because the other Liberals, terrified of Mr. Rae's gag order, wouldn't.

And what do you remember about his TV appearances? Precisely: the Barney the Dinosaur toy he hauled out of a gym bag to mock Mr. Day's beliefs about creationism. Except the Barney analogy wasn't his. It came from Sophie Galarneau, yet another near-anonymous Grit. Mr. Kinsella only acted it out.

The Cult of Warren is only partly Mr. Kinsella's fault. It also demonstrates a perennial flaw in journalists' psychology. How many times have you seen "senior sources" or "high-ranking sources" quoted in a news story? Thousands. Now how many times have you seen a reporter hang a quote off an unnamed "mid-ranking source of uncertain influence," or a "hack addicted to his Rolodex?" Less often. Reporters are addicted to grade inflation: Anyone reckless enough to talk to us becomes the most important guy in sight, because the fact he talks to us makes us feel important.

Which is how a floater becomes king and a nation becomes even a little more ill-informed than it already was. As for Mr. Rock, he should be at least as grateful to have nailed Raj Chahal and Randy Pettipas as he was to get Mr. Kinsella. Never heard of them? Precisely.

Kinsella slap suit: the facts

2006-06-27T19:21:00.000-07:00

In February, Kinsella filed a statement of claim against me. I responded with an offer to settle. I offered to retract a small part of a very long post about what a political has-been Kinsella's become. Kinsella demanded $600,000. That's a lot of money. Litigation would have taken a long time.
I decided I'd do as much PR damage to him as possible, then give him an out. And that's what I did. Here's where he took it:

Dear Mark:

Thank you very much for your note, which my lawyer forwarded to me, and your suggestions therein.

I agree that it is worthwhile to bring this matter to a close now, as opposed to later. To that end, I agree with your suggestions that:

1. You publish on your web site, in a prominent space and as long as you maintain your web site, the apology in the libel notice;

2. You stop publishing material about me, and vice-versa, on our web sites or in any other place, under any identity; and

3. We jointly undertake to make no further mention of the settlement, apart from the publication of the apology, on each of our web sites.

With respect to the monies you have collected, which you have indicated are substantial, I can tell you that I have paid my lawyer $XXX (a rather small amount of money MB) so far. Like you, I have a mortgage and a family. I would therefore ask that that amount be sent directly to my lawyer Brian Shiller, in trust, to compensate for what I am out of pocket to date. Any amount he bills me beyond that amount will be my own responsibility. Once that is done, we will discontinue the action.

Please consider this response to your offer to settle and I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you again for taking this step.

Sincerely,

Warren Kinsella, LL.B
The Public Policy Group
British Colonial Building
Suite 300, 8 Wellington Street East
Toronto, CANADA
M5E 1C5

(416) 642-0730 (direct)
(416) 642-0731 (assistant)
(416) 642-6435 (fax)

So I was reasonable and saved both of us a lot of time, money and energy. Now he claims he "won" a "lawsuit" against me and got a cash payment.
What he really got was an apology and part of his costs in a very out-of-court settlement. And an awful lot of bad publicity. Just google Kinsella and look at Wikipedia.
And now you know the truth.

Jan Wong dines on Kinsella

2006-06-27T19:17:00.000-07:00

Here's the famous Lunch with Jan column on Kinsella.
Delightful stuff

Warren Kinsella is "someone that politicians across Canada know, admire, love or loathe . . . and fear." At least, they do according to the press release promoting his new book, Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics .
But mention his name to a non-politician, and the reaction is: Isn't that Evelyn Lau's boyfriend? No, that would be W. P. Kinsella, an aging writer, who several years back had a very litigious breakup with Lau, a youthful writer.
Ask if he's even related to W.P., this Kinsella nearly chokes on his Diet Coke. "Not a [f-word deleted] chance," he says. "He's this Reform Party reptile."
Not that this Kinsella has anything against sharp-toothed animals. For his part, he'd like to be known as "the Liberal Party's resident pit-bull politico." (See same press release, which, by the way, also describes him as the "master of the Liberal war room" and "the architect for the Grit victory.")
He also wouldn't mind being called "Canada's own Prince of Darkness." (See book jacket.)
But perhaps Kinsella, 41, is merely a legend in his own mind. At this lunch at Toronto's Patriot Restaurant, a kick-ass question is put to Kinsella: Are you actually a nobody masquerading as a somebody?
He grimaces, especially when reminded what a reporter at Canada's Other National Newspaper wrote. "Mr. Kinsella was not the 'architect for the Grit victory.' He was not 'the master' of the war room. In private moments, he has even been known to admit as much,' " the reporter, Paul Wells, wrote in the National Post last June.
"I really thought Paul was an [a-word deleted] for doing that," Kinsella says. "I wanted to murder him at first. I mean, to push a theory using information I provided."
But isn't Kinsella supposed to be the master of the spin? So much for kicking ass.
At lunch, he orders a lamb burger, fries and a second Diet Coke. He's wearing a charcoal J. P. Crew blazer, crisp white shirt and faded jeans, the dress code for lawyers at McMillan Binch in Toronto. At 6 foot 1, his grey hair is receding, though he goes to rock concerts whenever possible.
Kinsella got into politics as a speechwriter for Jean Chrétien, a man who famously can't read a speech. "Part of this guy's appeal is that he's unscripted," Kinsella says diplomatically. In his book, he calls the Prime Minister "a truly remarkable guy."
Currently, Kinsella is a paid lobbyist in Ottawa for Random House, the publisher of his book. In his past, he was an executive assistant to David Dingwall, then federal minister of public works and government services. He was also a legal adviser to Frank magazine, which he now detests because he's been caught in its satirical cross hairs.
But Kinsella's main claim to fame is that he played "key roles" (see book jacket) in two Chrétien election campaigns. The emphasis is on the word "claim." He wasn't the main organizer, someone else ran the "war room," nor was he in charge of opposition research.
But he was usually available to appear on television. His big moment came when he mocked Stockwell Day's beliefs about creationism by flashing a purple plush dinosaur on live TV. Even so, the Barney stunt was someone else's idea.
"I say that in the book," Kinsella says a tad defensively.
Alas, his magic touch didn't work when he ran as a Liberal for Parliament in North Vancouver in 1997.
So much for kicking ass.
"I got clobbered," Kinsella says, modestly adding, "I was also probably too controversial for some people." He's referring to the accusation, by the Reform incumbent, that the Liberals parachuted Kinsella into the riding. He had lived there less than a year when he ran for office.
In his book, Kinsella styles himself after James Carville, the squinty-eyed Democratic operative whose own wife says he looks like an axe murderer. (Okay, she works for the Republicans.) For his part, Kinsella happily points out that his wife, Suzanne, who attended a private girls school in Montreal, once worked for Brian Mulroney and that her father was Mulroney's law partner.
But Kinsella is no Carville. The press kit for Kicking Ass offers an "insider's" list of "dirty tricks." At lunch, we go through the checklist one by one.
Did he monitor an opponent's cellphone conversations? "No."
Did he steal documents? "No."
Did he disrupt opponents' events by calling in cancellations to hotels? "No."
Did he dumpster-dive for scandalous garbage? "No."
"Random House did that list," he concludes lamely. "You get caught. It's not worth it."
So much for kicking ass.
His lamb burger arrives, oozing grilled peppers, onions and sauce. Kinsella grabs it with both hands and tries to take a bite. He can't quite get his jaw around it.
"My mouth isn't big enough," he says. Too late, he realizes he's just uttered a quote for the ages. He stops talking about the food, pushes off the bun and proceeds to eat the burger with a knife and fork.
The son of a doctor at Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital, Kinsella attended the Jesuit-run Loyola High School. At 15, his family moved to Calgary, where he played in a rock band. Later, he took a four-year journalism degree at Carleton University, working summers at the Calgary Herald and the Ottawa Citizen. He studied law at the University of Calgary.
At McMillan Binch colleagues had hoped that he would bring in lots of government-related work. But Kinsella hasn't exactly been a rainmaker: He bills about 1,800 hours a year, average, not fabulous, but not so low he's in danger.
Kinsella does appear on television frequently, a feat he touts on his Web site. Within nine hours of the birth of his fourth child, he was flogging his new book on a morning show. The paid announcement in The Globe and Mail began, "As previously announced on Canada AM . . . Warren and Suzanne . . . are delighted to welcome another miracle . . ."
Asked how the birth went, Kinsella takes another bite of burger. "Great this time. You see, we're infertile." Emma, of mixed Inuit and native Indian descent, was adopted in Whitehorse. Ben was the product of in-vitro fertilization. "Sam was an expensive dinner in the Eastern Townships," Kinsella says, adding that Jake, the new baby, was a surprise.
In an e-mail announcing Jake's birth, Kinsella added this promotional twist: "To ensure that Jake et al receive a solid post-secondary education, mother Suzanne . . . insisted that father Warren go ahead with a scheduled book promotion spot ( Kicking Ass in Canadian Politics available now at bookstore near you) . . .
Kinsella, who hopes to run again for public office some day, draws no sharp line between public and private life.
Note: The last three paragraphs contained statements that were contested by Kinsella and which the Globe and Mail dealt with. This is the Globe and Mail's statement:
In a recent column about Warren Kinsella, a reader might have drawn the conclusion that Mr. Kinsella used a near-tragedy concerning his child in order to sell books. The Globe and Mail accepts that this was not so.

Why Allan Rock is not PM today

2006-06-27T19:15:00.000-07:00

I've seen some of the Rock exit interviews from his job at the UN. I wondered why Rock, an intelligent, genial, and, I believe, decent, person did not grab the brass ring of the Liberal leadership. I put on my historian's hat and tiptoed through the databases. Here's what I found:

National Post, Feb 21, 2002

OTTAWA - Allan Rock, the Industry Minister, was booed and jeered by fellow Liberal MPs during a caucus meeting yesterday over his role in a party dispute that has pitted ministers against one another and included accusations of racism...
For nearly three hours, Mr. Rock was the principal focus of anger, accusations and demands for an apology from MPs who said his behaviour was hurting the party.
Much of the anger was directed at Warren Kinsella, a strategist for Mr. Rock's leadership campaign who insulted Liberal MPs and said the membership rule changes are aimed at keeping ethnic groups out of the party...
Mr. Rock said he could not speak for Mr. Kinsella, insiders said, but he added that he was "appalled" by Mr. Kinsella's attacks on one MP.
Mr. Kinsella posted a picture of John McKay, the chairman of the Ontario caucus, on his personal Web site and asked, "Is this man a real Liberal? Not a chance."
Mr. McKay raised the ire of Mr. Kinsella when he defended the controversial rule changes and told reporters he thought it was strange that "children and non-citizens" could elect the next prime minister.
By last night, Mr. Kinsella had removed Mr. McKay's picture from his Web site and sent letters of apology to two caucus members for language he has used against them.
"....
One caucus insider said that in his summary to conclude the meeting, Mr. Manley said he "repudiated" Mr. Kinsella's "attacks on our caucus." Earlier in the meeting, Mr. McKay had called upon Mr. Manley to ask the Prime Minister to deal with Mr. Kinsella.

National Post, Feb. 12, 2002

National Post Editorial, Feb. 20, 2002
Warren Kinsella, a long-time Liberal strategist, typically aims his barbs at members of opposition parties. But of late he has devoted his dark talents to an internecine battle: Industry Minister Allan Rock's campaign to replace Jean Chretien when the Prime Minister retires. Mr. Kinsella's strategy has been to camouflage a complex feud over Ontario's party membership rules as a fight against racism. In early February, he claimed that a recent rule change favouring the leadership aspirations of Finance Minister Paul Martin was really an exercise in racial profiling and an attempt by the party to keep out Canadians who don't look, or think, like them. In a subsequent letter to the national Liberal caucus chairman, Mr. Kinsella conceded that the new membership rules do not reflect "a racist intent." But this week, he reverted full-bore to race-based demagoguery. On his Web site, Mr. Kinsella has posted a picture of Ontario Liberal caucus chairman John McKay, and asks: "Is this man a real Liberal?" He answers: "Not a chance," and tells Web surfers that Mr. McKay told The Canadian Press this week that ethnic minorities "don't deserve the vote." Yesterday, Mr. McKay retorted that he "never said that and never would." And indeed, a five- minute review of the news archives reveals that Mr. Kinsella is twisting Mr McKay's words -- he said nothing remotely racist.
Allowing Mr. Kinsella to play the racism card is a symptom of Mr. Rock's desperation. The new membership rules, which allow individuals to obtain only five membership sign-up forms at a time from the Ontario federal Liberal party headquarters, and which require those collecting them to supply the names and addresses of new members beforehand, are designed to give Liberal riding associations warning when a membership drive aimed at taking over an association is under way. Since Mr. Martin currently dominates Ontario's riding associations, the rule change freezes out Mr. Rock. That is tough luck for the Industry Minister, but to imply that it is racism is a calumny.
On his Web site, Mr. Kinsella claims those who support the new rules "are mostly whiter and older." And in the letter to the national Liberal caucus chairman, he complains that "a Toronto-area MP who voted for the membership restrictions has publicly stated that non-citizens should not be permitted to vote for the next Liberal leader." This is a reference to Mr. McKay, who was recently chosen unanimously by members of the Ontario Liberal caucus, including Mr. Rock, to be their chairman. "These kinds of comments," says Mr. Kinsella, "reflect intolerance, plain and simple." Mr. Rock, who helped raise funds for Mr. McKay before the last federal election and who lavished praise on the Toronto-area MP in front of Liberals in the past, now says, when asked of Mr. McKay, "no comment."
Thankfully, Mr. Kinsella has convinced few people that Mr. McKay is a bigot. Akaash Maharaj, the National Policy Chair of the Liberal Party of Canada (and a man, we might add, who is neither white nor old), says Mr. McKay "is not only one of the most fundamentally decent people I know; he is a symbol to all those who believe that politics can still be about the pursuit of high ideals rather than low ambition."
The bit of fact on which Mr. Kinsella has based his attack is Mr. McKay's stated position that citizens of the United States, Britain, Australia, Angola, the Czech Republic and other foreign nations should be prohibited from choosing the next Canadian Prime Minister. Is that position racist? Of course not. Mr. McKay represents a racially diverse riding and draws support from Canadians of all origins. It is disgraceful and reckless of Mr. Kinsella to portray him as intolerant.