Bruce Power

Daisy Group

“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald

Chretien 3, Gomery 0

When you are in opposition, every day is pretty much the same.

Here’s your average day for an opposition MP: Get up, get dressed, go to work, denounce the government and call for an inquiry into something or other. Have lunch. Express outrage about this and that, call for a Royal Commission. Go home, have dinner, go to bed.

Then, start over again tomorrow!

Now, I’m oversimplifying things, as usual, but not by much. Opposition parties adore inquiries and commissions. There are two reasons for this. One, inquiries make governments squirm, and opposition MPs lead a pretty joyless existence (see above). They love making governments squirm.

Two, the ink-stained media hordes love them, too. Reporters positively live for drama and conflict — if it bleeds it leads, the saying goes — so they’ll always be in the front row at an inquiry’s opening day, fervently praying for disaster. Disasters are fun to write about.

The question, of course, is whether the public — Joe and Jane Frontporch — find any of these commissions of inquiry in any way useful or necessary.

As fun as assorted inquiries may have been to opposition politicians and the media, I tend to doubt your average Canadian feels the same way. In fact, it’s unlikely that Mr. and Mrs. Frontporch knows, or cares, about most of these inquiries.

The Mother of All Inquiries, and the possible exception to the above-noted generalization, was the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program. Or, as I preferred to call it, the Gomery Pyle Commission. Even Joe and Jane Frontporch heard about that one. It was hard to miss.

Led by a self-described “hobby farmer” named John Gomery — a Westmount, Que., jurist who, as things turned out, never met a microphone he didn’t like — the commission cost about $100 million and went on for more than two interminable years, capturing front-page headlines every morning.

The media loved the Gomery Pyle Commission because it racked up an impressive political body count. So too the Tories, then in opposition — although, once ensconced in the bosom of government, the Harper folks couldn’t get away fast enough from the Westmount hobby farmer.

Shortly after he won the 2006 federal election, Stephen Harper was asked about some of Gomery’s wacky recommendations about radically changing government. Said he: “I don’t need the complication of making major structural changes.” Gomery, in turn, was mightily unimpressed, sniffing that Harper didn’t provide an “answer to my report.”

Bizarrely, however, the Harper government continued to stand by one part of Gomery’s report — the part that said that former prime minister Jean Chretien was personally to blame for the sponsorship mess.

Chretien appealed and the Federal Court agreed with him, saying that Gomery had been biased. “No reasonable person,” wrote the court, “could possibly conclude that the commissioner would decide the issues fairly.”

In fact, the Federal Court ruled Gomery had even engaged in “personal insults” aimed at the former Liberal leader. The vainglorious Gomery was too preoccupied with the media “spotlight,” they said. Ouch.

Despite that judicial blast, the Harper regime continued to stick with Gomery. Chretien was then forced to take the matter up with the Federal Court of Appeal — and, last week, he won. Gomery had indeed been biased, the federal appeal judges ruled.

So, does any of that matter?

Yes. Most of all, it means that opposition politicians need to think carefully about their incessant carping for politically motivated inquiries. Truly, all that they are really doing is further eroding peoples’ faith in democracy.

If there’s criminal wrongdoing, call in the cops. If it isn’t criminal, let the people throw the bums out in an election.

It’ll mean a lot less work for lawyers, sure.

My hunch? Joe and Jane Frontporch will be OK with that.

—Kinsella is a lawyer, consultant and Liberal Party spin-doctor. He blogs at

One Response to “Chretien 3, Gomery 0”

  1. Alan C says:


    We never met. But, that’s probably good on your account.
    You know, a lot of us have been labelled ‘angry young man’. You take the cake; and you’re not even young. I have kids about your age, and they chirpped on like you do I’d boot them in the ass. No kidding!

    You sold JC to to the point of ad nauseum, and bored even the liberal press for too long. Let’s stop the crapola, and get busy at being a REAL man.

    You could start by outlining the proposed Canada that you have conjured up in your mind over time, and tell us where you fit in. I strongly suggest that would prefer to be PM in your scenario. Never!

    If you ever decided to try to run Canada, I’d be the first to sign up to depose you. How’s that for a reccommendation?

    By the way, your website is just as irratic as you appear to be. Maybe you could c oncentrate on fixing that problem first.

    Alan C

Leave a Reply