Update: Vancouver Sun Reporter Says There Was No Leak

Kim Bolan, the journalist who wrote the Vancouver Sun article about Liberal MP Navdeep Bains' father-in-law's appearance as a potential witness on a list in the Air India bombing inquiry says there is no need for a leak investigation, as the Liberal party has called for.

Bolan had this to say to the Canadian Press on Saturday:

Vancouver Sun reporter Kim Bolan told The Canadian Press on Saturday that there was no leak from anyone and that the story was done on her own initiative.

The Liberals demanded Friday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office look into whether anyone in government or law enforcement provided that confidential "security information" to the Sun.

"The story was not a plant by anybody," Bolan said. "All this talk of plants by the government or the RCMP is ludicrous.

"Nobody has disputed a single element of the story because it's true," said Bolan, who has covered the Air India case since the tragedy in 1985.

Bolan said it's ridiculous that politicians are reacting as if the information is some kind of security breach. She said anyone who has covered the Air India case in any detail has the information.

She gave the same basic statement (minus the anger) via e-mail to Ross at The Gazetteer blog on Friday. Ross also has an update on this story and I want to add that Bolan's certainly being defensive. I haven't seen anyone claim that what she reported wasn't true. That wasn't the issue here. It was about whether or not there was a leak and the outburst that resulted in parliament after Harper tried to read from the article. She had also told Ross that she got her information from an "Ontario contact" who supposedly told her that Bains was related to a potential witness, so it's not surprising red flags were raised - especially considering the currently contentious political climate.

Whether or not this will satisfy the Liberals remains to be seen and it certainly, in my mind, does not excuse Stephen Harper's part in this affair.

Update: Ross's part in this story was noticed by CTV's Politics blog as well. Good work, Ross!

Update: Red Tory has a full summary of the events surrounding all of this on his blog.

How much lower will Harper go?
 

The Bains/Air India Story : Liberals Call for a Leak Investigation

As I noted in this post, some of us have been wondering who might have given reporter Kim Bolan the tip that Navdeep Bains' father-in-law was a potential witness in the Air India inquiry. Bolan, alledgedly posting over at The Gazetteer's blog, said she had received the information from members of the Sikh community. (Please note that we have yet to verify if Bolan actually did write that comment.)

The Liberals raised the potential leak during question period on Friday and have now called for an investigation:

OTTAWA (CP) - The Liberals demand an investigation to determine whether a government official leaked the identity of a potential witness in the Air India bombing case to a Vancouver newspaper.

They said Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office should check to see if anyone in government or law enforcement provided that confidential "security information" to the Vancouver Sun. The prime minister himself referred to the article in the House of Commons this week.
[...]
The Liberals said it was obvious that some public official - either in government or law enforcement - leaked Darshan Singh Saini's name because only they would be aware that the RCMP might want to question him.

"The newspaper story used by the prime minister this week in a disgusting drive-by smear against a member of Parliament contained assertions about alleged police proceedings of a highly secret nature," Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale said.

"They are secret to ensure the integrity of those proceedings, but yet the information, true or not, was made public.

"Why did the government deem it appropriate to publish secret security information and does that disclosure not in itself constitute breaking the law?"

Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan denied any government involvement and said the Liberals could complain to the Vancouver Sun if they have a problem with the story.

"The government did no such thing," Van Loan said.

"(Goodale) knows well that this government does not control the media in this country - anything but."

Goodale said that even if no one in government gave the Sun Saini's name and drew attention to his links with a Liberal MP, the RCMP answers to the government.

He pointed an accusatory finger at Harper's office. He noted that Harper's senior staff mass e-mailed the Sun article to journalists on Parliament Hill just after the prime minister made the comments.

"The despicable events of last Wednesday were no accident," Goodale said.

"From beginning to end this was contrived, premeditated slander. So let us go right to the source, who in the government disclosed secret security information? Was it or was it not the Prime Minister's Office?"

It's time for Bolan to speak up publicly about this, especially if she did write that comment on The Gazetteers blog and did get this information from members of the Sikh community.

h/t Dan McKenzie of The Dan Report

Update: Kim Bolan has responded to an e-mail from Ross at The Gazetteer:

In a nutshell, she said it was she who initiated the proceedings by asking an Ontario contact about the whereabouts of Mr. Saini as she does this to keep track of folks that have been involved in the Air India case, and the closely related cases of the shootings of a local newspaper publisher...
[...]
In her Email reply to me, Ms. Bolan then want on to state that it was only after she had made her initial enquiry that the source then mentioned that Mr. Saini was the father-in-law of Mr. Bains, which she didn't already know at the time and which she found interesting (and, as she stated in the original comment, 'relevant', especially after Mr. Bains confirmed it).

Now, you may want to question the motives of the 'source' in divulging that information but, now matter how you slice it, I believe that Ms. Bolan has provided us with a reasonable explanation regarding the Fifth 'W'.

I disagree and I still wonder 1) who that "Ontario source" was and 2) why she thought it was "relevant" to divulge this information which, as has been pointed out, was not supposed to be made public.

Update on the Vancouver Sun/Bains Story

Ross over at The Gazetteer has been as curious as I've been about the circumstances surrounding Kim Bolan's Vancouver Sun story about Navdeep Bain's father-in-law in relation to the Air India bombing case. Specifically: how did she know who was on a potential witness list and who leaked that information to her?

Apparently (and this is not confirmed, as Ross points out), Bolan has responded to those questions in this comment:

I wrote the story and there was no leak. It was very apparent from sitting through 19 months of the Air India trial who would be the obvious choices for investigative hearings - all the names came out during the evidence at the trial. After the trial, I wrote my book on Air India, called "Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away With Murder" and reviewed documents related to the one Supreme Court challenge of the investigative hearing provision, launched and lost by Satnam Reyat - the wife of the only man convicted.

I have covered this story since 1985 so there are few mysteries or secrets. I first interviewed Darshan SINgh [sic] Saini back in 1988. I have a copy of parts of his police statement that came out during the Air India trial. The reason I wrote the story this week is because I just learned (through Sikh community contacts, not POLICE) that Saini was the father-in-law of Bains. I did not know that until very recently. I called up Saini and Bains and they confirmed it. I thought it was relevant.

So don't always look for a political conspiracy. In this case, there isn't one.
Kim Bolan | 02.23.07 - 2:17 am | #

She "thought it was relevant" to what, exactly? The Liberal party's decision to sunset the 2 anti-terrorism clauses they oppose.

Ross seems quick to forgive her, but I'm not. Her story appeared at the same time as this one declaring that Paul Martin sought help from a listed terrorist group in 1990.

These things don't happen in a vacuum. There's a concerted Conservative effort to smear the Liberals as being "soft on terror" so the tories can try to demonize them.

Bolan clearly showed her bias in her article when she tried to make this connection:

The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.

But the ability to hold those hearings will be lost March 1 if parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act expire as expected, after the Liberals recently withdrew support for extending the provision being used to hold them.

This isn't about a "conspiracy", Bolan. It's about how and why you chose to write what you did. Further, if she did write the above comment why did she refer to Bains' father-in-law like this? "I first interviewed Darshan SINgh Saini back in 1988." "SINgh"? SIN? What's that about? Why would a journalist make such an obvious mistake?

No. Something about this just doesn't smell right, although it certainly does smell right-wingish.

Update: Apparently, some members of the Sikh community have been following Bolan's reporting for years and they're not exactly pleased with what they've seen.

Update: The Liberals have called for a leak investigation.