Could be Boag's puppetmaster. You know, the guy that contorts Boag's face into about 18 expressions/blinks per second while he finds the words to respond to Mansbridge.

I watch CBC news sometimes just to see that guy give a report. It's awesome!!

My vote is Linden McIntyre. He's got to come up with something to justify all that Fifth Estate crap. Right now he's looking pretty silly.

I know what you mean Peter, Boag has the facial expressions of someone paying off a serious underworld debt.

I hope I'm not wrecking the game, Kate, but according to Norman Spector the reporter in question is Krista Erickson.

They are all guilty till one or more fesses up.

I dunno. Could be any of them but the "Fifth Estate" crowd has the most to gain/lose. But ya know, it doesn't really matter as Paul Wells tells us they all do it. Guess that's why CBC is so protective of the journalist involved. Don't want to seem to be just a part of the crowd. Wouldn't be chic enough.

It has to be Harvey or Julie .

Now there's an opportunity for some good outside investigative journalism, eh?

How about it Jane Tabor or Robert bureau chief?

Isn't Hy's a place in Ottawa where journos sip tea and chat?

The answer is whoever's suddenly disappeared from the CBC's news shows. Figuring out just who that is is a job for someone who can watch the CBC for prolonged periods of time without having to keep a chuck bucket beside their couch. Not me.

Who was writing/reporting stories on the cell phone thing? That would be my choice, but I don't watch CBC, so I'm out of the loop on this one.

Collusion is illegal in Canada. We most often talk about oil companies colluding, but we have three main stations here (oligopoly), CBC, CTV, and Global, so are they colluding with the Liberals? Sometimes impossible to prove, but this might be an opportunity, and the Conservatives should pound this issue hard.

My vote is for all of the above. Can't be rid of this anachronism soon enough.

Unfortunately,it doesn't really matter. Remember Lawand? Was that publicized? No,of course not. Bellglobal and the cbc do not want anyone but the libs in power and know that they control the info that goes out. A prime example is the coverage of,Stockwell Day mixing up the current flow of the St.Lawrence river,as opposed to ,Paul Martin adressing a veteran's group and twice mixing up Normandy with Norway.The media jumped all over Day but the more grevious error by Martin was let slide.Ctv allows Oliver with his obvious anti-consevative slant to be a moderator on thier political show,give me a break. Taber,unbiased,yeah right. Cbc and ctv,the unofficial opposition. BUT and this shocked me, today when the new product safety measures were announced,cbc did not immediately follow up with 5 minutes of a lib sycophant deriding the conservatives.Maybe there is hope.........Nah.won't happen.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess Newman. Although frankly I think they are likely guilty of it. The CBC is just trying to come up with one of them to be the sacrificial lamb. (Senate posting to come at a later Liberal in power date)

Looked at the mug shots and am very pleased that I don't know who half of them are. Not watching CBC is working. The rest have been around for far too long, and thus are remembered - and not fondly.

Newman would have someone else do the dirty deed, if it were his idea.

"The Spin Stops" with him, he has said.

But could it not also start with him?

But Spector is quite wrapping himself in this one, so if he has pegged Krista-on-the-move- Erickson...why quibble?

Are any of those people actually smart enough to come up with questions on their own?

I read that it was Krista Erikson. I didn't know who she was so i googled it. Funny the first thing that came up was 2005 SDA blog.

It would be the reporter who has been covering the spectrum "story".

Where is the Spector reference?

I don't care. Lets force them into a public inquiry!

"BUT and this shocked me, today when the new product safety measures were announced,cbc did not immediately follow up with 5 minutes of a lib sycophant deriding the conservatives."

Not to worry - CTV filled that void - they had some president of the saftey council blaming the "current government" for the unsafe toys from China.

People are using this as an opportunity to discuss privatizing the CBC. Thats better than nothing because if we are not paying for it its at least one less thing to complain about. But it if is privatized these people will still have jobs. It must be disbanded and all their property and equipment sold off and all their staff sent to the unemployment line. Better yet decimate their staff in the old Roman style.

No one asks how many questions were fed to the Tories when they were in Opposition. It's absolutely normal, it has been for years at Parliament and the provincial legistures.

The CBC is never NOT covering its butt and protecting its overzealous, l/Librano cheerleaders.

I suspect that the only difference between what CBC reporters have been doing for a long time--apparently colluding with the Librano$--is that Jean Lapierre let the cat out of the bag and Jay Ephard confirmed that, yeah, the cat meowed.

Now, the CBC is on the ropes and it looks good on them. 'Ever try to complain via the CBC's Ombudsman, Vince Carlin? He's an ex-CBC employee ('worked for the Mother Corpse for years) who was INVITED back from his job at Ryerson (Journalism Program, 'natch) by the CBC.

So, how impartial, unbiased, and fair can the guy be? Wouldn't the number-one asset/requirement of an Ombudsman be that s/he isn't or hasn't been in any way connected to the organization s/he is being asked to "ombuds?"

Canadians have been taken to the cleaners by all of the above on that great poster (I want one to go along with the Western Standard's Librano$ poster!). Every one of them, as far as I can tell from years of watching (with the barf bucket handy) is a cheerleader for the Librano$. They've looked like deer caught in the headlights ever since PM Stephen Harper and his CPC took over the reins of power in Ottawa.

Now, it's just one dirty trick after another, which the Ombudsman glosses over, even when he admits there has been a breach of journalistic integrity, and nothing changes at the CBC. Heck, why even have an Ombudsman at the CEEB? I guess to give a friend a job...who works for the Corpse, not in any way the poor, beleaguered Canadian taxpayer.

I hope this breach of journalistic integrity sticks and that heads roll. It's about time.

How about Kate for the job?

CBC is serving as a paid/unpaid lobbyist for ???? An unregistered lobbyist? CBC has crossed the line and become a lobbyist.
Key words: "Valuable stuff"; "new entrants". Enough to make Buttcrack Karl envious?
Sell the CBC in its entirety. Down with CBCPravda.
...-

Bob LeDrew [CBC Money Talks]: Spinning the wireless spectrum auction
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 | 10:37 AM ET
By Bob LeDrew, a public relations specialist based in Ottawa
In May 2008, the Canadian federal government is going to hold an auction. But you and I won't be bidding on the goods. The auction is for what they call "wireless spectrum". That means the frequencies that can be used for things like mobile phones and devices like Blackberries and Treos.
Valuable stuff.
The interesting wrinkle in this auction is that Industry Canada, the department in charge, has set aside almost half of the spectrum available for new entrants. ...-
http://www.cbc.ca/money/moneytalks/2007/12/spinning_the_wireless_spectrum.html

I haven't had my two latest anti-Conservative bias complaints (with copies to PMSH and the Minister involved) to the CBC acknowledged. Usually by now, I'd at least have received the first, smarmy blah-blah, "I [Vince Carlin] have received . . . and will pass on your concerns to . . . "

Maybe the CBC’s so busy dealing with this very public fiasco—most complaints are buried and tied up in so much red tape, they become almost unrecognizable—they don't have time for Joe Citizen.

The CBC’s a front organization for the Liberals, which we pay for. These thugs are so smug, they believe they’re above accountability, but not above telling blatant lies—for DECADES—to the taxpayer, who foots the bill. I only complain to the CBC for a “paper trail”, which I hope will be used by the CPC, once it gets a majority, to “throw the blighters out”.

I wrote at the end of my latest letter to Mr. Carlin of the CBC, “This [their unethical behaviour] reminds me of the fine children’s story, The Amazing Bone, by William Steig. When the fox wants to eat Pearl, a sumptuous young pig, dressed like Bo-Peep, the amazing bone, which can talk, says to the fox, “Have you no shame, sir”? I ask the same question of you: rhetorical, of course.)”

This utterly arrogant, verging on the illegal, corporation, needs to get a taste of its own, very nasty medicine. IMO, its well deserved comeuppance can't happen soon enough.

Mark,

I agree that reporters would feed questions to opposition members to ask questions during question period.

Inquiry and the ethics committee is different. This is high stakes with a reputation of a previous prime minister on the line on a specific question. To then get questions on an item that is really off topic looks bad on both sides, why the Liberals would waste their valuable time when they have Mulroney in front of them asking about that I have no idea. The reporter bamboozled/charmed them into it.

Now why he/she is doing that is another question and the the fair question back is what does he/she have to do for them, since they gave him/her something valuable?

It crosses a line and deserves airing. This is not the run of the mill conversation. It is different in type and substance and consequences. The CBC would do well to investigate the reporter, what is the quid pro quo, is there a cozier relationship between the reporter and someone in the Liberal Party, should the reporter be removed from the story because their objectivity is gone or is perceived to be gone.

These are all legitimate questions, but of course that assumes journalism is a profession and there is a need to uphold professional standards. If the PPG wants to be treated as professionals they should act like them and that means not doing things because it is unethical rather than just going for the jugular.

If it is Krista Erikson, well I am sure there was a King Bed available somewhere for her hurrican reporting.

I think it's Julie, but will confess that I'm highly biased against her, because I was forced to spend a few days with her a while back... I nicknamed her Morticia at the time, and can never think of her any other way

"No one asks how many questions were fed to the Tories when they were in Opposition. It's absolutely normal, it has been for years at Parliament and the provincial legistures"

And you have proof??? Please post.

To me all this fiasco says is that either MP's are too stupid to think up questions on their own or, if, as Mark says, this thing happens all the time, then we have a situation of the tail wagging the dog = in otherwords, the media is the true government in this country - unelected at that.

Kate...comments for "I vaguely Remember" down..:)

You mean Boag has facial expressions? He's had so much plastic surgery, it's not even funny.

I wonder how long they will let aging female reporters continue as newscasters and reporters.

I heard that hardly any CBCers turned up for Harper's house Christmas party - I wonder why.

I believe the guilty party has been identified as Krista Erikson

Why so much attention paid to the CBC in this matter?

It seems to me that the politician an elected MP that acts as a water boy for the media is the real offender in this.
Are the questions not vetted by the committee chair?
That would mean Szabo is guilty of collusion.
Who actually asked the questions about the bandwidth lottery? Pablo Rodriguez. So him too.

Puffin poop all around!

Ommag: Here's Szabo making room for CBC's beyond-the-mandate question, after Del Mastro had objected that the wireless spectrum issue had absolutely nothing to do with the mandate of the inquiry:

"Colleagues, we have had this discussion uh, on a number of occasions, and the members will know in, will know that we have, in there, in addition to the settlement issue, the Airbus settlement issue, uhh, allegations made by any party coming before us, testimony, new evidence, which -- and we have found, already, contradictions, for instance that Mr. Schreiber has testifed that the monies given to Mr. Mulroney were not to do with Airbus but were rather to do with Bearhead. And it starts to change the dynamic and the understanding of the, uhh, of the, of our hearings. It also, it also in terms of having the, uhhh, the broad evidence that has come out, has broadened the complexity and the details here. We did specifically, I believe it was Mr. Wallace, amended (sic) the original motion that was before the Committee to include the, uhh, concept of present or past government and how those allegations would (inaudible). SO, in view of that, I understand that there may be, uhh, it may ultimately turn out not to be critical or relevant, uhh, in terms of our recommendations, etcetera, but I would believe that Mr. Rodriguez has raised an item, which is on the border but I believe, and he believes, and the argument is that the, the matter is, uhh, relevant, ahhh, in a general way to our motion. I would rule the question in order. Could you please repeat the question for the witness and we'll allow the witness to respond. Thank you."

Go ahead, CBC. Make that news.

Oh Yeah..Szabo was really dancing on his feet trying to find ways to allow that question from Pablo...makes you wonder if he already knew what was coming and was trying to find the best way to justify his position.

If the latitude is to be broadened this much, perhaps it is time to start asking questions on the sponsorship scandal, HRDC and every other 'when did you stop beating your wife' question to the libs..

"Who was writing/reporting stories on the cell phone thing?"

Krista Erickson.

Who replaced Christina Lawand in the CBC chohort at the PPG?

Krista Erickson.

Who covered her lapel with hair during early November 2006 -- implication being that she was uncomfortable with the poppy?

Krista Erickson.

Game, set, match.

People just don't seem to grasp the seriousness of this alleged collusion.
We have a Parliamentary Committee looking at alleged wrongdoing, ethical in nature as well, of a former Prime Minister's dealings while in Office. Then we have Liberal members of the Committee being fed questions by our publicly owned CBC, THEY ARE ON OUR PAYROLL, they should be politically neutral and at the very least fair and balanced. They are neither, haven't been for decades. Their a pack or Liberal inbreds to the freaking core.

These journalists who work for us are working against the present Government.
Questions by Pablum Rodriguez were totally out of order. The fact Szabo allowed them is disgraceful.

This is serious stuff, but the who the hell can we count on to investigate? Do we have the fox in charge of the hen house?

Jesus never sat down and shared conversation and a meal with "journalists"...hookers, lepers and tax collectors, yes... but never a journalist.
"WL Mackenzie Redux"

Mike Duffy was also just on CFRA (as a guest on Mike Harris' program), and said that the reporter was definitely a "she", so that narrows the field yet again.

"I believe it was Mr. Wallace, amended (sic) the original motion that was before the Committee to include the, uhh, concept of present or past government and how those allegations would (inaudible)

So when are Chretien and Martin testifying?

CBCGate: An Email From A CBC Vice-President
Amazing what a little Bourque-driven traffic will do to stimulate interesting emails. This just showed up in my mailbox, forwarded from, if you can believe it, a vice-president of the CBC:
I wanted to let you know that CBC news chiefs have looked at the allegations made yesterday.
They feel that the reporter's actions in pursuing the story were inappropriate and against CBC/Radio-Canada's Journalistic Standards.
They are continuing to investigate the particulars and will follow the ... blahblahblah ...-
(Pacin' Jason has a comment.)
http://aaronleewudrick.blogspot.com/2007/12/cbcgate-email-from-cbc-vice-president.html

Slightly off topic but being in Texas I get to miss CBC. Does Julie VD actually appear on camera with that hair?

Back on topic, just look for the one who can actually put a sentence together in the form of a question. Seems like most of that CBC menagery was on the air when I left back in 2002. Reminds me of the old boys club in China where they never seem to take a hint and retire.

Another Liberal a**-kissin session on the braaaaaawdcast again tonite.Old cake-face Newman does extreme softball interview with Dion.Just putrid,pussy-footing,and fawning.

And as the usual junk and feigned contrition arrives from the mukitymuks of the Ceeb ...

I noticed that Cerniak has a problem:
a- Reads Kady O'Mally
b- "I simply don't understand the problem." he says.

Yep the words simply and don't understand together in the same sentence..... sums it up!
And this guy is a lawyer??

"And this guy is a lawyer???"

Not really, he just plays one on the internet....

Watched a bit of Newman, and I wondered-did the liberals write newmans questions for dion, or did the cbc write dions answers.
Funny, but phoning the cbc talk back line today I get, Sorry your session can not be completed at this time. Try it 1-800-565-1422.
In the past I have got busy signals, or mail box if full. They must be getting a lot of nasty calls.
Regardless, I will never watch the cbc again without asking myself those questions.

If you want to know why the print media are not all over the CBC question-planting story, listen to Mike Duffy (interviewed by CFRA, Ottawa's Michael Harris), about 3/4 of the way through (hint: the CBC pays them).

Mark
Ottawa

I thought that the president of the safety council made a complete a$$ of himself when interviewed about the toys from China thing. He made no sense at all, just seemed to want to rant at the government, indicating that the problems are the current government and the Canadian people -- not the Chinese manufacturers. He clearly had an ax to grind. I doubt that anyone could follow his logic. He squandered an opportunity to say something useful/informative.

Texas Canuck: "Does Julie VD actually appear on camera with that hair?"

Do you like it? Here's her hairdresser and partial namesake:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa_(mythology)

Julie Van D's brother, Peter Van Dusen of CPAC is, by contrast, always nicely groomed.

How did these two "earn" their positions one wonders though. Liberal largesse with the nice promise of a cushy cushy senate seat or, hey, Governor general, like all good Liberal media /CBC hacksters?

How many reporters have been appointed to the senate, or nice ambassador jobs like Pamela Whalen's. Right up there with Liberal bagmen and communications directors.

May the Van Dusen children see their dream of being the brother/sister senate duo fading away with the Conservatives and it is their mission, nay, their passion to get their Liberal benfactors back so they can once again have the fun parties and expence accounts and yummy perks on the taxpayer dime that those mean conservatives have denied them.

Sheesh -expensive lounges and steak houses in Ottawa have CLOSED DOWN since the Conservatives came to power.

As has been mentioned many times in this thread and others, collusion is illegal in Canada.

Here we have an "Ethics" committee that is guilty of collusion with a government broadcasting company. Ethics + MP's + Government funded broadcaster = Something close to Treason.

An attempt to destabilize an elected government during a parliamentary committee. Collusion between elected MP's and a publicly funded broadcasting firm, with all this occurring when Canada is on a war footing with troops in harms way.

That can get you shot in many parts of the world.

Wonder what it will get you in Canada?

Strange Brew

"Wonder what it will get you in Canada?"

A Senate seat.

Harper should cut the CBC budget by 300 million dollars in the next budget. If the budget passes, yippee, if it becomes an election issue the CBC's election coverage will be under the microscope.

We must demand answers! This idea, this is done all the the time, will not wash... this was an ethics committee trying to find out the truth... the members of this committee cannot be charged with anything that is said within that committee and to have the CBC using that privilege to try and trash Mr. Mulroney, is wrong. The CBC and Fifth Estate have spent million and millions trying to get Mr. Mulroney on whatever they can, and my question, was who on that committee was working with the CBC. If you remember, Mr. Thibeau started the questions on Spectrum... and to me, the Chair was quick to back this whole thing up. Was he too in on it as well? Remember Mr. Mulroney tried to read a letter as to why he was invited to that committee, and the Chair immediately "shut him down!... and if you watched Mike Duffy Live, he directly asked Mr. Rodriquez if the CBC had approached him, he said NO.. now we are finding out that maybe that was a lie. and the liberals were investigating Mr. Mulroney to see if he did something not legal?..... If, like the liberals are saying, if this is done all the time, why didn't Rodriquez admit it?. I have written Mr. Carlin, Ombudsman of the CBC and he replied to me that this is under investigation . I wrote him again... and plan to again today, and I think the more everyone of us writes him demanding answers, the better... his email address is:
ombudsman@cbc.ca

If Mr Rodriguez lied in front of the ethics committee.....well isnt that worth an investigation and isnt it more relevant that a sitting MP lied in fron of a committee of the house rather than an investigation into alleged activities 20 years ago?

Seems the CBC is saying this is true. It would seem that the appropriate order of business is that Mr Rodriguez, upon return to the house, should apologize to the speaker. Being an Honorable member, as are all members, the apology will be accepted.

Without that, based on a point of order from another member, the speaker should ask Mr Rodriges if he has any answer to the charge. If not then the Speaker after some investigation should sanction Mr Rodrigez, essentially not recognize for some time frame.

Thats the public side. The speaker would be correct in calling all house leaders aside before the next session and read the riot act to them....essentially, this must stop, there must be decorum and they must live up to their titles as honorable members. Failure to do so will result in less co-operation from the speaker, who can eject, and fail to recognize individual members and can begin to stop recognizing parties.....as parlaiment is supree the speaker is KING of the house, all parties would do well to recognize that.

Now Mr Szabo is another matter.....he seems mild mannered and at times seems fair, but he was clearly part of the gamesmanship that went on that day. If I am a con member, I would try to make common cause with the Bloq to remove Mr Szabo as chairperson...common enemy and even the Bloc members dont hate Mulroney, there is an abiding respect for the man, as a loyal Quebecer....of course thats what got him in trouble elsewhere in Canada but thats not the point.

Get Szabo replaced, I would feel better with Co Martin of the NDP or Serge Menard in charge if it has to be an opposition memeber. There must be a price for the games played.

Mopriguez was screaming at Del Mastro on MDL demanding an apology for calling Mopriguez a liar.

Who's the one that should apologize, Pablocks?

Lorraine: "Julie Van D's brother, Peter Van Dusen of CPAC is, by contrast, always nicely groomed."

Don't know if this is a relative, but there is also a Mark Van Dusen in the "communications" business, on behalf of the Kangaroo Kourt of Kanuckistan:
http://direct.srv.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct500/REcn%3dVanDusen%5c%2c%20Mark%2cou%3dCHRC5103-CCDP5103%2cou%3dCHRCF7E5-CCDPF7E5%2cou%3dCHRC-CCDP%2co%3dGC%2cc%3dCA

Mark
For you and other CBC/Liberal sympathizers:

You miss the point and that is, that it is outrageous that my, and your tax dollars, should be spent financing anyone or any organization that attempts to intervene or influence in any way our domestic politics. Those who do should be banished from parliament including the organizations behind them. I will not accept my tax dollars being spent in this manner. Why are you so willing to tolerate it? This practise is only commonplace in communist and other totalitarian regimes.
If we must have a publically funded news organization, that organization must be barred by legislation from ever being involved in any way in the reporting of news of parliament.

Erwin