Source : National Post

Last month, it was revealed that an unnamed CBC reporter had colluded with Liberal MPs in an attempt to tie Stephen Harper's Conservative government to the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal. When the Conservative party complained about such behaviour from our "public" broadcaster, newly appointed CBC News publisher John Cruickshank boasted of his corporation's "transparent and reliable complaints process." So how come this process has suddenly turned opaque? Why won't the public broadcaster name the guilty reporter or announce what punishment she -- or he --has received?

There can be little doubt a CBC reporter ghostwrote questions for Quebec Liberal Pablo Rodriguez to ask former prime minister Brian Mulroney at the House of Commons ethics committee during its pre-Christmas hearings into Mr. Mulroney's dealings in the early 1990s with notorious German arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber. When the story first broke nearly a month ago, CBC spokesman Jeff Keay even admitted to The Canadian

Press that one of the Crown corporation's reporters had acted in an "inappropriate way" and violated CBC's "journalistic policies and practices."

The unethical journalism revolved around an interrogation Mr. Rodriguez conducted of Mr. Mulroney that had nothing to do with the old scandal being investigated and everything to do with an attempt to create a new scandal tying a Mulroney albatross around the neck of the current Conservative government.

Mr. Rodriguez, a Montreal-area MP who seldom speaks English in the House, suddenly began questioning Mr. Mulroney with the precision and erudition of a trial lawyer. "Mr. Mulroney, you said you made no presentation to Maxime Bernier [the former industry minister in the Tory government and now Minister of Foreign Affairs] on the wireless spectrum issue," Mr. Rodriguez declared in English. "While he was the industry minister, have you ever had a private or public dinner or lunch with him in Montreal, or any other city? Have you ever met with him at all? If so, how many times, in which city? Have you ever placed a telephone call to him, or has he called you? On any of those, did you discuss the wireless spectrum issue?"

It is not the CBC's business to manufacture news with the cooperation of one political party in an attempt to discredit another. But the behaviour of the reporter in question certainly leaves Canadians with the impression that the CBC and Liberals are working together to embarrass -- or even bring down -- the Harper government.

In late December, Mr. Cruikshank wrote to Doug Finley, the head of the Conservatives' campaign team, to counter-complain. Mr. Cruickshank insisted that the Conservatives' use of the Rodriguez incident in a fundraising letter was threatening "public faith in our political process."

Really, Mr. Cruikshank? Even more threatening than finding out our public broadcaster -- which already has a reputation for anti-conservative, pro-liberal bias -- and the main opposition party are in cahoots against the government?

Such sanctimony is what sets so many Canadians against the CBC in the first place. They object to having their tax dollars going to a broadcaster that uses the money to disparage their points of view and beliefs. Then they are doubly offended by the CBC's pious insistences that its coverage is balanced and that all complaints to the contrary are attacks on Canada's democracy.

On Tuesday, Mr. Finley sent a follow-up letter to Vince Carlin, the CBC's ombudsman, asking that the corporation commit to naming the reporter and outlining "what disciplinary measures have been or will be taken."

This is only right. The CBC survives off public funding. More, then, than private broadcasters, it has an obligation to demonstrate it is always working to eradicate partisanship from its coverage of public issues.

The apparent desire now to hush this controversy up and deal with it internally may just be the standard bureaucratic rump-covering that occurs in any large public institution. But it discredits the CBC and puts the lie to Mr. Cruikshank's "transparent and reliable" claim.

Name the guilty reporter, and let the public see what penalty has been meted out.

© National Post