SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in

Getting Stubborn Chief Executive Officers to Listen: Speak Their Language


After consecrating several posts on workplace bullying, and hearing our great Steve Jones rant about Toshiba’s lack of action regarding their own products, I have a very recent anecdote that should turn the heads of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (known to locals as the CBC) within the province, and those who are responsible for maintaining standards within this public institution: CBC CEO Hubert LaCroix. I am taking this action publically since Quebec's CBC head did not reply to a message sent on March 13, 2010 regarding the following legal issue, nor registered letters weeks afterwards (updated post) on top of the ethics code violations.  UPDATE (end of April 2010) - Thankfuly executives saw the light, or were reminded by CBC Union Lawyers, and Nancy has returned to Television with her position on Enquête's English Version.


Nancy Wood: Another Great Professional Driven Out of a Good Job in Montreal. 


Nancy Wood’s Cause Célèbre: Montreal Daybreak Listeners Revolt Against CBC Gall

Pia Marquard, the CBC’s head in Quebec, run out of the head office in Montreal, decided (or predecessor Robert Renaud left the fort in such a bad state she had to) at the end of February, 2010, to cut short Nancy Wood’s one year contract as host of the local radio morning show Daybreak – or to actually inform her well before the July deadline that this was going to happen.  CBC's Internal HR policy is to give a few months warning, which would have been around May 2010, but this seems to way more than that.  As should have been done when one signs a contract and honours it, unless it has been breached by Nancy (and it wasn’t, confirmed by Marquard’s replies), you let it run out and inform the person at the end that it will not be renewed, or with a little 'courtesy' warning.  The contract was not respected by the head of the CBC in Quebec in this matter; this is the first part of the major reputational damage done to CBC Montreal by means of this lack of professionalism. Basically, Nancy was on a one year contract and had the rug pulled out from underneath her just over half-way through, citing ratings decline – despite the fact that very little advertising budget was allocated. However, word of mouth/e-messaging spread well about Nancy's forced departure, as over six hundred and forty fans have demonstrated on the facebook page, plus the five journalists who have written out in protest. <opinion> This is another example members of QC’s majority making decisions for the English speaking minority and minimising the damage.</opinion>


Wake of this Damaging, Weakly-Founded Attack on Nancy’s Career: Our Host, from Our City

Although only weeks later we have come to understand that the lack of ratings scapegoat was leaked to the press somehow (typical of a new host within the first year of their tenure, hence BS scapegoat), to justify the change in host of Daybreak in reaction to the outcry, Madame Marquard initially responded to critics that for personal issues and the principle of secrecy with respect to our former morning host as an employee, she would not be providing the reasons behind her ousting.  This is completely ironic, since the source of the weeks of anguish and embarrassment that Nancy as a person had to endure was caused by CBC Management’s ignorance with respect to how psychological harassment can affect an employee - and the many months more it will take for Nancy to recover (a workplace harassment specialist was referred to her BTW by yours truly, since I lived through a similar attack by the workplace goons at the Caisse de Défauts) from this disrespectful treatment.  I ask the said Madame who is responsible for this insensitive action, if not her? And why are you acting as if it is Nancy’s fault that she had to take approximately a month off of sick leave due to management's actions?  If you had settled in quite well with a new job, and were very happy (I witnessed this as an avid listener to Mrs Wood during the morning commute wouldn’t you like to wake up to her voice?) how would you react to someone breaking your rice bowl I ask?  Did you think this mega blow to consumer loyalty would go unnoticed?

Many journalists pointed out (see references below) the lack of honesty regarding the her mistreatment, and CBC Quebec’s disengagement with its English-speaking audience (listeners bombarded CBC Management for their brain-fart), but none, as of yet, have noticed that Labour Standards Laws apply to this situation. Even if they are Provincial Laws, still doesn’t mean that you can break them in Federal Offices located in Quebec - this is a confederation, remember.


The Harassment Did Not Stop There, Believe It Or Not...

Progressive labour standards laws exist in Quebec for a reason, and have been in effect for over five years now due to rampant unprofessionalism within the workplace, which is especially noticeable in Montreal since it is seen as a final battleground for the separatists who wish to eradicate the Anglophone population from the cosmopolitan city by starving them from the workplace - I believe this has well and truly spilled over into Federal institutions within the province for several decades now.

The next unwanted gesture taken under Marquard’s management, earlier this month, was to state on the CBC Daybreak website, and in responses to angry listeners who stepped into save the victim from corporate bullying, that Ms. Wood was simply a ‘temporary’ host – actually using the phrase that she was only an Interim host (see the boilerplate letter below). Witnesses of Nancy’s anointment to the post were quick to point out yet another incontestable fabrication of reality.  Way to motivate your team to perform to the highest standards, eh?  Sabotage their position, and then tell them that they were only there for the short term – and Quebec wonders why there is la crise de leadership ? The truth is right there in front of you ladies and gentlemen, only Losership dominates the Quebec workplace unless you are lucky enough to find a work environment that respects labour standards (and from personal experience, this is hard to find in Montreal) and their own internal ethics code.


Respect for the Rule of Law: What the Labour Standards Act States


Vexatious behaviour is humiliating, offensive or abusive for the person on the receiving end. It injures the person’s self-esteem and causes him anguish. It exceeds what a reasonable person considers appropriate within the context of his work.
-- Nancy’s month off for sick leave in anguish over losing her chair on Daybreak, was that WANTED? Is it too hard to show integrity and honour a contract by waiting until July or June, instead of taking the loser route and robbing her of a well-earned position mi-chemin?

Affect the person's dignity or integrity
-- Stating that she was an Interim host (lies, here's the original CBC page announcing her start at Daybreak) and not the actual host is a clear violation of Nancy's dignity. This will result in Nancy being isolated from her coworkers surely, and most importantly even if these was done in a private workplace it is illegal, but Marquard’s unprofessionalism went beyond the methods of acceptable managerial behaviour because she did make these legal mistakes publically and by doing so, clearly demonstrates that Pia gives the impression of being intentionally vexatious.



Conclusion and the Way to Fix Up this Mess – Recover CBC Management’s Integrity

I wonder what more jambettes does CBC Managment have in store for the talented professionals working for the CBC in Montreal(?), since there do not seem to be any you would Not use on great persons such as Nancy.  Furthermore, isolating Nancy from her colleagues, as is happening now, is a typical result of an environment where psychological harassment exists by the way – so we even have a smoking gun to demonstrate labour standards were not respected, in case someone was looking for one.  I am not trying to some lofty writer attacking CBC Management, and if that is the perception, then forgive me, but professionals of high calibre such as Nancy deserve that the Rule of Law be followed by decision makers within a publically funded organisation. If lying to the public is how Madame Marquard wishes to continue playing the denial game, then the only real thing that will be ‘interim’ will be her tenure as head of the CBC in Quebec. Management is responsible for the actions that lead Nancy to take sick leave, and it is a clear cut case of shameful workplace bullying that is no longer acceptable for modern organisations running in Quebec.


Stepping in to Protect the Victim from Corporate Ignorance

My goal with this public post is to make it impartially clear to those higher up in her CBC hierarchy that CBC Management in Montreal is completely misinformed with respect to laws that protect those who are considered employees under the Labour Standards Act (fixed hours, subordination, and having to use CBC equipment) and violating of any law by CBC Staff, should not be taken lightly (not to mention Ethics Code abuses, which could be a whole post on its own regarding accountability), as it will lead to more inappropriate behaviour  - just in the same way that Nancy Wood pointed out on Daybreak that ex-Premier Landry’s Xeno/Anglophobic comments regarding Sabia as head of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec were completely inappropriate. Thus, I appeal to you Ministers and Directors to help us bring Quebec out of the dark ages of workplace standards.


If you do not believe it is enforced by the Working Standards Commission, think again, as they attack the largest pension fund manager in the province, and even the country, flanked by the Human Rights Commission here on my behalf.


Thank you most sincerely,


Hugo Shebbeare


Relevant References:


The Bring Back Nancy Wood Facebook Page (now renamed Montreal CBC Watch) – many outraged witnesses to the illegal psychological harassment commented there as the surreal events unfolded before their eyes  – it becomes obvious that Marquard and her co-horts were indirectly keen on denigrating Nancy’s own self-esteem and dignity.  Ironically, there are more members in this FB group, than the actual Daybreak FB group itself, by over one hundred!

Fagstien’s Blog posts relating to Nancy Wood’s Mistreatment (he lists many, many more sources)

When she was given the position: http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/08/21/nancy-wood-daybreak-host/


Upholding Information Rights by Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner’s Keynote Address to the Data Protection Officer Conference on March 3rd, 2010 held in Manchester.



The letter which indicates the violations of law by Marquard:

First, we'd like to thank you for your dedication to Daybreak - we're glad to know that it's part of your weekday morning. We also understand that because you're a regular Daybreak listener, you are concerned about our recent decision to change the show's host.

Nancy Wood joined the Daybreak team as the interim host in August 2009. It was not a permanent assignment and when she returns from her current absence she will begin a new assignment at the CBC.

We understand that some of Daybreak's listeners will not only miss Nancy as the show's host, but have also asked for more details regarding our decision. Our policy, like most organizations, is not to disclose personal and confidential information regarding our employees. We think this is an important principle of privacy and respect for all of our employees.

We sincerely thank Nancy for her continued commitment to the CBC and most recently, while she was in the Daybreak host's chair. We look forward to continuing to work with her when she returns.

Thank you for listening to Daybreak

Pia Marquard
Managing Director, Québec

Nancy has clearly said to us via personal e-mails and comments to close friends that she is still trying to recover from this disrespectful behaviour, so Pia is only covering her ass and trying to use the smoke and mirrors technique to avoid blame for workplace bullying actions against Nancy that continued after her position was taken from her.


CBC’s lack of clarity and outraged listener response [abridged from Steve Faguy's site]: http://blog.fagstein.com/2010/03/10/nancy-wood-debate/

·         In its non-response to the many listeners who are supporting Nancy Wood the CBC brass is acting as though the CBC is a privately owned medium. Actually, I would define the CBC as private in effect, regardless of its public funding.

Shloime Perel

March 13, 2010 at 5:26 pm

Shloime: By LAW it's supposed to be the same with CBC. But that LAW has been IGNORED for decades! The Politico - & THEIR PALS - control everything. The interesting thing is, it's taken the Nancy Wood firing to have us Joe Public - take a deeper look into what the hell is REALLY going on with OUR Publicly Owned Broadcaster. And I tell you - at first I thought I'd found a 'can of worms'... turns out, it's a LANDFILL of worms. It's a tightly knit , 'You Can't Get In' 'Boys Club' & Gal friends... network: that's astonishing. Not to mention the incredible 'Salaries' they're paying themselves.


March 11, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Come on, the real reason Pia Marquard dropped Nancy, all during a quick and dirty change in management, was most probably because a combination of multiple reasons (which they think we do not see with their boilerplate official responses).
1) Jealous of this woman's beauty [okay, not so important here].
2) Jealous of her intelligence (because the daybreak people currently are not up to her level, sorry guys)
3) Unwanted gestures from management that are TOTALLY insensitive (faceless, unaccountable bureaucratic chumps, LYING TO US THAT SHE WAS INTERIM)
4) This is a classic vexatious behaviour and attack on people who push the bar.
I would file a complaint with the Working Standards Commission Nancy, with a combination of the above reasons filed with dates and timings of the events related to the law:
http://www.cnt.gouv.qc.ca/en/in-case-of/psychological-harassment-at-work/index.html (most relevant and important)

You are protected by the Labour Standards Act Nancy, even if you have a contract - when you are subject to subordination, fixed hours, and have to use CBC's equipment and not your own to do your job.

I was attacked for being too good a worker at the Caisse de Défauts (before their colossal train-wreck in fall of 2008) for many of the above reasons, so don't give up the fight Nancy (and our great readers here in support should prove that). Funny that when I reached out of the provincial coquille we live in, Microsoft gave me an MVP award and the best technical Database think-tank in Silicon Fen (Cambridge, UK) has published my articles in both FR and EN. Second article, on Change management,.coming up soon on simple-talk.com

CBC management are being clearly unprofessional with respect to Nancy Wood.
Pia, reinstate her in the morning, or I (and I hope WE, as I assume many here agree) shall formally request your resignation, this is disgusting, stop playing games with OUR MONEY.
We want Montreal's BEST in the morning, not the sloppy seconds.


    • disillusioned cbcer says:

March 11, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Are you for real?

Hugo Shebbeare says:

March 11, 2010 at 9:10 pm

DC - are you for real (?) or do you always write without actually revealing your name. Click on my link or Google me, if you want to see who I am.

Pia Marquard and Rob Renaud are violating the Labour Standards Act, from the information I have read in support of this great woman we know as Nancy Wood. If you were given a permanent job, then you have the right to stability and not unwanted stress of harassment about petty ratings, etc. CBC Managment has to right to make decisions, but they first must respect the Law, and it seems, from all I have read so far, they most certainly are not. En plus, c'est du mensonge, ce 'interim' jeux de bouc-emmisaire.


March 12, 2010 at 12:57 am

Let's not go crazy here. Wood isn't being fired, and her position as host of Daybreak was a contract that isn't being renewed. It's a dick move, but I don't think it was violating any law.


March 12, 2010 at 8:39 am

Don't be naïve, the Labour Standards Act exists for a reason. It’s up to her to use it as protection from the corporate dogs.

March 12, 2010 at 1:44 pm

Fagstein, Sorry I have to agree with Hugh. They are breaking labor laws. It cannot be denied that they've put Woods into an impossible position. She was fired from her current position, without warning or reason; She is Obviously very popular with the listeners. I mean, can you recall ANY Media personality - getting this type of support from Montrealers? I sure as hell can't.

And what kind of a nightmare - working environment do you think is ahead for her at CBC? Is she going to be - demoted - hidden away - have her life made as uncomfortable as possible (as if it could get more uncomfortable, sigh). You know how it goes. The environment they have placed her in right now - is a very clear violation.

March 14, 2010 at 1:16 pm

What's with the "hot blonde" and "jealous of Nancy's beauty" comments? (Except for the overly airbrushed CBC photos). Ms Wood is in her 40s, she has the wrinkles many of us middle-aged people have. She has a kind, pleasant face, but angular, not "conventionally beautiful". She looks fine - as if it matters one way or the other on radio - but is certainly not a Barbie-Doll type.

I certainly preferred her to the pompous René-Homier Roy on Radio-Canada, but now I find myself listening to the Radio-Canada morning show despite him, simply because the CBC one is currently such a mess.

I'm heartened you, Gazette staffers and Marie-Claire Lortie are raising this. I doubt CBC are breaking any labour laws: "la précarisation" is more an more the lot of many if not most of us in communications, publishing and related cultural industries. It will take a groundswell of public support for Ms Wood to be reinstated. The format problem's aren't her fault.


I am sorry Maria, Fagstien and to any others who do not understand what psychological harassment is in the workplace.
Nancy has suffered a great deal of unwanted anguish over this - Management have to wait for the end, or near end of the contract - and not in the middle of it, before pulling the rug out from underneath her feet - it's disgustingly vexatious and insensitive. I was told just past half way through my year long contact 'ton mandat à changé' whilst only a week later was replaced with a subservient cog doing the same tasks.
I think you should read the links I have provided to the details above and below.

And if you still don't understand how the govt enforces this law read my post : http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/hugo/archive/2010/02/15/first-public-hearing-against-quebec-s-pension-fund-manager-the-beginning-of-proof-multiple-laws-were-violated-before-sabia-took-over.aspx
While at the Caisse, every possible workplace bullying trick in the book was pulled, and in the end I even had racial comments to deal with...only a shrink brought me back from the brink of suicide. I think we all need to support Nancy because she is a human being with feelings, CBC Management give us the impression they think she's just a doormat. More than not cool, illegal according to the Working Standards Commission.


I do not understand why people are getting on Fagstein's case for doing what he always does.

I haven't listened to Daybreak with Finnerty or Wood as host very much, I think they both suck, but I'm totally intrigued and interested on why the move was made and the politics and ratings issues behind it. Keep up the good fight Fagstein!

I hope whatever they do with Daybreak, it involves blowing up that tired formula and starting from scratch. It's so frustrating that TEAM 990 is the best English morning radio option right now.


  • Caroline says:

March 12, 2010 at 11:04 am

Here's the response I received to my email:


First, we’d like to [Blah, Blah, Blah, same old message - meaning we don't care to answer any specific concerns...]

Thank you for listening to Daybreak.


Pia Marquard
Managing Director, Quebec


March 13, 2010 at 5:32 pm

Caroline: That's the same reply everyone got. I did get one other reply from Pia, yesterday.I posted it and my reply on http://www.bullbullet.com Note: Site is still rough, haven't had TIME to set it up the way I'd like. The 'can of worms' is keeping me very busy.

---- end of excerpts from Fagstein's blog

(Update end of April, 2010 - CBC Management ceded to Union Lawyers demands, and Nancy has returned to Television as the host of the English version of Enquête, look forward to seeing her again soon)


Posted by asand on 1 April 2010

Hugo, keep saving the world, one person at a time; I love it!

Posted by Hugo Shebbeare on 22 April 2010

Another example of how English Speaking Immigration to the province is being choked off, as if we are a pest to this insular government. This is not just happening in the workplace, but our community's schools are being starved out of the province.

I am posting the entire article, since often these articles end up vanishing from the Montreal Gazette's Website:


Can Quebec show some imagination on school language?


"Fair play for the children of rich parents who weren't educated in English in Canada!" As a rallying cry, it's not exactly "We shall fight on the beaches ..." is it? But the Bill 104 debate is becoming more important for the anglophone and allophone community than the Quebec government seems to recognize.

Jean Charest and his caucus appear to be preparing a new restriction on language choice in schooling. But the Liberals should think twice before they offer this knee-jerk kick to communities that have supported them strongly.

At issue is Quebec's response to October's Supreme Court ruling striking down the 2002 law Bill 104, which closed a so-called "loophole" in Bill 101's restrictions on access to English schooling. Before Bill 104, a family otherwise barred from English schools could become eligible by sending the oldest child (usually) to a fully-private English school for one year. Receiving no government funding, those schools are expensive but exempt from Bill 101's rules. Bill 104 bricked up that loophole, until the Supreme Court deemed 104 unreasonable. The case, involving allophone, francophone, and anglophone families, was fought and won by the tenacious and resourceful lawyer Brent Tyler.

Charest, evidently determined never to be outflanked on language, instantly vowed to undo the Court's work. Ministers brandishing the notwithstanding clause emitted billowing choking clouds of rhetoric about "defending French."

One particularly unreasonable claim they're using is that before Bill 104, rich people could "buy the right" to English school. What circular illogic: If English schooling is a right, why does government restrict it? If it's not a right, why shouldn't rich people buy it, like a big-screen TV? And if "buying rights" is so wrong, why do we tolerate private clinics where you can "buy the right" to avoid a long wait for a medicare-paid blood test?

Nor does anyone in government seem to understand that today's "English" schools, public and private, teach more and better French than ever before - and have lower dropout rates. Success is no defence.

The Supreme Court gave Quebec a year to fix Bill 104. A bill will likely be introduced in the National Assembly next month, and passed before the summer recess. This tight timetable will minimize resistance - provided all parties back the bill. That tells us what the bill will be like.

It's all so cheerlessly predictable. Francophone Quebec is in no mood for accommodations right now, even reasonable ones.

But anglophones, too, feel like they are up against a wall these days, and with good reason. The new anglo angst is personified by Marcus Tabachnick, longtime chairman of the Lester B. Pearson School Board, always adept at working "within the system," rather than making a fuss. When he chooses to go public, you know there's a real problem.

Naturally enough, his concern begins with schools. Montreal's two English boards now have about 46,000 students, down by 8,000 in just five years. Government figures project a decline to under 38,000 by 2017. His board and the English Montreal School Board are trying to mobilize anglophone opinion over Bill 104, not on the narrow basis that rich parents should have choice, but on the basis that the whole English community needs "oxygen."

But the real problem, Tabachnick told The Gazette's editorial board Tuesday, is "more than just schools." As the English education system dwindles, what happens to the whole anglophone community? "There comes a point when you feel you have to say something."

What we heard was a genuine expression of concern, right from the heart of a sophisticated and experienced observer. "They've got to treat (anglophones) like citizens," Tabachnick said. But instead "they tolerate us. I don't like to be tolerated."

As usual, the anglophone community's fate in this matter is in the hands of the Liberals. Is it inevitable that access will be tightened? Probably. But how much? The group that speaks for private schools wants the "one year in fully-private school" trigger for access raised to two years. Others suggest four, or even six.

But what if the government summoned the imagination to show, at the same time, some concern for Quebec's historic anglophone community, too? What if the same bill offered a breath of "oxygen" to English schools? Tabachnick suggests, for example, opening access to English schools for immigrants from the United States, Britain, and Australia. Every week, he said, his officials must tell would-be immigrants from those countries that their children would not be eligible for English schools. This alone, he said, has choked off immigration to Quebec from those countries.

If they choose to, the Liberal government can now avoid dealing another body blow to anglophones and allophones. Anglophones understand all too well that francophone narrowness of spirit threatens to choke our community, slowly but inexorably. There's a payoff in the polls for "defending French" but the truly right thing to do would be to defend the broader interest of all Quebecers.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Read more: www.montrealgazette.com/.../story.html

Posted by Hugo Shebbeare on 19 November 2010

Another note on how xenophobic the workplace is in QC.  

WE need more doctors, and there are tons of them just sitting idle in QC who are immigrants.  The door is shut to them, thank God the QC Human Rights Commission has exposed this. I applaud their work:

Foreign-trained doctors get a taste of justice


The Quebec Human Rights Commission has earned its pay with this week's report on why foreign-trained doctors find it so difficult to practise here, while over 2 million Quebecers lack access to a family doctor. The response from the province's medical schools on the other hand is cause for alarm -and firm action.

The commission undertook, on its own initiative, a three-year examination of the question. Quebec is short 1,100 family doctors, although hundreds of foreign doctors are here, unable to practise.

Before a foreign-trained doctor can apply for a residency in a Quebec hospital -the last step in the process of being licensed to practise here -he or she must pass an "equivalency exam" given by the Quebec College of Physicians. Only those who pass the exam are eligible to apply for residency. That's a sensible system. Quebecers do need protection from so-called doctors whose training elsewhere might be below Canadian standards.

But this vigilance alone can't explain why the province's four faculties of medicine left residency positions vacant rather than allocate them to foreign-trained doctors. In 2007, the year the commission examined, every single graduate from Quebec's medical school was offered a residency. But only a third of foreign-trained, QCP-certified doctors were accepted. So 85 residency positions were left empty while 174 foreign-trained, Quebeccertified doctors were left to wonder why they had bothered immigrating.

The commission found that medical faculties had used unverified criteria in making these decisions, and said prejudice and subjectivity could, and did, play a role.

Shamelessly, the medical schools resisted the findings this week, saying that even foreign-trained doctors who passed the QCP test are sometimes deemed unlikely to succeed, in part because they don't know the Quebec medical system. How's that for a Catch-22? And how's that for pre-judging: These foreigners aren't likely to succeed here because they're foreigners. There's an ugly name for that kind of thinking.

The commission has set out sensible remedies. It has ordered the Health Department to insist that medical faculties fill residency positions; that the college of physicians ensure the universities recognize foreign-trained doctors' degree equivalency; and that medical faculties set up objective ways of evaluating residency applications. We hope the ministry will cooperate vigorously.

Bias can be difficult to detect and eradicate. And in some high-profile cases, human rights commissions across Canada have detected bias where almost nobody else could see any, which has brought the whole role of such commissions into some disrepute.

But this case is not one of those. To the Quebec Commission's credit it set out in a methodical way to identify unreasonable barriers, and is now trying to dismantle them.

The onus is now on medical schools to change their ways. The schools must remember, or the government must remind them, that they are funded to work for the good of all Quebecers, and not just the medical elite. More than 2 million Quebecers are depending on progress in this.

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Read more: www.montrealgazette.com/.../story.html

Posted by Hugo Shebbeare on 1 December 2010

Rather interesting note on how political Blogger Eric Duhaime comes the same conclusion about this Public organisation not respecting the rule of law:


They think they can simply do what they want?!

I harassed them a whole bunch, and am very glad to have done so - Marquard and the clan running that place are not above the law, and one day they'll get what they deserve.

Posted by Hugo Shebbeare on 28 May 2012

Updated link to the last comment regarding the CBC thinking it does not answer the public, thus acting like a Private Organsiation:  blogues.journaldequebec.com/.../la-caisse-occulte-de-radio-canada

Marquard has left her top job after two years, by the way, so I guess she caved under pressure despite claiming health reasons.

Posted by Hugo Shebbeare on 28 May 2012

Updated link to the last comment regarding the CBC thinking it does not answer the public, thus acting like a Private Organsiation:  blogues.journaldequebec.com/.../la-caisse-occulte-de-radio-canada

Marquard has left her top job after two years, by the way, so I guess she caved under pressure despite claiming health reasons.

Posted by Hugo Shebbeare on 28 May 2012

Updated link to the last comment regarding the CBC thinking it does not answer the public, thus acting like a Private Organsiation:  blogues.journaldequebec.com/.../la-caisse-occulte-de-radio-canada

Marquard has left her top job after two years, by the way, so I guess she caved under pressure despite claiming health reasons.

Posted by Hugo Shebbeare on 28 May 2012

Updated link to the last comment regarding the CBC thinking it does not answer the public, thus acting like a Private Organsiation:  blogues.journaldequebec.com/.../la-caisse-occulte-de-radio-canada

Marquard has left her top job after two years, by the way, so I guess she caved under pressure despite claiming health reasons.

Leave a Comment

Please register or log in to leave a comment.