Kory Teneycke conflict of interest - maybe?

kimmy · June 15, 2010

Rex Murphy.

He has never had a tv show. His editorial comments might seem like a TV show, because time passes slowly when you're listening to some withered old fruit reminisce about the time his Studebaker broke down on the way to the Stanfield rally in Kenora.

IS there such thing as a right wing documentary? I've never really heard of any. If you can name some I'd be impressed.

I'm hardly an authority on documentaries, but in the other thread I've been mentioning "Undercover Mosque" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as examples of documentaries I highly doubt I'll ever see on CBC Newsworld.

Furthermore, what makes a documentary left wing? A global-warming documentary? Who Killed the Electric Car? I don't think the percieved political slant of the topic is as important as whether the info portrayed in the documentary is accurate. I've never had that problem with any documentary I've seen on the CBC.

We've been discussing documentaries from Moore and Gore, which present information in such a way as to persuade the viewer of the author's own biases. As we're talking about biases which for the most part correspond with "left wing" causes (corporations bad, guns bad, socialized healthcare good, oil bad, cars bad, industrial growth bad, labor solidarity good, Dubya bad, Muslims friendly, etc) I think the phrase "left wing documentary" is close enough that everybody knows what I'm talking about.

-k

nicky10013 · June 15, 2010

He has never had a tv show. His editorial comments might seem like a TV show, because time passes slowly when you're listening to some withered old fruit reminisce about the time his Studebaker broke down on the way to the Stanfield rally in Kenora.

I'm hardly an authority on documentaries, but in the other thread I've been mentioning "Undercover Mosque" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" as examples of documentaries I highly doubt I'll ever see on CBC Newsworld.

We've been discussing documentaries from Moore and Gore, which present information in such a way as to persuade the viewer of the author's own biases. As we're talking about biases which for the most part correspond with "left wing" causes (corporations bad, guns bad, socialized healthcare good, oil bad, cars bad, industrial growth bad, labor solidarity good, Dubya bad, Muslims friendly, etc) I think the phrase "left wing documentary" is close enough that everybody knows what I'm talking about.

-k

I've never seen Micahel Moore on the CBC. What info is so wrong in Gore's? It's all cited scientific data which really isn't in doubt as some would like us to believe (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689). As for those other examples which you stated, pony up and tell me some titles of right wing documentaries that are truthful and deserve to be aired. That's what I was asking for to begin with. Furthermore as I mentioned before, as long as the information in the documentary on any of those subjects are accurate, what the hell is the problem? I posted above an article which describes the situation with news networks and the same thing applies for documentaries. If we only look for news and information which correspond to our particular bias, what are we ever going to learn? We're only going to reinforce our own perspectives on things and our society is going to become more polarized.

msdogfood · June 15, 2010

Kory would fall under

Rules for Former Reporting Public Office Holders

Prohibition on contracting

35. (1) No former reporting public office holder shall enter into a contract of service with, accept an appointment to a board of directors of, or accept an offer of employment with, an entity with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on representations

(2) No former reporting public office holder shall make representations whether for remuneration or not, for or on behalf of any other person or entity to any department, organization, board, commission or tribunal with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on former ministers

(3) No former reporting public office holder who was a minister of the Crown or minister of state shall make representations to a current minister of the Crown or minister of state who was a minister of the Crown or a minister of state at the same time as the former reporting public office holder.

Time limits: former reporting public office holder

36. (1) With respect to all former reporting public office holders except former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) and (2) apply for the period of one year following the former reporting public office holder's last day in office.

Time limits: former ministers

(2) With respect to former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) to (3) apply for a period of two years following their last day in office.

Report to Commissioner

37. (1) A former reporting public office holder who, during the applicable period under section 36, has any communication referred to in paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Lobbyists Registration Act or arranges a meeting referred to in paragraph 5(1)( of that Act shall report that communication or meeting to the Commissioner.

Requirement to file return

(2) The former reporting public office holder shall file a return that

(a) sets out, with respect to every communication or meeting referred to in subsection (1),

(i) the name of the public office holder who was the object of the communication or meeting,

(ii) the date of the communication or meeting,

(iii) particulars to identify the subject-matter of the communication or meeting, and

(iv) any other information that the Commissioner requires; and

( if any information contained in the return is no longer correct or additional information that the former reporting public office holder would have been required to provide in the return has come to his or her knowledge after the return was filed, provides the corrected or additional information.

Exemption

38. (1) A minister of the Crown or a minister of state may exempt from the application of section 35 or 37 a former reporting public office holder who, while in office, was a member of ministerial staff who worked on average 15 hours or more a week and reported to that minister.

Criteria

(2) An exemption may only be granted under subsection (1) in respect of a person based on the following criteria:

(a) the person was not a senior member of the minister's staff;

( the person's functions did not include the handling of files of a political or sensitive nature, such as confidential cabinet documents;

© the person had little influence, visibility or decision-making power in the minister's office; and

(d) the person's salary level was not commensurate with the person having an important role in that office.

Decision final

(3) Every decision to grant an exemption under subsection (1) is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.1(4)(a), ( or (e) of that Act.

Thank you for the post!!

It looks like he has violated the Federal Accountability Act of 2006 than!!.

kimmy · June 15, 2010

I've never seen Micahel Moore on the CBC.

CBC NW has aired both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11.

What info is so wrong in Gore's? It's all cited scientific data which really isn't in doubt as some would like us to believe (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689).

There's plenty of threads on global warming already; I won't bother. However, the use of emotionally charged imagery (such as footage from Hurricane Katrina) is an example of the kind of slant I'm referring to.

As for those other examples which you stated, pony up and tell me some titles of right wing documentaries that are truthful and deserve to be aired.

Are you saying that "Undercover Mosque" does not deserve to be seen? Why?

That's what I was asking for to begin with. Furthermore as I mentioned before, as long as the information in the documentary on any of those subjects are accurate, what the hell is the problem?

The accuracy and balance of some of these films is highly debatable, and the range of topics presented seems rather selective as well. If some channel showed an entirely accurate documentary every week, but the subject of each and every one of them was police brutality, would you say that this network was providing a balanced perspective?

I posted above an article which describes the situation with news networks and the same thing applies for documentaries. If we only look for news and information which correspond to our particular bias, what are we ever going to learn? We're only going to reinforce our own perspectives on things and our society is going to become more polarized.

So why doesn't CBC NW show a wider range of opinion, then?

-k

kimmy · June 15, 2010

Thank you for the post!!

It looks like he has violated the Federal Accountability Act of 2006 than!!.

Where in any of that does it say he can't work for a company that's applying for a broadcasting license, Matlock?

Hey, call the RCMP if you think you've found something. :lol:

-k

Keepitsimple · June 15, 2010

What info is so wrong in Gore's? It's all cited scientific data which really isn't in doubt as some would like us to believe (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689).

As Kimmy said, there are plenty of threads on Global Warming but just to answer your question about what's wrong with Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth".....and why not show a counterpoint such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle"....surely you've seen the British Court's verdict on the accuracy of Gore's film, as reported by ABC News.....and they were likely only scratching the surface:

An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore
British Court Ruling on Errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' Resurrects Global Warming Debate

The verdict couldn't have come at a less convenient time for Al Gore.

One day before Friday's announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth," while "broadly accurate," contained nine significant errors.

The ruling came on a challenge from a UK school official who did not want to show the film to students. High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is "substantially founded upon scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

Burton found that screening the film in British secondary schools violated laws barring the promotion of partisan political views in the classroom. But he allowed the film to be shown on the condition that it is accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views, saying that the film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change.

The Alleged Errors Highlighted by High Court Judge Michael Burton:
1.) The sea level will rise up to 20 feet because of the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. (This "Armageddon scenario" would only take place over thousands of years, the judge wrote.)

2.) Some low-lying Pacific islands have been so inundated with water that their citizens have all had to evacuate to New Zealand. ("There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.")

3.) Global warming will shut down the "ocean conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream moves across the North Atlantic to Western Europe . (According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor will shut down in the future…")

4.) There is a direct coincidence between the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise in temperature over the last 650,000 years. ("Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr. Gore asserts.")

5.) The disappearance of the snows on Mount Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. ("However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mount. Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.")

6.) The drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. ("It is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution" and may be more likely the effect of population increase, overgrazing and regional climate variability.)

7.) Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is because of global warming. ("It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.")

8.) Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim long distances to find ice. ("The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one, which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.")

9.) Coral reefs all over the world are bleaching because of global warming and other factors. ("Separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as overfishing and pollution, was difficult.")

Link: http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1

Edited June 15, 2010 by Keepitsimple

Oleg Bach · June 15, 2010

This past week, a license application was filed with the CRTC to create a right wing news channel. The key person for the new channel's business development is Kory Teneycke. As he was the former communications director for Stephen Harper, would he not be covered under the Accountability Act of 2006? If he was, would he not be covered under the lobbying ban which lasts for 5 years after leaving your position in the Federal government as he did in 2008 or 2009? To be fair, we have no idea who filed the CRTC application. Even if his name was not on the application, the position that he currently holds as Vice-President of business development at Quebecor, may necessitate his need to make contact with the CRTC. In this particular case, would it not be considered lobbying as he would want the CRTC to grant him a certain type of license, therefore he would be in active negotiations trying to pitch his business plan to get the license. Wouldn't this force him to inadvertently violate the Accountability Act thus making him vulnerable to criminal charges under that Act?

I would really appreciate some feedback on this because one can go easily cross-eyed looking at the Act as well as going through the updated rules on lobbying and public office holders definitions in Parliamentary rules manuals.

Thanks

HEY this is not high school - the big dogs do as they please.

nicky10013 · June 15, 2010

CBC NW has aired both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11.

Fair enough.

There's plenty of threads on global warming already; I won't bother. However, the use of emotionally charged imagery (such as footage from Hurricane Katrina) is an example of the kind of slant I'm referring to.

Fine, but an erratic climate is what people warn of. It's been said that more powerful storms and hurricanes could result. Should the documentary not show it because it upsets your delicate conservative sensibilities? This goes straight back to the fact that we can't be upset by the truth just because it wasn't what we originally made it out to be which is what this news channel will accomplish. People will only hear and see what we want to hear and we'll be all the more stupid for it.

Are you saying that "Undercover Mosque" does not deserve to be seen? Why?

I can't comment on it because I haven't seen it. However, from reading the synopsis I don' think it should be. The goal it seems to me was to uncover radicalism yet, reading the response to the movie in the UK, it only created a backlash which would only serve to further the cause of the radicalism in the movie. It also paints with a pretty broad stroke. Jesus Camp was another one I didn't really agree with. Yeah there are some crazies (which are just as capable of terrorism) in the religious right but, like in Islam, 99% of the faithful are peaceful. Stereotyping only makes the situation worse.

The accuracy and balance of some of these films is highly debatable, and the range of topics presented seems rather selective as well. If some channel showed an entirely accurate documentary every week, but the subject of each and every one of them was police brutality, would you say that this network was providing a balanced perspective?

Yep, because whether we like it or not, things like police brutality exists.

So why doesn't CBC NW show a wider range of opinion, then?

-k

I think it does. Even then, I think the CBC should call the right on this issue and show a bunch of "right wing" documentaries. If they all carry the same wonderful title as "the great global warming swindle" it'll show how reactionary, out of ideas and out of touch the right wing is these days. It'll also prove that if there is indeed a media liberal bias, well, maybe it's because reality has a liberal bias.

Edited June 15, 2010 by nicky10013

msdogfood · June 16, 2010

Where in any of that does it say he can't work for a company that's applying for a broadcasting license, Matlock?

Hey, call the RCMP if you think you've found something.

-k

Kory Teneycke

is vice president of Development of Quebecor Media NOW

he was former a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he is covered under accountability act of 2006!

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/media/nr-cp/2006/1212-eng.asp

president of Development of Quebecor He may need to contact the CRTC will it is reviewing The broadcasting license in doing so he may have violated the Federal Accountability Act . because he was the spokesman for Prime Minister .

now he is trying to start an all news network using his contacts within the government of Canada that is illegal!.

here is why!! look at it!!.

Toughen the Lobbyist Registration Act

■A five-year ban on lobbying for ministers, ministerial staffers and senior public servants.

■A ban on the payment and receipt of success or contingency fees.

■Requirements that contacts with designated public-office holders be recorded.

■A new, independent Commissioner of Lobbying with a strong mandate to investigate violations under the new Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct

& this!

Kory would fall under

Rules for Former Reporting Public Office Holders

Prohibition on contracting

35. (1) No former reporting public office holder shall enter into a contract of service with, accept an appointment to a board of directors of, or accept an offer of employment with, an entity with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on representations

(2) No former reporting public office holder shall make representations whether for remuneration or not, for or on behalf of any other person or entity to any department, organization, board, commission or tribunal with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on former ministers

(3) No former reporting public office holder who was a minister of the Crown or minister of state shall make representations to a current minister of the Crown or minister of state who was a minister of the Crown or a minister of state at the same time as the former reporting public office holder.

Time limits: former reporting public office holder

36. (1) With respect to all former reporting public office holders except former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) and (2) apply for the period of one year following the former reporting public office holder's last day in office.

Time limits: former ministers

(2) With respect to former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) to (3) apply for a period of two years following their last day in office.

Report to Commissioner

37. (1) A former reporting public office holder who, during the applicable period under section 36, has any communication referred to in paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Lobbyists Registration Act or arranges a meeting referred to in paragraph 5(1)( of that Act shall report that communication or meeting to the Commissioner.

Requirement to file return

(2) The former reporting public office holder shall file a return that

(a) sets out, with respect to every communication or meeting referred to in subsection (1),

(i) the name of the public office holder who was the object of the communication or meeting,

(ii) the date of the communication or meeting,

(iii) particulars to identify the subject-matter of the communication or meeting, and

(iv) any other information that the Commissioner requires; and

( if any information contained in the return is no longer correct or additional information that the former reporting public office holder would have been required to provide in the return has come to his or her knowledge after the return was filed, provides the corrected or additional information.

Exemption

38. (1) A minister of the Crown or a minister of state may exempt from the application of section 35 or 37 a former reporting public office holder who, while in office, was a member of ministerial staff who worked on average 15 hours or more a week and reported to that minister.

Criteria

(2) An exemption may only be granted under subsection (1) in respect of a person based on the following criteria:

(a) the person was not a senior member of the minister's staff;

( the person's functions did not include the handling of files of a political or sensitive nature, such as confidential cabinet documents;

(d) the person's salary level was not commensurate with the person having an important role in that office.

Decision final

(3) Every decision to grant an exemption under subsection (1) is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.1(4)(a), ( or (e) of that Act.

msdogfood · June 16, 2010

HEY this is not high school - the big dogs do as they please.

Look at this!!!

Where in any of that does it say he can't work for a company that's applying for a broadcasting license, Matlock?

Hey, call the RCMP if you think you've found something.

-k

Kory Teneycke

is vice president of Development of Quebecor Media NOW

he was former a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he is covered under accountability act of 2006!

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/media/nr-cp/2006/1212-eng.asp

president of Development of Quebecor He may need to contact the CRTC will it is reviewing The broadcasting license in doing so he may have violated the Federal Accountability Act . because he was the spokesman for Prime Minister .

now he is trying to start an all news network using his contacts within the government of Canada that is illegal!.

here is why!! look at it!!.

Toughen the Lobbyist Registration Act

■A five-year ban on lobbying for ministers, ministerial staffers and senior public servants.

■A ban on the payment and receipt of success or contingency fees.

■Requirements that contacts with designated public-office holders be recorded.

■A new, independent Commissioner of Lobbying with a strong mandate to investigate violations under the new Lobbying Act and Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct

& this!

Kory would fall under

Rules for Former Reporting Public Office Holders

Prohibition on contracting

35. (1) No former reporting public office holder shall enter into a contract of service with, accept an appointment to a board of directors of, or accept an offer of employment with, an entity with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on representations

(2) No former reporting public office holder shall make representations whether for remuneration or not, for or on behalf of any other person or entity to any department, organization, board, commission or tribunal with which he or she had direct and significant official dealings during the period of one year immediately before his or her last day in office.

Prohibition on former ministers

(3) No former reporting public office holder who was a minister of the Crown or minister of state shall make representations to a current minister of the Crown or minister of state who was a minister of the Crown or a minister of state at the same time as the former reporting public office holder.

Time limits: former reporting public office holder

36. (1) With respect to all former reporting public office holders except former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) and (2) apply for the period of one year following the former reporting public office holder's last day in office.

Time limits: former ministers

(2) With respect to former ministers of the Crown and former ministers of state, the prohibitions set out in subsections 35(1) to (3) apply for a period of two years following their last day in office.

Report to Commissioner

37. (1) A former reporting public office holder who, during the applicable period under section 36, has any communication referred to in paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Lobbyists Registration Act or arranges a meeting referred to in paragraph 5(1)( of that Act shall report that communication or meeting to the Commissioner.

Requirement to file return

(2) The former reporting public office holder shall file a return that

(a) sets out, with respect to every communication or meeting referred to in subsection (1),

(i) the name of the public office holder who was the object of the communication or meeting,

(ii) the date of the communication or meeting,

(iii) particulars to identify the subject-matter of the communication or meeting, and

(iv) any other information that the Commissioner requires; and

( if any information contained in the return is no longer correct or additional information that the former reporting public office holder would have been required to provide in the return has come to his or her knowledge after the return was filed, provides the corrected or additional information.

Exemption

38. (1) A minister of the Crown or a minister of state may exempt from the application of section 35 or 37 a former reporting public office holder who, while in office, was a member of ministerial staff who worked on average 15 hours or more a week and reported to that minister.

Criteria

(2) An exemption may only be granted under subsection (1) in respect of a person based on the following criteria:

(a) the person was not a senior member of the minister's staff;

( the person's functions did not include the handling of files of a political or sensitive nature, such as confidential cabinet documents;

(d) the person's salary level was not commensurate with the person having an important role in that office.

Decision final

(3) Every decision to grant an exemption under subsection (1) is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with the Federal Courts Act on the grounds referred to in paragraph 18.1(4)(a), ( or (e) of that Act.

kimmy · June 16, 2010

As I said, I don't think applying for a broadcasting license counts as lobbying.

But if you think otherwise, contact the RCMP and your MP and write to the CBC and tell them what you've discovered. Let us know what happens. :lol:

-k

kimmy · June 16, 2010

Fine, but an erratic climate is what people warn of. It's been said that more powerful storms and hurricanes could result. Should the documentary not show it because it upsets your delicate conservative sensibilities?

The use of Katrina footage is an appeal to emotion, not logic.

This goes straight back to the fact that we can't be upset by the truth just because it wasn't what we originally made it out to be which is what this news channel will accomplish. People will only hear and see what we want to hear and we'll be all the more stupid for it.

Hear hear! Bring on the truth! Let us give fair hearing to all ideas, no matter how challenging or upsetting they might be! Unless...

I can't comment on it because I haven't seen it. However, from reading the synopsis I don' think it should be. The goal it seems to me was to uncover radicalism yet, reading the response to the movie in the UK, it only created a backlash which would only serve to further the cause of the radicalism in the movie. It also paints with a pretty broad stroke. Jesus Camp was another one I didn't really agree with. Yeah there are some crazies (which are just as capable of terrorism) in the religious right but, like in Islam, 99% of the faithful are peaceful. Stereotyping only makes the situation worse.

...unless they're upsetting to you.

Earlier you asked" "as long as the information in the documentary on any of those subjects are accurate, what the hell is the problem?"

...but now your view is "but there might be negative effects if people had that information, whether it's accurate or not."

Clearly you're in favor of people having access to information that supports views you approve of, and opposed to people having access to information that supports views you disagree with.

Yep, because whether we like it or not, things like police brutality exists.

Radical Imams exist too, but you don't want that documentary on TV because people might form stereotypes.

I think it does. Even then, I think the CBC should call the right on this issue and show a bunch of "right wing" documentaries. If they all carry the same wonderful title as "the great global warming swindle" it'll show how reactionary, out of ideas and out of touch the right wing is these days. It'll also prove that if there is indeed a media liberal bias, well, maybe it's because reality has a liberal bias.

That's what I keep saying.

-k

msdogfood · June 16, 2010

As I said, I don't think applying for a broadcasting license counts as lobbying.

But if you think otherwise, contact the RCMP and your MP and write to the CBC and tell them what you've discovered. Let us know what happens.

-k

If you want start an all news network you have to convince the CRTC to grant you the license he has to sell the baseness plan like a product AKA lobbying.

Edited June 16, 2010 by msdogfood

msdogfood · June 17, 2010

Definitions of Lobbying on the Web:

Lobbying (also Lobby) is a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by legislators and officials in the government by individuals, other legislators, constituents, or Advocacy groups. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying

lobbyist - someone who is employed to persuade legislators to vote for legislation that favors the lobbyist's employer

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

The Lobbyist is an album by Diesel. It features 12 tracks: four live, five acoustic, and three studio recordings. The album was released in 1993.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lobbyist

Lobbyist (previously titled Angel) is a TV drama series produced by Korea Pictures International, Inc. for South Korea's biggest TV network SBS. Lobbyist is a major TV production having the largest budget of any previous Korean series. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist_(TV_series)

lobbyist - A person who for remuneration reattempts to persuade (to lobby) politicians to vote in a certain way

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobbyist

Using personal contacts, public pressure, or political action to persuade legislators to vote in a particular manner.

highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0070294267/student_view0/glossary_e-l.html

Communication with elected officials or their staff, which expresses a position on a pending piece of legislation.

www.gardenclub.org/resources/Legislation/Glossary.aspx

Campaigning with the hope to influence a vote.

www.bl.uk/learning/histcitizen/campaignforabolition/abolitionbackground/gloss/abolitionglossary.html

Lobbying activities are considered to be any oral, written or electronic communication with executive or legislative officials with regard to legislation, federal rule, regulation, policy, federal programs (eg contracts, grants, loans, etc.). ...

www.siue.edu/graduate/externalgrants/terms.shtml

Efforts to influence legislation by influencing the opinion of legislators, legislative staff and government administrators directly involved in drafting legislative proposals. The Internal Revenue Code sets limits on lobbying by organizations that are exempt from tax under Section 501©(3). ...

www.yellowspringscommunityfoundation.org/glossary.html

lobbyist - There are three types of lobbyist. See § 140-1, § 140-11, § 140-20, and § 140-27 in the Lobbying By-law.

www.toronto.ca/lobbying/glossary.htm

lobbyists - People who are paid to represent various interest groups before the legislature.

www.legis.state.wi.us/glossary.htm

lobbyist - A person, usually acting as an agent for an organized group, who seeks to bring about the passage or defeat of legislative bills or to influence their content.

leg.mt.gov/css/About-the-Legislature/glossary.asp

lobbyist - An individual who seeks to influence the outcome of legislation or administrative decisions. The law requires formal registration as a lobbyist if an individual's lobbying activity exceeds 25 contacts with decision makers in a two-month period.

www.leginfo.ca.gov/glossary.html

lobbyist - A person who, voluntarily or for a fee, represents himself or herself, an individual, organization or entity before the legislature. ...

www.leg.state.fl.us/kids/glossary/

kimmy · June 17, 2010

All your definitions specify "legislators". This decision is made by the CRTC, not by legislators.

This high-profile guy is engaged in this high-profile venture that the Liberals and NDP and rival media outlets are all aware of, and somehow the only two people in the country who recognize this startling breach of the rules are "Topaz" and "Ms. Dogfood"? Come on.

If there was anything to this, people way more informed than yourselves (no offense) would be all over it.

-k

scribblet · June 17, 2010

So far I haven't seen the Star opining that it is a conflict of interest, so it must not be. -

Oleg Bach · June 17, 2010

Some buy communication satallites as a hobby - creating their own new broad cast system to spew off their philosphy is just fine - even the rich and powerful are entitled to free speech..and there is no conflict - we are all in a conflict of interest.

DrGreenthumb · June 17, 2010

I'm not sure if he's in a conflict of interest but I am sure he is a douchebag.

bloodyminded · June 17, 2010

Like I said elsewhere, bring it on. If enough people like it, then...well, that speaks for itself. If it fails, that speaks for itself too.

The worst case scenario is that intelligent people will have something new to mock, if that pleases them.

M.Dancer · June 17, 2010

Applying for a CRTC broadcasting license probably does not qualify as lobbying.

-k

My thoughts exactly. My company is currently in the middle of a CRTC license application. Aside from copious amounts of lawyers filing and refiling...there is no lobbying to be done as licenses are not granted by the government, they are granted by the CRTC.

M.Dancer · June 17, 2010

He has a problem

five-year lobbying ban on former ministers, their aides, and senior public servants

His post at the at the PMO was director of communications.

His new job at Quebecor is a VP of business development.

How did he miss this???.

How did you miss Kimmy's post?

M.Dancer · June 17, 2010

There's a reason that the G & M does so much better than NP.

That's not the reason but that's another thread..

M.Dancer · June 17, 2010

Can someone answer this for me??

So is Kory covered under the Accountability Act As former PMO staff OR NOT

Thanks.

its all i wanted to know?

Thanks!

Yes he is...and he is still alllowed to put in a gazebo in his back yard....or apply for a CRTC license...maybe you just don't get it....applying for a broadcast license from the CRTC involves no government lobbying.

M.Dancer · June 17, 2010

.

now he is trying to start an all news network using his contacts within the government of Canada

Incorrect

About the CRTC The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is an independent public organization that regulates and supervises the Canadian broadcasting and telecommunications systems.

That's all folks....

M.Dancer · June 17, 2010

If you want start an all news network you have to convince the CRTC to grant you the license he has to sell the baseness plan like a product AKA lobbying.

Okay you convinced me...you don't know what you are talking about. Yes you have to sell the business plan..TO THE CRTC!!!

The CRTC is independant of the government...INDEPENDANT!