Article content continued

This is nonsense. No sensitive identities need be compromised as long as pseudonyms are used (“Jane Doe”, “Complainants X, Y and Z”) and identifying details omitted. That the investigation’s scope is narrowed to only the two shows hosted by Ghomeshi and not systematic problems across the organization can only heighten suspicions about a corporate whitewash. The CBC is a public institution; the public has an interest in how it is being managed.

But if the CBC is going to proceed with investigating itself, it should at least make it appear unbiased and transparent. It has done neither. As National Post columnist Robyn Urback pointed out, the CBC appointed an investigator who has actually worked previously with the broadcaster, including at least one live web chat.

As Urback put it, “There’s no shortage of competent, experienced lawyers in Canada, who also happen to have no connection — past or present — to the CBC. Those people should be first in line to oversee the Ghomeshi investigation, not someone from the CBC’s own rolodex.”

I cannot personally attest, one way or the other, to Janice Rubin’s skill as an investigator — she certainly has experience in that area, as her firm’s practice has changed over the years from focusing on dismissal law into more workplace investigations. Still, CBC should have made an appointment that did not so readily invite the perception of being closer to one side than the other. I am not suggesting that would be a fair impression here, but the mere perception of bias is critical. I make no specific comment on the investigator in this instance, but generally, people don’t bite the hand that feeds them.