Those people sure are, er, economical in their descriptions of these people.  A letter in the National Post:

Look closer at F-35 critics

Re: F-35 purchase coverage.
When the F-35 fighter decision was  recently announced, some news outlets led readers to believe that three  critics of the purchase are defence experts and independent of one another, giving no hint that all belong to the same basically anti-military  organization.

Canadian Press, for instance, said Steven Staples is with  “the Rideau Institute, a defence think tank.” (Globe and Mail July 16, 2010.)  The Rideau Institute is not a defence think tank. It’s a left-wing peace and  social policy think tank that routinely criticizes Canada’s military spending  and seems to favour a peacekeeping, search and rescue model.

Then  Globe and Mail reporters called F-35 critic Michael Wallace “a University of  British Columbia defence and international relations professor.” (Globe and  Mail, July 17, 2010.) Actually he is professor emeritus in the UBC political  science department, which means he’s retired but retains his title as an  honour. More to the point, Michael Wallace is on the board of the Rideau  Institute, which the reporters don’t note.

Finally, the Toronto Star  published a column by Michael Byers – a jack of all trades when it comes to  commentary, and a defeated NDP candidate. Like Steven Staples, Byers doesn’t  like the F-35 purchase. Like Staples, he suggests the money instead be spent  on search and rescue aircraft. And like Staples, he’s with the Rideau  Institute – although you wouldn’t know it by reading the Toronto Star, which  lists only his UBC affiliation.

Don’t get me wrong. The public should hear  a full range of opinions about matters like the F-35 purchase, from both hawks  and doves. But let’s tell readers who’s a hawk and who’s a dove. Otherwise,  they might mistakenly think defence experts are against this major defence  purchase – when in fact it’s peace activists who are being quoted.

The Honourable  Pamela D. Wallin, OC, SOM
Senator, Saskatchewan [Conservative - MC].

Earlier from me, along similar lines:

Canadian F-35s, Michael Byers and me

…Prof. Byers (a firm NDPer, though almost never identified as such in our major media, check the end of the Star piece) would, I think, really prefer that the CF not be well-equipped at all–at least for combat roles. In which case they would not be true armed forces at all: rather another gendarmerie, suitable only for selected UN peacekeeping missions–simply more heavily armed than the RCMP…

More at the end of another post :

…
Ceasefire.ca (the name says it all) is the main “activist” effort of St. Steves’s militantly anti-military Rideau Institute (see end of  “EMERGENCY RESPONSE” link above).  Mr Staples is constantly quoted by our major media, in their effort supposedly to be fair and balanced, when reporting on defence matters.  Yet one would hardly understand his true stance, or the real nature of his “Institute”, when he is simply described thus as he often is (end of link):

…Steve Staples of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa…who has been critical of the Canadian Forces mission to Afghanistan…

Hardly the whole, er, story. Our lovely major media informing the public. Not.

Somehow I’ve missed Prof. (ret’d) Wallace.

Update: Last part of a very lengthy topic thread at Milnet.ca–lots of views:

Ottawa to sole-source $9 billion for 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters

Mark
Ottawa