Month: December 2006

Hey, I thought we were getting those Leopards!

Singapore's Ministry of Defence has announced that they intend to strike an agreement with the German Federal Ministry of Defence for the sale of 96 Leopard 2A4 tanks (66 front-line, 30 spares) plus training and supporting equipment from the German Armed Forces to the Singapore Armed Forces. SAF soldiers will be trained by the German Army to operate the tank in the later part of 2007. [Read the full story]

Technorati Tags: defence

A few hours after the vice-president of Airbus Military said he was disappointed that a federal government procurement process had effectively eliminated the product, A400M, that his company was offering, several MPs stood up in Question Period to ask about the process. The only plane that successfully made it through the first part of the procurement process is the C-130J, offered by Lockheed Martin. Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor took most of the questions but finally, Prime Minister Harper decided to step into the fray. Here’s the blow-by-blow in QP:

M. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) :
Monsieur le Président, le ministre de la Défense nationale s'apprête à dépenser 4,9 milliards de dollars pour des avions dont le Pentagone ne veut plus, tellement les problèmes qui les affectent sont nombreux.

Le ministre de la Défense nationale peut-il nous dire si c'est parce que les autorités de Lockheed Martin ont déclaré avoir corrigé les principaux défauts de ces avions, que les Américains ont payés à un tarif unitaire variant entre 44 et 67 millions de dollars, que le Canada s'apprête à payer trois fois plus cher, soit 188 millions de dollars l'unité?

Le Canada s'apprête à payer trois fois plus cher pour des avions dont les Américains ne veulent plus.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I read the news reports. They are based on information provided by competitors and are basically fallacious. There are no technical problems with the C-130 and we are getting them at the proper price.

M. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) :
Monsieur le Président, il y a des rapports officiels aux États-Unis qui font état des principaux défauts de ces avions et ils veulent mettre fin à leur contrat.

Est-ce que le ministre de la Défense nationale comprend qu'il n'est plus lobbyiste et que son travail n'est pas de faire faire le plus d'argent possible à une compagnie au détriment des contribuables, mais de donner le plus possible aux contribuables pour l'argent qu'ils investissent?

Il s'agit là de son travail. Il ne faut surtout pas répéter l'erreur qui a déjà été faite en achetant, à coup de millions, de vieux sous-marins qui n'ont jamais fonctionné.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, the requirements were set by the military. This aircraft meets the requirements. We will not purchase paper aircraft or paper trucks.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) :
Mr. Speaker, today Le Devoir reported on a controversy that has been raging in the U.S. It is over Lockheed Martin's C-130J, the plane that the Minister of National Defence seems to be determined to buy.

The Pentagon's inspector general describes the plane as one that cannot perform search and rescue operations, cannot perform night operations and has difficulties in cold weather. How can it protect our Canadian Arctic?

Will the minister please explain to the House how this plane fits into his national defence capabilities plan, the plan he still has not finished?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this aircraft meets the requirements of the military as a medium lift aircraft and meets all the requirements, including weather.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP) :
Mr. Speaker, that is not the opinion of the Pentagon. It is likely that these planes are going to turn out to be lemons, just like the Victoria class submarines.

The minister has been running a closed shop on procurement. The Minister of Industry met with Boeing last spring in Washington, a closed door meeting, about helicopters. There are only two companies left to build support ships and the truck contract was written so that only one supplier could possibly fulfill it.

Inside the department it is unclear who is driving this process. Is it the minister, is it Rick Hillier? Who–

The Speaker :
The hon. Minister of National Defence.

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should take another acting lesson.
The requirements set for aircraft, for trucks, for ships are set by the military and it goes through a competitive process with the defence department, industry department and public works and we have followed all those processes. Whatever the results are, they are done through a fair, competitive, open process.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, the requirements identified by DND for the purchase of tactical aircraft were designed to eliminate all aircraft except the C-130J. This is very much like a contract directed to Lockheed Martin masquerading as a competition at the expense of the taxpayers.

Given that the competition in defence procurement always favours better equipment at a better price, why was this process manipulated to limit the competition to one particular aircraft?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC)
:
Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question four times today, but I will try again. The military set the requirements for the aircraft. After a rigorous process they discovered that the C-130J meets the requirement and it is the only aircraft that meets the requirement.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, during the committee of the whole the minister admitted that he was not aware of the price we were about to pay for the C-130J. The government's purchase price of $3.2 billion suggests a price of $188 million per plane. Italy is paying approximately $80 million for the same product.

Can the minister tell us why his government plans to pay $100 million more per plane and that is a scandalous $1.7 billion for 17 planes?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I have also answered this question previously. The price per aircraft is $85 million U.S. That is what we are paying. All the other costs involve spare parts, training, project management, et cetera.

L'hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.) :
Monsieur le Président, on va l'essayer en français.
Au moment même où le ministère de la Défense nationale s'apprête à dépenser 4,9 milliards de dollars sans appel d'offres pour un avion dont même le Pentagone ne veut plus, on apprend que l'appareil C-130J de Lockheed Martin n'a ni la certification civile ni les capacités d'amélioration requises pour les besoins de nos forces armées. Selon certains experts, cet avion est même dangereux et inadéquat.

Comment le ministre justifie-t-il des dépenses de 188 millions de dollars par avion quand la Maison-Blanche voulait mettre fin à son propre contrat pour cet appareil qui lui coûtait moins de 80 millions de dollars? Pourquoi veut-il nous passer un citron?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, it might have been better if some of these members coordinated their questions today. They could have had some other questions in Parliament.

The answer is that the military set the requirement and the only aircraft that met the requirement was the C-130J and the military are quite happy with that choice.

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, let us try again to the chief lobbyist, the defence man.
Canada is about to buy expensive flying lemons. The minority Conservative government chose to buy without any real competitive process Lockheed Martin's C-130Js as a favour to their buddies in Washington. Not only are we about to pay more than double the original price, $188 million instead of $80 million per plane, but the technology in the flying jalopy has been ruled obsolete by the U.K. and unsafe by a U.S. military auditor.

How does the minister justify spending nearly $5 billion for 17 underperforming planes? Why such–

The Speaker :
The Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order, please. The Prime Minister has been recognized to answer the question and everyone will want to hear the answer.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence just pointed out the errors in the hon. member's question. What we see here once again is the Liberal Party opposing new equipment for our military under all circumstances just as they did for 13 long years in office when they starved the military.

However, it is amazing what extent they are prepared to go to do it, saying that the White House and the Pentagon should pick Canada's planes. We are going to pick our own planes.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day just wrapped a press conference to respond to Justice O’Connor’s inquiry into the Arar matter. One of Day’s responses was to fire up yet another inquiry, this time into alleged mistreatment by Abdullah Almalki, (right to left in the picture on the left) Ahmad Abou-Elmaati, and Muayyed Nureddin.

Here’s the release from Day’s office:

Canada’s New Government announces inquiry into the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin
OTTAWA, December 12, 2006 – The Honourable Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety, today announced on behalf of the Government of Canada, that the Honourable Frank Iacobucci will undertake an inquiry into the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin. 

Mr. Iacobucci has been appointed as Commissioner of this Inquiry under Part I of the Inquiries Act. The Commissioner will have all the powers set out in the Act, including the authority to hold hearings, summon witnesses and gather evidence needed to conduct the inquiry.

“This Inquiry demonstrates that our new government is taking concrete steps to implement the recommendations made by Justice O’Connor in his report on the events relating to Maher Arar,” said Minister Day. “We believe this new Inquiry, headed by Mr. Iacobucci, is the most efficient and capable way of addressing the cases of Messrs. Almalki,
Abou-Elmaati, and Nureddin. This government is committed to ensuring the protection of Canadians,” he added.

As Commissioner of the Inquiry, Mr. Iacobucci’s mandate will be to determine whether: 

·       The detention of these three individuals in Syria or Egypt resulted from actions of Canadian officials, particularly in relation to the sharing of information with foreign countries.

·       Those actions or the actions of Canadian consular officials were deficient in these cases.

·       Any mistreatment of these three individuals in Syria or Egypt resulted from any deficiencies in the actions of Canadian officials.

This Inquiry is expected to deal with sensitive national security matters. While public hearings are possible, it is likely the inquiry will be carried out largely in camera.

The report resulting from the Inquiry will be submitted to the Government by January 31, 2008. The Inquiry’s terms of reference and a biography of Mr. Iacobucci are also available at www.publicsafety.gc.ca.

 

Elizabeth May, (left) the leader of the Green Party of Canada, is drawing some political fire for some comments she made during the byelection campaign in London North Centre on abortion.

Here are those comments and some context:

In the week or so prior to the Nov. 28 byelection, May, like all candidates, was invited to a meeting with the residents of The Sisters of Saint Joseph, a convent in London, Ont.. Many of the sisters in residence there are elderly and so, as a service to those who cannot get out very easily, the sisters invite candidates in various election campaigns to visit. During the London North Centre byelection, all the candidates were invited by the sisters and three chose to attend. They addressed the sisters on separate occasions and not all at once.

May met with sisters for about 45 minutes. She gave a 15-minute presentation and then answered questions on a variety of topics. Sister Kateri Gheisquier was one of the organizers and she says each candidate was asked to respond to a similar series of questions, one of which was their views on abortion.

None of these meetings were open to the public and the media was not invited to any of these meetings.

Sister Kateri says May arrived with, she thinks, three people and she did not know that anyone was recording the conversation.

One of those individuals who accompanied May was Dan Baril. Baril was May's “Chief Strategist” during the byelection campaign:

Baril taped May’s answers and subsequently posted an audio recording of her answer to the abortion question on his blog.

On his blog, Baril wrote:

“While speaking to the Sisters of Saint Joseph, at Mount St. Joseph's, one of the Sisters asked “…so what's your position on abortion and gay marriage?” 

I had one set of fingers grasping for the handle on my briefcase ready to bolt, while the fingers on my other hand had dialed the 9 and the 1, but suddenly minutes later everything was okay. The perfect answer flowed. But that perfect answer was perfect not because it gave the sisters what they wanted to hear. On the contrary. It was perfect because it was 100% honest, it was 100% from the heart, and the Sisters, 100% of them I believe, got that.

This is what Elizabeth answered to the Sister that asked: click here.”

So I clicked and here is my transcription of what that recording contained. This is May speaking:

Of course this is a question that is tough. Let me explain what our party's position is and then I'll tell how as a Christian I deal with it personally. OK? First of all, the party's position is that we must maintain access to thereapeutic abortions for women in Canada and the party's position is that we should not re-open the debate on same-sex marriage. It's a closed debate. It's a human-rights issues. It's under the charter. Case closed.

My personal views – and this is tricky – and this [inaudible] here. I actually agree with the party's position but not necessarily for the reasons you'd think. I think that part of the type of malaise in Canadian society and it's true right across North America is that nobody wants to discuss moral issues as part of the discussion. It's always a polarized debate with people on either side of the fence throwing things at each other. I think there are moral dimensions to the question that can be discussed as dialogue.

If you go back and I've been doing this basically – St. Thomas Aquinas thought the whole issue of when it was – the issue wasn't abortion, it was an issue of when ensouled and not ensouled fetuses. It was a debate then because there was different levels of crime then. If a man caused a woman to miscarry a pregnancy he'd be put to death because it was past the point in the pregnancy when it was considered an ensouled fetus. So there was a debate there. It wasn't always the case .. Augustine went to this to, St. Thomas Aquinas went to it … when is it that the human potential of conception crystallizes – it was never considered a trivial matter, to strike a woman and cause her to miscarry – it's a moral dimensions debate that's quite complex and I think deserves respect.

So I respect people who say, “I'm against abortion because there is a right to life, and the fetus is sacred.”

I respect that, because I think all life is sacred. So, where do I come to thinking we should be able to have – and must have – access to therapeutic abortions in Canada?

It's the other side of the moral dilemma: If we make them illegal, women will die. We know this. It happened for hundreds and hundreds of years, that women would seek out whatever butcher they could find to cause an abortion to happen, and they would die horrible deaths, and the baby would die too.

So I see it as a moral dilemma, and I don't see it as a clear-cut black-and-white.

And I think one of the things I would like to bring to Canadian politics is to show enough respect for the other view, that we could actually have a dialogue about it. Because one of the things that is wrong about polarization is the language becomes a barrier to understanding.

So if one group of people say, “A woman has a right to choose,” I get queasy, because I'm against abortion. I don't think a woman has a frivolous right to choose.

What I don't want is a desperate woman to die in an illegal abortion. But I also don't think it's right to say – Well, you see, you end up having this conflict.

What I'd like to do in politics – and I've talked about this in some other settings besides here today, because this is the first time it's come up in London North Centre – what I'd like to do in politics is to be able to create the space to say, “Abortions are legal because they must be to avoid women dying. But nobody in their right mind is for abortions.”

I've talked women out of having abortions. I would never have an abortion myself, not in a million years. I can't imagine the circumstances that would ever reduce me to it.

So can't we then have a different kind of conversation? What kind of programs and strategies do we need to have to reduce the number of legal abortions that take place? Instead of having this rather polarized and, you know, really, futile debate that only fuels divisions and makes both sides feel as they're, you know, in some form of battle where … I don't know, that may not satisfy you at all, but that's  where I am on the issue

Nicholas Shakespeare is assigned the task of reviewing Tom Bowers’ take on Lord and Lady Black and has this anecdote to start:

I never met this newspaper's previous proprietor, although I worked as his literary editor on the Daily and Sunday Telegraphs. He once tried to stop me employing a reviewer who had criticised the foreign policy of Henry Kissinger (then a Hollinger director). Grateful to have a chairman who read these pages, I invited Black to review books in areas where he clearly had an interest (The Oxford Book of Canadian Military Anecdotes). Connoisseurs of his prose have likened it to a medieval siege engine and the act of reading it to “wading through wet cement” (Max Hastings), but he had an intelligence and a style, and it got him off my back.

Before eventually pronouncing Bower’s book to be a bit of a bore:

This book is a bit like candy, too. One consumes it greedily, but feels a little sick afterwards. To rise so high, there has to be more of a story. Black might be a shit, but he's an interesting shit who is, I suspect, sadder and more complex than Bower allows. If there's a fault to his biography, which has taken under a year to write, it is Bower's decision to treat Black merely as a white-collar criminal.

 

I was in the Press Gallery for today’s same-sex vote and was madly trying to keep score. I hope I have this right but, of course, the Hansard record out late tonight will be the official result. (UPDATE: Got one wrong in the earlier version: Liberal John Cannis abstained and Liberal Roy Cullen voted in favour. The following list is now correct and Hansard has the Official Result)

The motion failed: There were was 123 Yeas; 175 Nays; and 8 MPs were either absent from the House or were present but abstained.

Overall, most Conservatives voted in favour; every NDP MP voted against; most Liberal MPs voted against, and most BQ MPs voted against. Prime Minister Harper voted in favour but cabinet ministers Prentice, Cannon, MacKay, Baird, Emerson, and Verner voted against.

Here’s the complete MP by MP breakdown:

In Favour

Conservatives

Harper
Abbott
Oda
Skelton
Thompson – New Brunswick Southwest
O'Connor
Toews
Day
Flaherty
Clement
Strahl
Solberg
Hearn
Lunn
Ablonczy
Obhrai
Fletcher
Gallant
Cummins
Moore – Fundy Royal
Menzies
Hinton
Bruinooge
Bernier
Blackburn
Nicholson
Hill
Ambrose
Finley
Van Loan
Komarnicki
Guergis
Kamp
Benoit
Breitkreuz
Hanger
Harris
Mills
Thompson – Wild Rose
Williams
Anders
Casson
MacKenzie
Hiebert
Poilievre
Carrie
Jean
Boucher
Kenney
Lukiwski
Reid
Lauzon
Yelich
Gourde
Anderson
Warawa
Doyle
Ritz
Fitzpatrick
Goldring
Albrecht
Allen
Lunney
Mark
Merrifield
Rajotte
Sorenson
Vellacott
Schellenbe
Allison
Batters
Bezan
Jaffer
Brown – Leeds Grenville
Devolin
Goodyear
Grewal
Kramp
Miller
Preston
Smith
Tilson
Trost
Tweed
Watson
Brown – Barrie
Calkins
Cannan – Kelowna Lake Country
Davidson
Del
Dykstra
Fast
Harvey
Hawn
Lake
Lemieux
Pallister
Epp
Mayes
Norlock
Petit
Shipley
Stanton
Storseth
Sweet
Van Kesteren
Wallace
Warkentin
Blaney
Scheer

Liberals

Karygiannis
Lee
Byrne
Wappel
Cullen – Etobicoke North
Bonin
McTeague
McKay
Malhi
Steckle
Tonks
Khan
Scarpaleggia

Against

Conservatives

Moore – Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam
MacKay
Prentice
Cannon – Pontiac
Emerson
Casey
Richardson
Baird
Verner
Paradis
Chong
Keddy
Manning

Liberals

Martin – Lasalle-Emard
Graham
Peterson
Volpe
Bevilacqua
Fry
Bennett
Brison
Dryden
Goodale
Dion
Robillard
Ignatieff
Lapierre
Comuzzi
Guarnieri
MacAulay
Marleau
McGuire
Easter
Godfrey
Minna
Regan
Scott
Bélanger
Chan
Coderre
Cotler
Jennings
Redman
Simard
Sgro
McCallum
Owen
Thibault – West Nova
Dosanjh
Stronach
Beaumier
Chamberlain
Brown – Oakville
Martin – Esquimalt-Juan De Fuca
Patry
Matthews
Wilfert
Proulx
Bagnell
Cuzner
Hubbard
Maloney
St. Denis
Szabo
Telegdi
Karetak-Lindell
LeBlanc
Neville
Bains
Bell – North Vancouver
Dhalla
Holland
Kadis
McGuinty
Ratansi
Rodriguez
Rota
Savage
Zed
Eyking
Murphy – Charlottetown
Pacetti
Boshcoff
D'Amours
Silva
Simms
St. Amand
Temelkovski
Valley
Wrzesnewskyj
Keeper
Wilson
Russell
Alghabra
Dhaliwal
Merasty
Murphy – Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe
Pearson

Bloc Quebecois

Duceppe
Paquette
Gauthier
Lalonde
Gagnon
Ménard – Hochelaga
Crête
Bachand
Laframboise
Picard
Guimond
Guay
Plamondon
Brunelle
St-Hilaire
Roy
Bigras
Demers
Lessard
Ménard – Marc-Aurele-Fortin
Faille
Barbot
Kotto
Bourgeois
Bellavance
Lavallée
Lemay
Gaudet
Bonsant
Deschamps
Bouchard
DeBellefeuille
Blais
Asselin
Perron
Laforest
Mourani
Lussier
Malo
Carrier
Lévesque
St-Cyr
Ouellet
André
Vincent
Freeman
Nadeau

NDP

Layton
McDonough
Davies
Wasylycia-Leis
Masse
Martin – Winnipeg Centre
Martin – Sault Ste. Marie
Godin
Comartin
Black
Christopherson
Angus
Cullen – Skeena-Bulkley Valley
Crowder
Julian
Siksay
Priddy
Mathyssen
Atamanenko
Bell – Vancouver Island North
Bevington
Charlton
Chow
Dewar
Marston
Nash
Stoffer
Savoie
Blaikie

Independent

Turner

Absent or abstaining:

Galipeau
Barnes
Cannis
Folco
Loubier
Cardin
Thibault – Rimouski-Neigette-Temiscouta-Les Basques
Arthur

Since I put up that list of MPs who were born in other countries and made the assumption that most, if not all, of those MPs would,  therefore, hold dual citizenships, I’ve had lots of correspondence from those with some tremendously helpful information on this file.

First off — one of the organizers of Joe Volpe’s leadership campaign wants to set the record straight. Volpe is only a Canadian. Though he was born in Italy, Canada did not permit its citizens to hold dual citizenship until 1977 and Volpe was here well before that. So Volpe is a Canadian citizen.

Secondly — Knowing that until 1977, Canada prohibited dual citizenships, we may assume that several MPs on that list would no longer be citizens of the country of their birth because they arrived in Canada ahead of the lifting of that prohibition.

Thirdly – We know that anyone who stands for election to the House of Commons must be eligible to vote and, therefore, must be a Canadian citizen. So we may logically conclude that foreign-born MPs are all Canadian citizens.

Finally — some countries, I am informed, do not allow their citizens to hold dual citizenships. I’m afraid I do not have an exhaustive list of those countries. But it seems reasonable to assume that some MPs who were foreign-born may have had to renounced their original citizenship in order to become Canadian citizens. As a result, some of my original conclusions — that foreign-born MPs were likely to hold dual citizenships — seems to be founded on some faulty assumptions.

Everybody straight with that now? 🙂

 

 

After hearing hundreds of submissions during a series of hearings across the country, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance released its pre-budget report. When there is a majority government, this report is often a useful guide to the sorts of measures one can expect when the Minister of Finance tables the federal budget in early spring. But with a minority governnment, the document will likely have plenty of suggestions the Finance Minister will likely reject.

In addition to the report which would have been adopted the committee — the Conservatives do not have a majority on the committee — each party has filed a “minority report”.

The committee issued a press release today:

“We have made recommendations about health, education, and incentives to work and to save that will ensure our people are productive. Recommendations about Canada’s infrastructure and the environment, as well as about charitable giving, volunteerism and support for our arts and cultural sector will help to ensure competitive communities. Finally, businesses would be more competitive with the adoption of our recommendations in such areas as corporate taxation, support for R&D and innovation, regulation and international trade,” [said Conservative MP and Finance Committee chair Brian] Pallister.

 

 

This is interesting:

“Although in its early stages, the “faith-at-work movement” is beginning to demand serious attention from employers – and in some cases pose major workplace challenges – concludes a new Executive Action report from [U.S.] The Conference Board.”

“Like the social issues that helped define earlier generations, the topic of faith at work has crept into U.S. businesses. Proposals to form affinity groups, prayer breakfasts, and the introduction of corporate chaplains are  among the common requests. Other more subtle signs include email signoffs that quote scripture, employee  intranet postings inviting colleagues to a religious service, and requests for specific foods in the company cafeteria.

The “soul” train, says Dr. David W. Miller, Executive Director, Yale Center for Faith and Culture, has left  the station. He says the faith-at-work movement is still in its early stages and companies are uncertain how to respond. He observes that this is not unlike when the civil, women’s, and gay and lesbian rights movements were just emerging. Many employers are uncertain how to deal with such emotional and potentially divisive topics. In many cases, companies try to avoid the issue entirely, an action that Miller says is a mistake.”

 

If I’m reading Wednesday’s Order Paper correctly, shortly after 3 p.m. (the end of Question Period), MPs will begin to debate the following:

No. 12 — December 1, 2006 — The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform — That this House call on the government to introduce legislation to restore the traditional definition of marriage without affecting civil unions and while respecting existing same-sex marriages.

Then, somewhere around 5:30 pm (all times Ottawa time) on Thursday, MPs will actually vote on this motion.

Justice Minister Vic Toews — who is the minister who would draw up the legislation if the motion passes — was coy today when reporters asked him if he had legislation ready to go on the chance that the Conservatives win this one. He told reporters that he didn’t want to speculate but he never actually answered that question.