Category: Main Page

This just in ..

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today the appointment of Professor David Johnston, President of the University of Waterloo, as Independent Advisor to conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber and the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, in order to make recommendations for an appropriate mandate for a public inquiry. This appointment is effective immediately.

Professor Johnston will provide his final report to the Prime Minister, in both official languages, by January 11, 2008.

“I am confident that Professor Johnston will carry out his duties with diligence and rigour”, said Prime Minister Harper. ”As an independent and impartial third party advisor, Professor Johnston will provide the government with the parameters for the public inquiry as well as any other course of action that may be required.”

An eminent lawyer with a distinguished academic career, Professor Johnston was Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Western Ontario from 1974 to 1979, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of McGill University from 1979 to 1994 and has served as President of the University of Waterloo since June 1999. Professor Johnston has served on numerous provincial and federal task forces and committees. Recognized for his considerable legal experience and expertise, Professor Johnston is ideally suited to conduct this review and provide independent advice to the government on these allegations and the way forward.

Prime Minister Harper announced in the House of Commons moments ago that there will now be a full public inquiry into the allegations raised against former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Here’s the statement just released by Harper:

“On Friday I announced that I would be appointing an independent and impartial third party to review what course of actions may be appropriate given Mr. Schreiber’s new sworn allegations.  These allegations remain unproven and untested in a court of law and arose in a private lawsuit.  There are however now issues that go beyond the private interests of the parties in the lawsuit.

Many have called for a public inquiry, including most recently Mr. Mulroney.

Given the conflicting information and allegations (including what appears to be some conflicting information under oath) and the extended time period over which the events referred to in various documents and allegations surrounding this matter have occurred, I have decided to ask the third party to advise the government on appropriate terms of reference for a public inquiry.

If in reviewing material, the independent party finds any prima facie evidence of criminal action he or she will identify this and advise how this should be handled and what impact, if any, it should have on the nature and timing of the inquiry.

A public inquiry is a major step and one that should only be taken when it addresses Canadians’ interest, not those of the various parties, whether Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Mulroney or political parties.  That is why it is important that we engage the necessary independent expertise and take the time to ensure that the terms of reference meet that test.”

 

This hit a public relations newswire at 11:06 pm yesterday. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney apparently has had enough:

The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney Wants a Full Fledged Public Commission of Inquiry

MONTREAL, QUEBEC–(Marketwire – Nov. 12, 2007) – “Twelve years ago to the day I was trying to deal with very grave and damaging accusations against me contained in a letter sent to the Swiss authorities. These accusations were related to the sale in 1988 of Airbus planes to Air Canada, back then a Crown Corporation. After a tough and lengthy battle against these false and horrendously libelous accusations, the Government of the day had to admit that they had absolutely no evidence to support them and apologized to me and my family. In addition they had to reimburse me for all legal and other expenses.

Twelve years later, the same people at the CBC and in certain other media organizations, who were at the origin of the 1995 accusations, are still conducting their vendetta. Last Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided that he needed the counsel of an independent third party to advise him on the course of action to follow after new allegations were made in an affidavit filed by Karlheinz Schreiber from his prison cell where he is detained pending the execution of an extradition order confirmed twice by the Supreme Court of Canada. I will fully cooperate with the Special Advisor soon to be appointed by the Prime Minister but I have come to the conclusion that in order to finally put this matter to rest and expose all the facts and the roles played by all the people involved, from public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to police authorities as well as journalists, the only solution is for the Government to launch a full fledged public Commission on Inquiry which would cover the period from 1988 to today. Only then will the whole truth be finally exposed and tarnished reputations restored.

I am willing to meet the Special Advisor that the Prime Minister will appoint to reiterate my conviction that this is the only way to prove to Canadians that I have done nothing wrong.”

Shortly after 10 am tomorrow morning, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan will rise in the House of Commons to table “An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure) and An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.”

Van Loan and Senator Marjory LeBreton, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, will then hold a press conference.

No doubt they will be announcing that Sen. Michael Fortier – appointed by the Prime Minister early in 2006 to howls of outrage from his party’s grassroots so that he could solve a political problem he had vis-a-vis representation in his cabinet from the City of Montreal – will be stepping down immediately. Most Canadians, we assume, expect their politicians to walk the walk if they’re going to talk the talk about Senate reform. Something tells me, though, that Fortier will still be a minister at the end of the day …

 

It seems odd to me that one could write a few thousand words about the world's oil economy without even mentioning Canada once. Only Saudi Arabia, after all, has more proven oil reserves than Canada. Moreover, Canada, helped along by its energy wealth, is the only G8 country whose federal government is running a budget surplus (and has done so for several years now.)

Still, if you were going to take a look at the world's economy and describe how $100-a-barrel oil is affecting things from St. Petersburg to Kano, Nigeria without mentioning on the world's largest energy exporters, this piece, on the front of today's Washington Post, is not a bad place to start:

High oil prices are fueling one of the biggest transfers of wealth in history. Oil consumers are paying $4 billion to $5 billion more for crude oil every day than they did just five years ago, pumping more than $2 trillion into the coffers of oil companies and oil-producing nations this year alone …

… there is no end in sight to the redistribution of more than 1 percent of the world's gross domestic product. Earlier oil shocks generated giant shifts in wealth and pools of petrodollars, but they eventually faded and economies adjusted. This new high point in petroleum prices has arrived over four years, and many believe it will represent a new plateau even if prices drop back somewhat in coming months.

“There's never been anything like this on a sustained basis the way we've seen the last couple of years,” said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund. Oil prices “are not spiking; they're just rising,” he added. [Read the rest of the story]

Here’s the opening statement from Prime Minister Harper later this afternoon, as delivered in the National Press Theatre:

Once again, federal lawyers have been reviewing the new affidavit sworn by Karlheinz Schreiber related to his dealings with Brian Mulroney before, during, and after his time in office.  The new allegations in the affidavit stem from a private lawsuit currently before the courts and do not involve the federal government. 

Although these new allegations are unproven and untested in a court of law, they will be the subject of much public discussion and interest.  There are, however, two issues which go beyond the private interests of the parties in the lawsuit. 

First, some of these new allegations touch on the former prime minister's time in office.  And, second, whether these allegations, if true, have any bearing on the settlement reached in January 1997. 

Under these circumstances, I'm announcing today that I will be appointing an independent and impartial third party to review what course of actions may be appropriate given Mr. Schreiber's new sworn allegations.

In the government's review of the affidavit, I was also surprised to learn that my own name was mentioned.  In the affidavit, Mr. Schreiber alleges he gave a letter to Mr. Mulroney which was intended to be shown to me at a meeting at Harrington Lake in July 2006. 

Let me just say my family and I did host the former prime minister and his family for a social occasion at Harrington Lake in August 2006 at our invitation.  We did not discuss Mr. Mulroney's dealings with Mr. Schreiber during that visit nor did Mr. Mulroney present a letter from Mr. Schreiber.  In fact, Mr. Mulroney has never spoken to me on behalf of Mr. Schreiber nor has he ever presented me with any documents for Mr. Schreiber. 

I can assure you we will move quickly on this matter.  We will begin by naming the independent third party as early as next week.

Just out from the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition:

Statement by the Honourable Stéphane Dion, Leader of the Opposition, on the Need for a Public Inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber Affair

Prime Minister Harper's decision to appoint an independent third-party to advise him on what to do next in the matter of Karlheinz Schreiber's allegations about Mr. Mulroney's involvement in the Airbus affair does not satisfy our calls for a public inquiry into the matter.

Now that Mr. Schreiber's affidavit has been made public – now that it names Prime Minister Harper himself as an alleged actor in some of the events in question – Mr. Harper seems desperate to look like he is taking action, while actually offering nothing but delay.

The affidavit leads to some troubling questions. When did Prime Minister Harper and his cabinet first become aware of Mr. Schreiber's allegations? Why was the Justice Canada investigation into this matter stopped? Do these new allegations explain why they are still so reluctant to call a public inquiry?

Most importantly, now that the Prime Minister is himself named as an actor in some of the activities alleged by Mr. Schreiber, he is saddled with at least the appearance of conflict of interest. As such, his impartiality could come under question as further decisions on how to proceed are taken.

That is why the announcement of an independent third-party advisor to the Prime Minister is insufficient. The Prime Minister must take decisive action now, and call a full judicial inquiry with all the independence and powers of the Inquiries Act, to allow others to get to the bottom of this in a transparent and accountable process.

This is the only way to ensure that he fulfills his obligation to preserve the integrity of the office of the Prime Minister.

The press release from Ispos Reid about their latest poll tries to emphasize the positive news — Canadians have an increasing awareness of some historical facts about our country’s military past — but the overall news is embarrassingly awful: Canadians know squat about some of the most basic facts of their country’s history.

The Dominion Institute, which sponsored the survey, screams out the bad news in a banner at its Web site: Only half of Canadians can name our first Prime Minister.

Here’s some of the other dismal results, which my colleague Craig Oliver, reported on our newscast yesterday:

• Who was Canada’s first francophone Prime Minister?
• A. Pierre Elliott Trudeau (27 % picked Trudeau)
• B. Wilfrid Laurier (56 % got it right)
• C. Rene Levesque (13 % thought Levesque was PM once)
• Who was Canada’s first Prime Minister?
• Macdonald – 46%
• Laurier – 3 %
• Trudeau – 2%
• Don’t know – 37 %
• What year did Confederation occur?
• 1867 – 26 %
• 1918 – 1 %
• 1960 – 1 %
• 1950 – 1 %
• Other – 43 %
• Don’t know – 29 %

 

Washington beltway newsmagazine The Hill reports that Lockheed Martin Inc. has put forward an unsolicited proposal to the Pentagon to sell the U.S. a pile of Hercules 130Js, the same plane that the Canadian government is almost certain to buy for its tactical airlift requirements. Canada, it seems to me, will be (or ought to be) watching this proposal closely because Lockheed's pitch apparently assumes a certain level of international sales. From The Hill story:

In an effort to avert having to shut down its Georgia production line in three years, Lockheed Martin is lobbying the Air Force to buy an additional 120 C-130J aircraft under an offered multi-year contract worth more than $6 billion . . .

Lockheed’s offer assumes the Air Force and Marine Corps would buy 24 airplanes a year for five years. International customers would purchase an additional six airplanes a year, under Lockheed’s plan.

Lockheed currently builds about 12 C-130Js a year at a cost close to $60 million per plane for Air Force and Marine Corps versions.

Lockheed projects on average that a combat delivery variant would cost $50.4 million a plane; a shorter, more mobile version would cost $47.8 million; and an air refueling tanker would cost $51.8 million, in current dollars.

Adjusted for inflation and prior to contract negotiations, Lockheed’s proposal would cost $58.9 million to $63.7 million per plane between 2011 and 2015, according to Pentagon officials.

…Lockheed’s price target also assumes strong international interest in the C-130J, said the official, who described that assumption as high-risk.

While we're keeping an eye on prices — the Norwegian Air Force has just signed up to buy four C-130Js at a maximum price of about $304-million U.S. Norway has much the same problem Canada does: An aging Hercules fleet that desperately needs attention. Lockheed announced the contract late yesterday afternoon:

The Norwegian Super Hercules will be the longer fuselage, or “stretched” variant of the C-130J, similar to those being delivered to the U.S. Air Force. Deliveries to Norway will include one aircraft in 2008, one in 2009 and two in 2010.

The first two aircraft for Norway are already in production and were originally destined for service with the U.S. Air Force. As a result of Norway's urgent need to replace its nearly 40-year-old C-130s, the Norwegian government arranged with the U.S. government for early delivery. The second two aircraft will be built specifically for Norway.

Meanwhile, a writer at Defense Industry Daily picks up on Lockheed's new push at the Pentagon and adds a little more context to the story:

The USAF has about 20% of its C-130E/H Hercules fleet on the ground or under significant flight restrictions right now, and has been pleading to be able to retire them instead of spending time and maintenance dollars on aircraft that will probably never fly again. This percentage will continue to grow as the hours continue to pile up. Meanwhile, the C-130Js are performing well in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their performance suffers much less from the heat and high altitude than C-130E/H versions. US Special Forces are also looking to renew their aging C-130 specialty aircraft and gunship fleet, but they worry that platforms like the C-130 won't be survivable 15 years from now.

Both groups have made noises lately about a competition that could involve Airbus' recently-delayed A400M, which breaks through the 20-ton cargo barrier that has stymied several US armored vehicle programs. Those rumblings, and the delay, may have handed Lockheed both motive and opportunity to make its proposal…

The important thing, from Lockheed Martin's perspective, is to raise the size of the USA's C-130J fleet high enough that competitive alternatives become too expensive due to the scale of duplication required for training, logistics, maintenance, et. al. An additional 120 aircraft would almost certainly achieve this goal, locking in a much larger volume of long-term orders, while keeping the production line open long past 2015 for other international customers.

The 20-ton space is likely to become rather crowded by 2020, however, with the Indo-Russian MRTA, Embraer C-390, and Chinese Y-9 all vying for market share, and the possibility of the American AJACS program as an additional complicating factor. Meanwhile, Airbus will be offering a competitor that offers major performance advantages, while remaining within the financial reach of existing customers like Chile, Malaysia, and South Africa.

For all of these reasons, the C-130J has little chance of duplicating its predecessors' international success. Regardless, Lockheed Martin has invested $1 billion of private funds in the aircraft's development, and wishes to recover them. To do so, however, it must remain in the competitive game. Offering substantial discounts now is a smart way to do it.

No, really, they're serious:

The solution we're creating is simple: an open-source filter software that can detect rampant stupidity in written English. This will be accomplished with weighted Bayesian analysis and some rules-based processing, similar to spam detection engines. The primary challenge inherent in our task is that stupidity is not a binary distinction, but rather a matter of degree. To this end, we're collecting a ranked corpus of stupid text, gleaned from user comments on public websites and ranked on a five-point scale.

Eventually, once the research is completed, we plan to release core engine source code for incorporation into content management systems, blogs, wikis and the like. Additionally, we plan to develop a fully implemented Firefox plugin and a WordPress plugin.

The Stupid Filter Project is the brainchild of Albuquerque's Gabriel Ortiz and Honolulu's Paul Starr. Do read their FAQ, in which they confront the issue of irony in online comments:

What about ironic uses of “stupid” diction?

The StupidFilter is blind to irony. Our intent is that one or two instances of “lol” or “ur dum” in several paragraphs of otherwise-cogent text won't result in a false positive. However, we consider the StupidFilter's irony-ignorance to be a feature, insofar as even if an allegedly-smart person makes a short, stupid comment, their smartness doesn't make the comment any less stupid. If your mom had designed the StupidFilter, she might say “If you can't say anything smart, don't say anything at all.”

To Gabriel and Paul, I say: Good luck, men!