Deepwater Horizon was an ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, semi-submersible offshore drilling rig. The rig was built in 2001 in South Korea, is owned by Transocean and was leased to BP plc until September 2013.[4] Deepwater Horizon was registered in Majuro, Marshall Islands. In September 2009, the rig drilled the deepest oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,680 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m).[5]
On April 20, 2010, an explosion on the rig left eleven crewmen dead. The resulting fire could not be extinguished, and on April 22, 2010, the rig sank, leaving the well gushing, causing the largest offshore oil spill in the United States.[citation needed]
Contents[hide]
1 Design
2 History
2.1 Construction
2.2 Ownership and lease
2.3 Drilling operations
3 Explosion and oil spill
3.1 Explosion and fire
3.2 Massive oil spill
4 See also
5 References
6 External links
//
[edit] Design
Deepwater Horizon was a fifth-generation, RBS-8D design, ultra-deepwater, dynamically positioned, column-stabilized, semi-submersible drilling rig,[6] or Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit, designed to drill subsea wells for oil exploration and production purposes. Deepwater Horizon was the second semi-submersible rig constructed of a class of two, although the Deepwater Nautilus, her predecessor, is not dynamically positioned. The rig was 396 by 256 ft (121 by 78 m),[6], could operate in waters up to 8,000 feet (2,400 m) deep, to a maximum drill depth of 30,000 feet (9,100 m),[7] and in 2010 was one of approximately two hundred deepwater offshore rigs capable of drilling in waters more than 5,000 ft (1,500 m).[8]
In 2002, the rig was upgraded with "e-drill," a drill monitoring system whereby technicians based in Houston, Texas, received real-time drilling data from the rig and transmitted maintenance and troubleshooting information.[9]
[edit] History
[edit] Construction
Designed originally for R&B Falcon, Deepwater Horizon was built by Hyundai Heavy Industries in Ulsan, South Korea. Construction started in December 1998 and the rig was delivered in February 2001 after the acquisition of R&B Falcon by Transocean, and was insured for $560 million.[10]
[edit] Ownership and lease
Transocean, the rig owner, operated the rig under the Marshalese flag of convenience.[11] Beginning in 2008, BP Exploration leased the Deepwater Horizon from Transocean Ltd.[11] In October 2009, the contract was extended until 2013.[4][11] The lease contract was worth $544 million, a rate of $496,800 per day.[12]
[edit] Drilling operations
The Deepwater Horizon worked on wells in the Atlantis and Thunder Horse Oil Fields, a 2006 discovery in the Kaskida field, and the 2009 Tiber oilfield.[13][14] On September 2, 2009, Deepwater Horizon drilled on the Tiber oilfield with a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m), of which 4,132 ft (1,259 m) was water, which was at the time the deepest oil well in the world.[14][15][16][17] The well was more than 5,000 feet deeper than the design specification on the company's fleet list.[18]
In March 2008, at the Minerals Management Service's lease sale,[19] BP purchased the mineral rights to drill for oil on Mississippi Canyon Block 252, referred to as the Macondo Prospect, in the United States sector of the Gulf of Mexico, about 41 miles (66 km) off the southeast coast of Louisiana.
The Deepwater Horizon commenced drilling in the Macondo Prospect in February 2010 at a water depth of approximately 5,000 feet (1,500 m).[20] As of April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon was still working on the site.[21][22][13][23]
[edit] Explosion and oil spill
[edit] Explosion and fire
Main article: Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion
On April 20, 2010, the rig was in the final phases of drilling an exploratory oil well in which casing was being cemented in place as a reinforcement by Halliburton Industries.[21] The planned well was to be drilled to 18,000 feet (5,500 m) below sea level, and was then to be plugged and suspended for subsequent completion as a subsea producer.[20] At 9:45 p.m. CDT,[24] a geyser of seawater erupted from the marine riser onto the rig, shooting 240 ft (73 m) into the air. This was soon followed by the eruption of a slushy combination of mud, methane gas, and water. The gas component of the slushy material quickly transitioned into a fully gaseous state and then ignited into a series of explosions and then a firestorm. Workers immediately attempted to activate the blowout preventer, but it failed.[25]
Eleven workers were presumed killed in the initial explosion. The rig was evacuated, with numerous injured workers airlifted to medical facilities.[3] Support ships sprayed the rig with water in an ultimately unsuccessful bid to cool it and prevent it from capsizing. This was an attempt to buy time while attempts were made to stop the oil and gas that were feeding the flames from coming up the riser pipe. That would have reduced the flames and allowed special teams of firefighters to board the stricken rig and extinguish the remaining fire.[26]
After burning for approximately 36 hours, the Deepwater Horizon sank on April 22, 2010, in water approximately 5,000 ft (1,500 m) deep, and has been located resting on the seafloor approximately 1,300 ft (400 m) (about a quarter of a mile) northwest of the well.[21][27][28]
[edit] Massive oil spill
Main article: Deepwater Horizon oil spill
The oil was not stopped before the Deepwater Horizon sank. As of the beginning of June, 2010, the oil was still flowing. Some estimates of the spill make this the largest oil spill ever in the Gulf of Mexico, threatening fisheries, tourism, and the habitat of hundreds of bird species.[29]
[edit] See also
Nautical portal
Atlantis PQ
Ocean Ranger
Piper Alpha
Thunder Horse PDQ
Transocean John Shaw
Ixtoc I oil spill
Kola Superdeep Borehole
[edit] References
^ Transocean Ltd (April 26, 2010). "Transocean Ltd. Provides Deepwater Horizon Update". Press release. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/transocean-ltd-provides-deepwater-horizon-update-2010-04-26. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon: A Timeline of Events". Offshore-Technology. 07 May 2010. http://www.offshore-technology.com/features/feature84446/. Retrieved 21 May 2010.
^ a b c McGill, Kevin (April 21, 2010). "Evacuated workers sought after oil rig explosion". The Houston Chronicle. The Associated Press. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6968340.html. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
^ a b "Deepwater Horizon contract extended". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). November 1, 2009. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/6112303380/articles/offshore/volume-69/issue-11/departments/gulf-of_mexico/gulf-of_mexico.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon Drills World's Deepest Oil & Gas Well", Transocean press release
^ a b "Fleet Specifications, Deepwater Horizon", Transocean, retrieved May 12, 2010
^ "Transocean Deepwater Horizon specifications". Transocean. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/Deepwater-Horizon-56C15.html. Retrieved 2010-04-22.
^ "Rig Data Centre". Rigzone. 28 May 2010. http://www.rigzone.com/data. Retrieved 28 May 2010.
^ "Monitoring system reduces rig downtime". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). November 1, 2002. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/161517/articles/offshore/volume-62/issue-11/news/general-interest/monitoring-system-reduces-rig-downtime.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Transocean Ltd. Provides Deepwater Horizon Update". Wallstreet Journal. 2010-04-26. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/transocean-ltd-provides-deepwater-horizon-update-2010-04-26.
^ a b c Reddall, Braden (2010-04-22). "Transocean rig loss's financial impact mulled". Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2211325420100422. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
^ "The Well". Houston Chronicle. October 17, 2009. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6672098.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Fbusiness+%28chron.com+-+Business%29. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ a b Anadarko Petroleum (August 31, 2006). "BP & Partners Make Discovery at Kaskida Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico". Press release. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=35730. Retrieved April 24, 2010.
^ a b TransOcean (September 2, 2009). "Deepwater Horizon Drills World's Deepest Oil & Gas Well". Press release. http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/IDeepwater-Horizon-i-Drills-Worlds-Deepest-Oil-and-Gas-Well-419C1.html?LayoutID=6. Retrieved September 2, 2009.
^ "BP drills oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico". Offshore Magazine (PennWell Corporation). September 2, 2009. http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/7488119241/articles/offshore/drilling-completion/us-gulf-of-mexico/2009/08/bp-drills__giant_.html. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ Braden Reddall (September 2, 2009). "Transocean says well at BP discovery deepest ever". Reuters. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN02119720090902. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Transocean's Deepwater Horizon drills world's deepest oil and gas well". Red Mist Media. http://www.yourindustrynews.com/transocean%27s+deepwater+horizon+drills+world%27s+deepest+oil+and+gas+well_38385.html. Retrieved 26 May 2010.
^ http://www.deepwater.com/_filelib/FileCabinet/fleetupdate/2010/RIGFLT-APR-2010.xls?FileName=RIGFLT-APR-2010.xls
^ "Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Lease Sale 206 Information". US Minerals Management Service. 2008-08-08. http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/lsesale/206/cgom206.html. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
^ a b "Macondo Prospect, Gulf of Mexico, USA". offshore-technology.com. 2005-10-20. http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/macondoprospect/. Retrieved 9 May 2010.
^ a b c Robertson, Cambell; Robbins, Liz (April 22, 2010). "Oil Rig Sinks in the Gulf of Mexico". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/us/23rig.html?hp. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ BP (April 21, 2010). "BP confirms that Transocean Ltd issued the following statement today". Press release. http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061443. Retrieved April 21, 2010.
^ "Gibbs: Deepwater Horizon Aftermath Could Affect Next Lease Sale". Rigzone. 2010-04-30. http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=92025. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ "12 missing after Gulf of Mexico oil rig blast: coast guard". Thenews.com.pk. 2010-04-22. http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=103368. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
^ Brenner, Noah; Guegel, Anthony; Watts, Rob; Pitt, Anthea (2010-04-29). "Horizon crew tried to activate BOP". Upstream Online (NHST Media Group). http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article213497.ece. Retrieved 2010-06-04.
^ "Gulf Oil Spill". NatgeoTV.com. National Geographic Channel. May 27, 2010. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/gulf-oil-spill-5488/behind-the-scenes. Retrieved 4 June 2010.
^ Resnick-Ault, Jessica; Klimasinska, Katarzyna (April 22, 2010). "Transocean Oil-Drilling Rig Sinks in Gulf of Mexico". Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aHylLWhmGcI0. Retrieved April 22, 2010.
^ "Deepwater Horizon Incident, Gulf of Mexico". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Response and Restoration. April 24, 2010. http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=809&subtopic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=2&topic_id%28entry_subtopic_topic%29=1. Retrieved April 25, 2010.
^ "Bird Habitats Threatened by Oil Spill". National Wildlife (National Wildlife Federation). April 30, 2010. http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2010/Oil-Spill-Birds.aspx. Retrieved May 2, 2010.
[edit] External links
Wikinews has related news:
Oil rig in Gulf of Mexico sinks after explosion; eleven missing
Gulf of Mexico oil spill expanding; submarines to try to stop leak
Deepwater Horizon detail at RigZone.com
Latest Reported Position from Sailwx
ABS Record
GOES-13 satellite images (CIMSS Satellite Blog)
"gCaptain's Deepwater Horizon Thread"
Photograph of the Deepwater Horizon in 2004, before it exploded
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Amendments to Immigration & Refugee Protection Act Can't find opposition amendments that were accepted ??.
According to press reports, the Liberals are close to a deal with the opposition on the changes to the Immigration & Refugee Act. I have a lot of problems with the bill in its original form and I have been trying to find an updated copy showing the amendments proposed and accepted by the Liberals/opposition. Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the accepted amendments? Please provide a link if you find it. On a related note, why hasn't the House of Commons updated the bill with the amendments yet, at least on their website?
Someone let me know at
msdogfood@hotmail.com
Thanks!
Someone let me know at
msdogfood@hotmail.com
Thanks!
Saturday, June 5, 2010
UPDATE 5-McDonald's recalls 13.4 mln 'Shrek' drinking glasses lack of comment on where drinking glasses were made,!
UPDATE 5-McDonald's recalls 13.4 mln 'Shrek' drinking glasses
* McDonald's recalls Shrek drinking glasses in US, Canada
* Cadmium levels in glasses slightly above safe levels
* McDonald's shares down 1.3 pct (Adds latest Canadian figures, manufacturer's lack of comment on where drinking glasses were made, updates stock price)
By Ben Klayman
DETROIT, June 4 (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp (MCD.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has recalled at least 13.4 million "Shrek"-themed drinking glasses in the United States and Canada after consumers were warned to stop using them because they contain the toxic metal cadmium.
Cadmium was found in the painted design of the movie characters on the glassware, which McDonald's outlets sold for about $2 each, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Canada's health ministry Health Canada.
The recall affected 12 million glasses in the United States and at least another 1.3 million in Canada, according to McDonald's.
"A very small amount of cadmium can come to the surface of the glass, and in order to be as protective as possible of children, CPSC and McDonald's worked together on this recall," CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said in an email.
The CPSC said designs on the glasses, made by ARC International in Millville, New Jersey, contain cadmium and "long-term exposure ... can cause adverse health effects." Cadmium is a known carcinogen that research shows also can cause bone softening and severe kidney problems.
The agency said no incidents or injuries related to the glasses have been reported, but McDonald's said it was recalling them as a "precautionary measure."
A spokesman for ARC declined to comment on whether the glasses were made in the United States or abroad.
Shares of the world's largest hamburger chain were off 1.3 percent at $66.95 on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday afternoon.
Wolfson did not specify the amounts of cadmium that leached from the paint in tests by the CPSC but said the levels were slightly above the new stricter guidelines under development by the agency. He said it was far less cadmium than the children's metal jewelry the CPSC previously recalled.
McDonald's said consumers who bought the glasses should visit the company website at www.mcdonalds.com/glasses or call 800-244-6227 beginning Tuesday for instructions on how to return them and get a refund.
"The glassware was evaluated by an independent third-party laboratory which is accredited by the CPSC, and determined to be in compliance with all applicable federal and state requirements at the time of manufacture and distribution," the company said in a statement.
"However, in light of the CPSC's evolving assessment of standards for cadmium in consumer products, McDonald's determined in an abundance of caution that a voluntary recall of the 'Shrek Forever After' glasses is appropriate," the company added.
McDonald's said about 7 million of the glasses had been sold and about 5 million were in stores or had not been shipped yet in the United States. The company's Canadian office said 1.4 million had been sold or shipped to restaurants in that country.
The sale of the 16-ounce glasses was part of the promotional campaign for the movie "Shrek Forever After," which was produced by DreamWorks Animation (DWA.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and released last month by Viacom Inc's (VIAb.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(VIA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Paramount Pictures.
The glasses, which McDonald's began offering on May 21, came in four designs with characters from the film: Shrek, Fiona, Puss in Boots and Donkey.
"Shrek," the fourth movie in the series about the lovable green ogre's adventures in his fairy tale land, opened May 21 and is currently the most popular movie in North America, having grossed almost $150 million through the end of May.
The CPSC was alerted to the problem through the office of U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, who was contacted by an anonymous source last week.
"Our children's health should not depend on the consciences of anonymous sources," Speier said in a statement posted on her website. (speier.house.gov/)
"Although McDonald's did the right thing by recalling these products, we need stronger testing standards," she said. "Cadmium is a toxic substance that is extremely dangerous to the developmental health of children."
McDonald's last recall with the CPSC occurred in 2002, involving 100,000 Chicago Bears bobble-head figurines with paint that contained excess levels of lead. (Reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit, Jonathan Stempel in New York, Antonita Madonna Devotta in Bangalore, David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Steve Orlofsky and Matthew Lewis)
* McDonald's recalls Shrek drinking glasses in US, Canada
* Cadmium levels in glasses slightly above safe levels
* McDonald's shares down 1.3 pct (Adds latest Canadian figures, manufacturer's lack of comment on where drinking glasses were made, updates stock price)
By Ben Klayman
DETROIT, June 4 (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp (MCD.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has recalled at least 13.4 million "Shrek"-themed drinking glasses in the United States and Canada after consumers were warned to stop using them because they contain the toxic metal cadmium.
Cadmium was found in the painted design of the movie characters on the glassware, which McDonald's outlets sold for about $2 each, according to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Canada's health ministry Health Canada.
The recall affected 12 million glasses in the United States and at least another 1.3 million in Canada, according to McDonald's.
"A very small amount of cadmium can come to the surface of the glass, and in order to be as protective as possible of children, CPSC and McDonald's worked together on this recall," CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson said in an email.
The CPSC said designs on the glasses, made by ARC International in Millville, New Jersey, contain cadmium and "long-term exposure ... can cause adverse health effects." Cadmium is a known carcinogen that research shows also can cause bone softening and severe kidney problems.
The agency said no incidents or injuries related to the glasses have been reported, but McDonald's said it was recalling them as a "precautionary measure."
A spokesman for ARC declined to comment on whether the glasses were made in the United States or abroad.
Shares of the world's largest hamburger chain were off 1.3 percent at $66.95 on the New York Stock Exchange on Friday afternoon.
Wolfson did not specify the amounts of cadmium that leached from the paint in tests by the CPSC but said the levels were slightly above the new stricter guidelines under development by the agency. He said it was far less cadmium than the children's metal jewelry the CPSC previously recalled.
McDonald's said consumers who bought the glasses should visit the company website at www.mcdonalds.com/glasses or call 800-244-6227 beginning Tuesday for instructions on how to return them and get a refund.
"The glassware was evaluated by an independent third-party laboratory which is accredited by the CPSC, and determined to be in compliance with all applicable federal and state requirements at the time of manufacture and distribution," the company said in a statement.
"However, in light of the CPSC's evolving assessment of standards for cadmium in consumer products, McDonald's determined in an abundance of caution that a voluntary recall of the 'Shrek Forever After' glasses is appropriate," the company added.
McDonald's said about 7 million of the glasses had been sold and about 5 million were in stores or had not been shipped yet in the United States. The company's Canadian office said 1.4 million had been sold or shipped to restaurants in that country.
The sale of the 16-ounce glasses was part of the promotional campaign for the movie "Shrek Forever After," which was produced by DreamWorks Animation (DWA.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and released last month by Viacom Inc's (VIAb.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz)(VIA.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Paramount Pictures.
The glasses, which McDonald's began offering on May 21, came in four designs with characters from the film: Shrek, Fiona, Puss in Boots and Donkey.
"Shrek," the fourth movie in the series about the lovable green ogre's adventures in his fairy tale land, opened May 21 and is currently the most popular movie in North America, having grossed almost $150 million through the end of May.
The CPSC was alerted to the problem through the office of U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, who was contacted by an anonymous source last week.
"Our children's health should not depend on the consciences of anonymous sources," Speier said in a statement posted on her website. (speier.house.gov/)
"Although McDonald's did the right thing by recalling these products, we need stronger testing standards," she said. "Cadmium is a toxic substance that is extremely dangerous to the developmental health of children."
McDonald's last recall with the CPSC occurred in 2002, involving 100,000 Chicago Bears bobble-head figurines with paint that contained excess levels of lead. (Reporting by Ben Klayman in Detroit, Jonathan Stempel in New York, Antonita Madonna Devotta in Bangalore, David Ljunggren in Ottawa; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn, Steve Orlofsky and Matthew Lewis)
Friday, June 4, 2010
Popular support for the ruling federal Conservative Party has slipped . (EKOS)
Conservative support ebbs slightly: poll
CBC News
(EKOS)
Popular support for the ruling federal Conservative Party has slipped following two weeks above 33 per cent, a new EKOS tracking poll suggests.
When asked who they would support if an election were to be held tomorrow, 31.7 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives, while the Liberals remain stuck in the mid-20s with 26.2 per cent.
Support for the NDP is at 17.4 per cent, while the Green Party has 11.5 per cent, and the Bloc Québécois 10.3 per cent, says the poll, which was released exclusively to CBC News.
The EKOS poll is based on a random sample of 2,827 Canadians aged 18 and over between May 26 and June 1. The margin of error associated with the total sample is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Consistent with past weeks, 49.2 per cent of Canadians polled say the country is moving in the right direction and 39.1 per cent say it's moving in the wrong direction. Conservative supporters, residents of Alberta, and men are most likely to agree the country is moving in the right direction, pollsters said.
Also consistent with last week, 38.9 per cent of Canadians said the government is moving in the right direction, while 48 per cent of respondents believe it is moving in the wrong direction.
Only Conservative supporters are happy with the direction of the government. Almost 75 per cent of Conservative Party supporters said the government was going in the right direction, according to the poll.
Dissatisfaction with the government's direction is most intense among supporters of the Bloc Québécois, at 78.8 per cent, and among NDP backers, at 66.5 per cent. Liberal supporters and Green Party supporters express similar levels of dissatisfaction at roughly 57 per centRead more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/ekos-poll.html#ixzz0prH7xsoR
CBC News
(EKOS)
Popular support for the ruling federal Conservative Party has slipped following two weeks above 33 per cent, a new EKOS tracking poll suggests.
When asked who they would support if an election were to be held tomorrow, 31.7 per cent of respondents said they would back the Conservatives, while the Liberals remain stuck in the mid-20s with 26.2 per cent.
Support for the NDP is at 17.4 per cent, while the Green Party has 11.5 per cent, and the Bloc Québécois 10.3 per cent, says the poll, which was released exclusively to CBC News.
The EKOS poll is based on a random sample of 2,827 Canadians aged 18 and over between May 26 and June 1. The margin of error associated with the total sample is plus or minus 1.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Consistent with past weeks, 49.2 per cent of Canadians polled say the country is moving in the right direction and 39.1 per cent say it's moving in the wrong direction. Conservative supporters, residents of Alberta, and men are most likely to agree the country is moving in the right direction, pollsters said.
Also consistent with last week, 38.9 per cent of Canadians said the government is moving in the right direction, while 48 per cent of respondents believe it is moving in the wrong direction.
Only Conservative supporters are happy with the direction of the government. Almost 75 per cent of Conservative Party supporters said the government was going in the right direction, according to the poll.
Dissatisfaction with the government's direction is most intense among supporters of the Bloc Québécois, at 78.8 per cent, and among NDP backers, at 66.5 per cent. Liberal supporters and Green Party supporters express similar levels of dissatisfaction at roughly 57 per centRead more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/02/ekos-poll.html#ixzz0prH7xsoR
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Kevin O'Leary of O'Leary Funds doesn't understand Google at all!
Yesterday on the CBC's flagship business program The Lang and O'Leary Exchange, Kevin O'Leary was commenting in reaction to leaked reports that Google was in the process of banning the installation and use of Microsoft Windows operating system because of security concerns. O'Leary disagreed with the stated reasoning. He believes Google feels threatened by Microsoft's Bing search engine and does not want to be caught supporting one of their competitors by using some of their technology in-house. If O'Leary had done proper research before making such a stupid comment, he probably would never have said it.
One of Google's chief liability problems is the possible risk of a security breach. Naturally, they do everything possible to prevent that from happening. One of the ways that a company can manage security is to only use operating system software that is naturally hardened against attack. Windows, any version, has never been successfully hardened against attack or vulnerability. In fact, no piece of Microsoft software has every been successfully secured. O'Leary is assuming that Google feels threatened by Microsoft but in their history they have never been threatened by Microsoft. This also shows his stunning lack of knowledge of IT security and the Internet industry as a whole.
His fellow host, Amanda Lang, countered his comment with a more logical scenario... that basically, Google evaluated the security of Microsoft products and found them lacking. That is a far more accurate statement than O'Leary's. Amanda Lang is the journalist of the two. In this particular case who would you want for your financial advisor? The guy who did not recognize that Google's move was a liability mitigation strategy instead of the sentiment of Oh God, Microsoft is coming after us, we are so scared, or the journalist who gave the dispassionate analysis of what the report actually meant? For technology plays, I would want Amanda Lang. At lease she thinks before she speaks, something that O'Leary doesn't do during the best of times. This does not inspire confidence in the management of O'Leary Funds. If I were a Canadian technology investor in the market for advice, Kevin O'Leary and O'Leary Funds would definitely not be my first choice. If Amanda Lang were offering investment advice I'd be more apt to listen to her as she is more cool headed and logical than he is. But she is an internationally respected business journalist so she won't be giving that advice.
The moral of the blog post is to make sure your money manager understands the industry they are selling products in or giving advice in because if they don't, you could be hit by the short end of the stick.
One of Google's chief liability problems is the possible risk of a security breach. Naturally, they do everything possible to prevent that from happening. One of the ways that a company can manage security is to only use operating system software that is naturally hardened against attack. Windows, any version, has never been successfully hardened against attack or vulnerability. In fact, no piece of Microsoft software has every been successfully secured. O'Leary is assuming that Google feels threatened by Microsoft but in their history they have never been threatened by Microsoft. This also shows his stunning lack of knowledge of IT security and the Internet industry as a whole.
His fellow host, Amanda Lang, countered his comment with a more logical scenario... that basically, Google evaluated the security of Microsoft products and found them lacking. That is a far more accurate statement than O'Leary's. Amanda Lang is the journalist of the two. In this particular case who would you want for your financial advisor? The guy who did not recognize that Google's move was a liability mitigation strategy instead of the sentiment of Oh God, Microsoft is coming after us, we are so scared, or the journalist who gave the dispassionate analysis of what the report actually meant? For technology plays, I would want Amanda Lang. At lease she thinks before she speaks, something that O'Leary doesn't do during the best of times. This does not inspire confidence in the management of O'Leary Funds. If I were a Canadian technology investor in the market for advice, Kevin O'Leary and O'Leary Funds would definitely not be my first choice. If Amanda Lang were offering investment advice I'd be more apt to listen to her as she is more cool headed and logical than he is. But she is an internationally respected business journalist so she won't be giving that advice.
The moral of the blog post is to make sure your money manager understands the industry they are selling products in or giving advice in because if they don't, you could be hit by the short end of the stick.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Recoup money from Mulroney, opposition urges ... 'Do the decent thing'!
Recoup money from Mulroney, opposition urges
CBC News
Former prime minister Mulroney says he didn't reveal his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber to lawyers in 1995 because they didn't ask the right questions. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Opposition MPs are demanding the federal government recoup the $2.1 million paid to former prime minister Brian Mulroney in an out-of-court settlement of his libel suit against the government 13 years ago.
That suit was based on Mulroney's claims that the RCMP defamed him when it wrote a letter accusing him of taking kickbacks for Air Canada's purchase of Airbus jets in 1988.
Mulroney was prime minister from 1984 to 1993.
The opposition's calls came in response to a report released Monday by the Oliphant Commission looking into Mulroney's dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.
In his report, Justice Jeffrey Oliphant called into question the testimony Mulroney gave to Department of Justice lawyers in 1995 before the settlement was reached.
Mulroney told the Oliphant Commission that at the time, he did not reveal his business dealings with Schreiber to the lawyers simply because they didn't ask the right questions. But Oliphant called that claim "patently absurd."Schreiber gave Mulroney at least $225,000 in cash-stuffed envelopes in the 1990s. (Uwe Lein/Associated Press)
In his 1995 testimony, Mulroney said he and Schreiber merely had coffee from time to time.
Later, it was revealed that he, in fact, accepted at least $225,000 in cash from Schreiber after he left office.
Oliphant was appointed by the federal government two years ago to determine what the money was for, where it went and whether the cash relationship between Schreiber and Mulroney was appropriate.
In Monday's report, he ruled that although the money changed hands only after Mulroney left office, the dealings between the two were "inappropriate."
The terms governing Oliphant's inquiry barred him from looking directly into the Airbus affair — the allegations that Mulroney and Schreiber were involved in a kickback scheme over the 1988 purchase of Airbus aircraft by Air Canada — and the libel settlement.
Nevertheless, the opposition has argued that since the inquiry found that Mulroney did have inappropriate business dealings with Schreiber, he misrepresented the nature of his relationship with the businessman during the testimony on which his libel settlement was based and hence should forfeit that money.
'Do the decent thing'
Liberal MP Ralph Goodale, who was in cabinet at the time of the settlement, says the government of the day did what it had to do based on the information it had at the time.
"And it now appears that that information was deliberately false," said Goodale.
NDP MP Wayne Marston said Mulroney should volunteer to give the money back to taxpayers.
"I think he should do the decent thing and return the money to Canadians," Marston said. "And if he's not prepared to do that, it's up to the government to go after it."
In question period Tuesday, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asked whether the government was going to try to recuperate the money, and the accrued interest, paid to Mulroney.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government will respond to Oliphant's report in "due course."
"The recommendations … [were] tabled yesterday," said Nicholson. "They are now with the appropriate authorities, and we'll look at any or all recommendations that come out of that process."
But before question period, Conservative backbencher David Tilson said he doesn't see any grounds to reopen the settlement.
"There isn't a court in this land that will set aside a settlement that has been made in good faith by two parties unless there is some sort of fraudulent activity. And at this stage, I haven't seen any," he said.
Mulroney has not responded to the report or to the calls to return the money but did release a statement Monday.
"I genuinely regret that my conduct after I left office gave rise to suspicions about the propriety of my personal business affairs as a private citizen," the statement said.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/01/mulroney-money.html#ixzz0pevAaqM8
CBC News
Former prime minister Mulroney says he didn't reveal his business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber to lawyers in 1995 because they didn't ask the right questions. (Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)
Opposition MPs are demanding the federal government recoup the $2.1 million paid to former prime minister Brian Mulroney in an out-of-court settlement of his libel suit against the government 13 years ago.
That suit was based on Mulroney's claims that the RCMP defamed him when it wrote a letter accusing him of taking kickbacks for Air Canada's purchase of Airbus jets in 1988.
Mulroney was prime minister from 1984 to 1993.
The opposition's calls came in response to a report released Monday by the Oliphant Commission looking into Mulroney's dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.
In his report, Justice Jeffrey Oliphant called into question the testimony Mulroney gave to Department of Justice lawyers in 1995 before the settlement was reached.
Mulroney told the Oliphant Commission that at the time, he did not reveal his business dealings with Schreiber to the lawyers simply because they didn't ask the right questions. But Oliphant called that claim "patently absurd."Schreiber gave Mulroney at least $225,000 in cash-stuffed envelopes in the 1990s. (Uwe Lein/Associated Press)
In his 1995 testimony, Mulroney said he and Schreiber merely had coffee from time to time.
Later, it was revealed that he, in fact, accepted at least $225,000 in cash from Schreiber after he left office.
Oliphant was appointed by the federal government two years ago to determine what the money was for, where it went and whether the cash relationship between Schreiber and Mulroney was appropriate.
In Monday's report, he ruled that although the money changed hands only after Mulroney left office, the dealings between the two were "inappropriate."
The terms governing Oliphant's inquiry barred him from looking directly into the Airbus affair — the allegations that Mulroney and Schreiber were involved in a kickback scheme over the 1988 purchase of Airbus aircraft by Air Canada — and the libel settlement.
Nevertheless, the opposition has argued that since the inquiry found that Mulroney did have inappropriate business dealings with Schreiber, he misrepresented the nature of his relationship with the businessman during the testimony on which his libel settlement was based and hence should forfeit that money.
'Do the decent thing'
Liberal MP Ralph Goodale, who was in cabinet at the time of the settlement, says the government of the day did what it had to do based on the information it had at the time.
"And it now appears that that information was deliberately false," said Goodale.
NDP MP Wayne Marston said Mulroney should volunteer to give the money back to taxpayers.
"I think he should do the decent thing and return the money to Canadians," Marston said. "And if he's not prepared to do that, it's up to the government to go after it."
In question period Tuesday, Liberal MP Marlene Jennings asked whether the government was going to try to recuperate the money, and the accrued interest, paid to Mulroney.
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government will respond to Oliphant's report in "due course."
"The recommendations … [were] tabled yesterday," said Nicholson. "They are now with the appropriate authorities, and we'll look at any or all recommendations that come out of that process."
But before question period, Conservative backbencher David Tilson said he doesn't see any grounds to reopen the settlement.
"There isn't a court in this land that will set aside a settlement that has been made in good faith by two parties unless there is some sort of fraudulent activity. And at this stage, I haven't seen any," he said.
Mulroney has not responded to the report or to the calls to return the money but did release a statement Monday.
"I genuinely regret that my conduct after I left office gave rise to suspicions about the propriety of my personal business affairs as a private citizen," the statement said.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/01/mulroney-money.html#ixzz0pevAaqM8
Monday, May 31, 2010
Mulroney-Schreiber affair The investigations: 2007-2009 ethics committee probe to a public inquiry
Timeline
Mulroney-Schreiber affair
The investigations: 2007-2009
From an ethics committee probe to a public inquiry
CBC News
March 23, 2007: German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber files lawsuit against former prime minister Brian Mulroney for failing to provide services he promised in exchange for $300,000 cash paid in 1993-1994. Read story.
Aug. 6, 2007: Ontario's Court of Appeal dismisses request from Schreiber for a judicial review of a previous decision relating to his 2004 extradition order.
Oct. 4, 2007: Imprisoned at Toronto West Detention Centre, Schreiber comes within minutes of being put on a plane to Germany by the RCMP, but his lawyers successfully submit an application for an emergency court injunction.
Nov. 8, 2007: Schreiber files an affidavit alleging he negotiated a $300,000 lobbying deal with Mulroney at the prime minister's Harrington Lake retreat in Quebec on June 23, 1993 — two days before Mulroney stepped down as prime minister. Read story.Former prime minister Brian Mulroney tells a Toronto audience that he welcomes a public inquiry into his dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Nov. 9, 2007: Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces an independent review of new allegations by Schreiber over his dealings with Mulroney. Read story.
Nov. 12, 2007: Mulroney calls for the federal government to drop an independent review and proceed immediately to a full-blown public inquiry. Read story.
Nov. 13, 2007: Harper catches opposition and members of his own party off-guard by announcing a public inquiry during Question Period.
Nov. 14, 2007: Harper names University of Waterloo President David Johnston to draft the terms of reference for the public inquiry. Read story.
Nov. 15, 2007: Ontario's Court of Appeal dismisses Schreiber's extradition appeal and instead accepts the justice minister's assurance that he would do nothing to remove Schreiber from Canada until Dec. 1, 2007.
Nov. 22, 2007: Federal opposition parties vote to open a broad probe into allegations involving Mulroney and Schreiber. Read story.
Nov. 27, 2007: House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken issues a rarely used Speaker's Warrant to put Schreiber in Parliament's custody. This overrides Schreiber's extradition order and compels him to testify before the ethics committee.
Nov. 28, 2007: Schreiber arrives at Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. That night, the Justice Department consents to a judicial stay of surrender to give Schreiber time to appeal his case to the Supreme Court.
Nov. 29, 2007: In his first appearance before the ethics committee, Schreiber says Mulroney was paid only $300,000 of a $500,000 business deal because Mulroney didn't hold up his end of the bargain. He also denies claims by Mulroney that the money was for help with a pasta business and business contacts. Read story.
Nov. 30, 2007: A stay in Schreiber's extradition is granted by the courts pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Read story.
Dec. 4, 2007: Just before noon, the committee receives word that Schreiber, who has given his second day of testimony, has been granted bail.
Dec. 13, 2007: Mulroney appears before the Commons ethics committee. He tells the committee his meeting with Schreiber two days before he left office was a farewell courtesy visit and that he promoted business on Schreiber's behalf only after stepping down. Read story.
Dec. 20, 2007: An Ontario court throws out Schreiber's lawsuit against Mulroney, saying it has no jurisdiction over the dispute. Read story.
Jan. 11, 2008: Harper announces he will call a limited public inquiry after the ethics committee finishes. Read story.
Feb. 5, 2008: Former federal justice minister Allan Rock and former Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector appear before the committee. Read story.
Feb. 7, 2008: Luc Lavoie, former Mulroney communications director, and François Martin, chef and manager of 24 Sussex Drive during Mulroney's time as prime minister, appear before the committee. Read story.
Feb. 12, 2008: Fred Doucet, former Mulroney advisor, tells the committee he knows nothing about Airbus and accuses Schreiber of making a slew of false statements. Former Liberal cabinet minister Marc Lalonde, who worked as a lawyer for Schreiber, also appears and says that neither Schreiber nor any of his businesses hired him to represent them in the Airbus affair or GCI. Read story.Former Mulroney advisor Fred Doucet told the committee that he never asked Schreiber to funnel money from the Airbus deal to Mulroney. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)
Feb. 14, 2008: Schreiber's former accountant, Giorgio Pelossi, tells the committee that Schreiber said Mulroney was supposed to get some proceeds from the Airbus sale. But he adds that Schreiber "lied all the time." Read story.
Feb. 26, 2008: Mulroney's public relations firm posts a statement late in the day on its website, declining, on Mulroney's behalf, the ethics committee's request to re-appear. Read story.
March 5, 2008: The federal government agrees to let Schreiber stay in Canada long enough to testify at a public inquiry. Read story.
March 6, 2008: The Supreme Court rejects Schreiber's bid to appeal extradition. Read story.
April 2, 2008: A final report by the ethics committee recommends holding a wide-ranging public inquiry. Read story.
April 7, 2008: David Johnston releases his report recommending that the public inquiry should be limited. Read the report and story.
April 16, 2008: Schreiber is freed on bail again.
May 29, 2008: The ethics committee votes to recall Mulroney to come back by June 12 on the grounds the government is dragging its feet on a promised public inquiry.
June 11, 2008: Mulroney refuses to testify for the second time before the ethics committee.Justice Jeffrey Oliphant was appointed to head the public inquiry. (Phil Hossack/Canadian Press)
June 12, 2008: Justice Jeffrey J. Oliphant appointed to conduct the public inquiry.
Dec. 9, 2008: Oliphant delays start date of the public inquiry to March 30, 2009, from Feb. 9, because of problems with computerized processing of documents.
Dec.11, 2008: The Supreme Court refuses to review Schreiber's bid to reverse 2004 extradition order. Read story.
March 20, 2009: Oliphant rejects Mulroney's attempt to delay the inquiry. Read story.
March 26, 2009: Oliphant rules the inquiry will take a wide look at business relations between Mulroney and Schreiber. Read story.
March 30, 2009: On the opening day of the federal inquiry, questions for both witnesses — former Liberal justice minister Marc Lalonde and former Conservative defence minister Bill McKnight — focus on Bear Head Industries. Read story.
March 31, 2009: Beth Moores, the widow of former Newfoundland premier Frank Moores, tells the inquiry the Swiss bank account called Devon was meant for her. Mulroney's former chief of staff, Derek Burney, also testifies about Bear Head. Read story.
April 10, 2009: The Fifth Estate learns that former Ottawa lobbyist and N.L. premier Frank Moores wrote to Schreiber about Air Canada and political donations. Read story.
April 14, 2009: Schreiber's first day before the inquiry. Read story.
April 16, 2009: Schreiber testifies about when he made the lobbying arrangement with Mulroney. Read story.
April 17, 2009: On his fourth and final day, Schreiber admits parts of affidavit are false. Read story.
April 27, 2009: Doucet says he can't recall writing three letters or receiving fax about Airbus planes. Read story.
April 28, 2009: Doucet tells inquiry about writing memo in 2000 describing Schreiber's relationship with Mulroney. Read story.
April 29, 2009: Former Conservative defence minister Perrin Beatty testifies about shock at learning $4 million in contingency fees paid out on basis of 1988 understanding in principle between government and Thyssen Industries. Read story.Karlheinz Schreiber pauses as he is questioned by lead commission council Richard Wolson at the federal inquiry on April 16, 2009. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
May 5, 2009: Evidence heard that Doucet pressed for Bear Head project. Read story.
May 6, 2009: Forensic accountant says there's a "strong inference" that money paid to Mulroney came from Airbus funds. Read story.
May 12, 2009: The first day of Mulroney's testimony. Read story.
May 13, 2009: Mulroney tells the inquiry his 1996 statement about never having dealings with Schreiber was made only in relation to Airbus accusations. Read story.
May 15, 2009: Mulroney recalls receiving the first cash payment. Read story.
May 19, 2009: Mulroney reveals he paid income tax on only half the money he says he received from Schreiber after declaring it as income in 1999. Read story.
May 20, 2009: Mulroney wraps up his sixth day on the witness stand at the inquiry, saying he felt he was treated fairly and with respect. Read story.
May 20, 2009: Taxpayers learn they could foot the bill for Mulroney's projected $2 million in legal fees as part of a Treasury Board policy to financially assist Crown servants during such inquiries. Read story.
May 21, 2009: A Canada Revenue Agency official states that a voluntary disclosure program, since discontinued, allowed for Mulroney to avoid penalties and pay taxes on only half the $225,000 he said he received from Schreiber. Read story.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/27/f-timeline-public-inquiry.html#ixzz0pZNrVxGe
Mulroney-Schreiber affair
The investigations: 2007-2009
From an ethics committee probe to a public inquiry
CBC News
March 23, 2007: German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber files lawsuit against former prime minister Brian Mulroney for failing to provide services he promised in exchange for $300,000 cash paid in 1993-1994. Read story.
Aug. 6, 2007: Ontario's Court of Appeal dismisses request from Schreiber for a judicial review of a previous decision relating to his 2004 extradition order.
Oct. 4, 2007: Imprisoned at Toronto West Detention Centre, Schreiber comes within minutes of being put on a plane to Germany by the RCMP, but his lawyers successfully submit an application for an emergency court injunction.
Nov. 8, 2007: Schreiber files an affidavit alleging he negotiated a $300,000 lobbying deal with Mulroney at the prime minister's Harrington Lake retreat in Quebec on June 23, 1993 — two days before Mulroney stepped down as prime minister. Read story.Former prime minister Brian Mulroney tells a Toronto audience that he welcomes a public inquiry into his dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)
Nov. 9, 2007: Prime Minister Stephen Harper announces an independent review of new allegations by Schreiber over his dealings with Mulroney. Read story.
Nov. 12, 2007: Mulroney calls for the federal government to drop an independent review and proceed immediately to a full-blown public inquiry. Read story.
Nov. 13, 2007: Harper catches opposition and members of his own party off-guard by announcing a public inquiry during Question Period.
Nov. 14, 2007: Harper names University of Waterloo President David Johnston to draft the terms of reference for the public inquiry. Read story.
Nov. 15, 2007: Ontario's Court of Appeal dismisses Schreiber's extradition appeal and instead accepts the justice minister's assurance that he would do nothing to remove Schreiber from Canada until Dec. 1, 2007.
Nov. 22, 2007: Federal opposition parties vote to open a broad probe into allegations involving Mulroney and Schreiber. Read story.
Nov. 27, 2007: House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken issues a rarely used Speaker's Warrant to put Schreiber in Parliament's custody. This overrides Schreiber's extradition order and compels him to testify before the ethics committee.
Nov. 28, 2007: Schreiber arrives at Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. That night, the Justice Department consents to a judicial stay of surrender to give Schreiber time to appeal his case to the Supreme Court.
Nov. 29, 2007: In his first appearance before the ethics committee, Schreiber says Mulroney was paid only $300,000 of a $500,000 business deal because Mulroney didn't hold up his end of the bargain. He also denies claims by Mulroney that the money was for help with a pasta business and business contacts. Read story.
Nov. 30, 2007: A stay in Schreiber's extradition is granted by the courts pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Read story.
Dec. 4, 2007: Just before noon, the committee receives word that Schreiber, who has given his second day of testimony, has been granted bail.
Dec. 13, 2007: Mulroney appears before the Commons ethics committee. He tells the committee his meeting with Schreiber two days before he left office was a farewell courtesy visit and that he promoted business on Schreiber's behalf only after stepping down. Read story.
Dec. 20, 2007: An Ontario court throws out Schreiber's lawsuit against Mulroney, saying it has no jurisdiction over the dispute. Read story.
Jan. 11, 2008: Harper announces he will call a limited public inquiry after the ethics committee finishes. Read story.
Feb. 5, 2008: Former federal justice minister Allan Rock and former Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector appear before the committee. Read story.
Feb. 7, 2008: Luc Lavoie, former Mulroney communications director, and François Martin, chef and manager of 24 Sussex Drive during Mulroney's time as prime minister, appear before the committee. Read story.
Feb. 12, 2008: Fred Doucet, former Mulroney advisor, tells the committee he knows nothing about Airbus and accuses Schreiber of making a slew of false statements. Former Liberal cabinet minister Marc Lalonde, who worked as a lawyer for Schreiber, also appears and says that neither Schreiber nor any of his businesses hired him to represent them in the Airbus affair or GCI. Read story.Former Mulroney advisor Fred Doucet told the committee that he never asked Schreiber to funnel money from the Airbus deal to Mulroney. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)
Feb. 14, 2008: Schreiber's former accountant, Giorgio Pelossi, tells the committee that Schreiber said Mulroney was supposed to get some proceeds from the Airbus sale. But he adds that Schreiber "lied all the time." Read story.
Feb. 26, 2008: Mulroney's public relations firm posts a statement late in the day on its website, declining, on Mulroney's behalf, the ethics committee's request to re-appear. Read story.
March 5, 2008: The federal government agrees to let Schreiber stay in Canada long enough to testify at a public inquiry. Read story.
March 6, 2008: The Supreme Court rejects Schreiber's bid to appeal extradition. Read story.
April 2, 2008: A final report by the ethics committee recommends holding a wide-ranging public inquiry. Read story.
April 7, 2008: David Johnston releases his report recommending that the public inquiry should be limited. Read the report and story.
April 16, 2008: Schreiber is freed on bail again.
May 29, 2008: The ethics committee votes to recall Mulroney to come back by June 12 on the grounds the government is dragging its feet on a promised public inquiry.
June 11, 2008: Mulroney refuses to testify for the second time before the ethics committee.Justice Jeffrey Oliphant was appointed to head the public inquiry. (Phil Hossack/Canadian Press)
June 12, 2008: Justice Jeffrey J. Oliphant appointed to conduct the public inquiry.
Dec. 9, 2008: Oliphant delays start date of the public inquiry to March 30, 2009, from Feb. 9, because of problems with computerized processing of documents.
Dec.11, 2008: The Supreme Court refuses to review Schreiber's bid to reverse 2004 extradition order. Read story.
March 20, 2009: Oliphant rejects Mulroney's attempt to delay the inquiry. Read story.
March 26, 2009: Oliphant rules the inquiry will take a wide look at business relations between Mulroney and Schreiber. Read story.
March 30, 2009: On the opening day of the federal inquiry, questions for both witnesses — former Liberal justice minister Marc Lalonde and former Conservative defence minister Bill McKnight — focus on Bear Head Industries. Read story.
March 31, 2009: Beth Moores, the widow of former Newfoundland premier Frank Moores, tells the inquiry the Swiss bank account called Devon was meant for her. Mulroney's former chief of staff, Derek Burney, also testifies about Bear Head. Read story.
April 10, 2009: The Fifth Estate learns that former Ottawa lobbyist and N.L. premier Frank Moores wrote to Schreiber about Air Canada and political donations. Read story.
April 14, 2009: Schreiber's first day before the inquiry. Read story.
April 16, 2009: Schreiber testifies about when he made the lobbying arrangement with Mulroney. Read story.
April 17, 2009: On his fourth and final day, Schreiber admits parts of affidavit are false. Read story.
April 27, 2009: Doucet says he can't recall writing three letters or receiving fax about Airbus planes. Read story.
April 28, 2009: Doucet tells inquiry about writing memo in 2000 describing Schreiber's relationship with Mulroney. Read story.
April 29, 2009: Former Conservative defence minister Perrin Beatty testifies about shock at learning $4 million in contingency fees paid out on basis of 1988 understanding in principle between government and Thyssen Industries. Read story.Karlheinz Schreiber pauses as he is questioned by lead commission council Richard Wolson at the federal inquiry on April 16, 2009. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)
May 5, 2009: Evidence heard that Doucet pressed for Bear Head project. Read story.
May 6, 2009: Forensic accountant says there's a "strong inference" that money paid to Mulroney came from Airbus funds. Read story.
May 12, 2009: The first day of Mulroney's testimony. Read story.
May 13, 2009: Mulroney tells the inquiry his 1996 statement about never having dealings with Schreiber was made only in relation to Airbus accusations. Read story.
May 15, 2009: Mulroney recalls receiving the first cash payment. Read story.
May 19, 2009: Mulroney reveals he paid income tax on only half the money he says he received from Schreiber after declaring it as income in 1999. Read story.
May 20, 2009: Mulroney wraps up his sixth day on the witness stand at the inquiry, saying he felt he was treated fairly and with respect. Read story.
May 20, 2009: Taxpayers learn they could foot the bill for Mulroney's projected $2 million in legal fees as part of a Treasury Board policy to financially assist Crown servants during such inquiries. Read story.
May 21, 2009: A Canada Revenue Agency official states that a voluntary disclosure program, since discontinued, allowed for Mulroney to avoid penalties and pay taxes on only half the $225,000 he said he received from Schreiber. Read story.Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/03/27/f-timeline-public-inquiry.html#ixzz0pZNrVxGe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)