Why say NO to Peter Penashue? Vote ABC

Please read the following very carefully:

"Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendements to my campaign return. 

During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the Former Official Agent."

The above can be found at Peter Penashue's latest Election Campaign website.

Now let's examine the true character Mr. Penashue wants to portray.
While he and other Conservatives want us all to believe that only Labrador should look at his record - they deliberately forget that he was also a federal Minister representing the entire province. Therefore we should all scrutinize very carefully what this person is all about.

The statement he makes above is not subject of his personal opinion - rather he presents it as fact.

1. Who has determined that a "mistake" was made?

2. Has it been determined that the actions in question were in fact a "mistake"?

3. Who has determined that Mr. Bowers is an "inexperienced volunteer"?

4. What does "inexperienced volunteer mean"?

5. What education and experience does Mr. Bowers have?

6. Through evaluation of Mr. Bowers education and experience - should a reasonably minded person or a legal authority accept that Mr. Bowers did not have the education and experience to be a volunteer?

7. Through evaluation of Mr. Bowers education and experience - should a reasonably minded person or a legal authority come to the conclusion that Mr. Bowers should have reasonably been aware of the governing legislation?

8. Considering the public office that Mr. Penashue was seeking, was successful in achieving, resigned from and is seeking again including being a member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada - is it acceptable that Mr. Penashue was "unaware" of donations being made to his campaign? Is it acceptable that he did not know or ignored the type of donations being made to his campaign?

9. The term Mr. Penashue uses to describe donations is "ineligible". Considering Corporate donations to political parties and candidates are illegal in Canada - why is the term ineligible used? While it might be somewhat understandable that a personal contribution (which is legal) may sometimes - with enthusiasm be a little more that the eligible amount - there is no question that there is only one class of contributor. There have been reasons given why corporate contributions are illegal - therefore we must respect our democratic protections and ensure that we follow the Elections Act. Why would a man seeking federal public office not fully understand and protect against this type of activity?

10. The fact that Mr. Penashue seeks to hide behind a volunteer that he chose and understates the severity of breaching laws regarding federal elections - certainly demonstrates what he might do if given the privilege of public office again and even more so as a Cabinet Minister. How can one be an advisor of the legislature when one disrespects legislation?

Say no to Peter Penashue and I respectfully ask that you vote ABC.

Mr. Penashue and Mr. Harper must learn that they cannot buy our democracy and rule over instead of serve us - the electorate.

Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf

Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf

Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf

Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpuf

Due to mistakes that were made by an inexperienced volunteer in filing the Elections Canada return from the last campaign, I appointed a new Official Agent to work with Elections Canada to make any needed amendments to my campaign return.
During the examination we became aware that there were ineligible donations accepted by the former Official Agent.
- See more at: http://deliveringforlabrador.ca/#sthash.aJ1sEhje.dpufle

The Race to Save Canada from its CEO

It's hard to tell just how much damage Harper can do over the next three years.

After the federal election - May of 2011 - Harper said the following: “One thing I’ve learned in this business is that surprises are generally not well-received by the public, and so we intend to move forward with what Canadians understand about us and I think what they’re more and more comfortable with”.


Read and reread the quote.

Our Prime Minister is an educated man and he understands fully the statements he makes.

I would like a few English professors to interpret this quote.

What it means to me is Harper believes he is an all powerful CEO of a privately held major corporation.

What it means to me is Harper does not understand he is running a country.

What it means to me is that the shareholders of the company he believes he runs are not Canadian.

What it means to me is that Harper believes "voters" understood him and his ilk.

What it means to me is that Harper fully plans to make us comfortable with his agenda.

What it means to me is that Canada will not be recognizable when he's finished.

What it means to me is that - the Race is On to Save Canada - and it had better happen before too many policies are virtually irreversible.

What is particularly scary about Harper is that not one Progressive within Conservative rank and file MP's has crossed the floor.

He was raised as an adult by ideology that is foreign to most Canadians and his role is to deliver this country up to particular global entities. 

Liberal and NDP members in the Commons had better do more than posturing.

Canadians had better do more than gasp.

Our PM lies with ease, deceives at his pleasure, and rules through intimidation.

Our laws mean nothing to him and he believes he is entitled to secrecy whenever he chooses.

He is not a man of science but is rather a man of ideological zealotry. Canada did not suit his beliefs - so he will change it.

Hi is a very dangerous person and he happens to be the Prime Minister.

What happened to Bob? The tale of two values!

Bob Mills - MP for Red Deer Alberta - who came from the Reform Party - then to the Alliance Party - and finally to the Conservative Party of Canada - followed thew same path as his leader Stephen Harper. The same views on democracy - transparency - and apparently political lobbyists.

Back in 1997 Mills had his knickers in a knot when 2 ex-Liberal MP's Paul Zed and Doug Young formed a company called Summa Strategies - an Ottawa lobby group. He was speaking in the House of Commons - as recorded by Hansard - about foreign policy.

Conservative MP Mills had this to say:

Basically this shows a real lack of foreign affairs initiative and policy by this government. It makes you wonder who is in charge of the foreign affairs department when a company, Summa Strategies, directed by ex-Liberal MPs Doug Young and Paul Zed, can in fact put forward a deal like this at such a critical time.

Shortly after the 1997 election these two gentlemen set up Summa Strategies as an Ottawa lobbying group. Obviously they are now taking great advantage of their contacts within the government. Mr. Young is acting for Canadian National Railways, a crown corporation he helped to privatize when he was minister of transport. No wonder Canadians are so skeptical of government and ex-ministers when they are involved in this sort of lobbying activities.

We need to tighten up these arrangements dramatically. Just imagine proposing to deal with a government like that of Saddam Hussein. While all the time arguing that this was a humanitarian deal for trucks and a number of items which were not listed, they went further to invite the foreign affairs minister, Tariq Aziz, to visit Canada, to visit the Prime Minister of New Brunswick, for which he claimed he had an invitation.

We in this House get tired of the government standing up, beating its chest and saying how wonderful it is. It talks about standing up to Saddam Hussein, yet we let this billion dollar deal to go ahead. Maybe the UN will scuttle it. We talk about how great we are in saving the world with land mines, meanwhile we are selling nuclear plants to India, Romania, China, Turkey and Korea, to name a few.

We talk about how we have solved all the financial problems, when in reality we have a $600 billion debt. We talk about a Zaire mission which we championed because the Prime Minister saw it on television. Then we found out that the day before the President of the United States called and suggested that that is what Canada should do.

We get tired of this sort of double standard and double talk. I question who is in charge over there? Doug Young, Paul Zed and Summa Strategies or the foreign affairs minister.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let me ask the same question of Bob Mills today. Who is in charge over there the Prime Minister - the government - or Summa Strategies - now that conservative strategist Tim Powers is a VP of the company?

Where is all your concern now? Isn't it ironic that Tim who comes from the Alliance ilk (Grant Hill's Campaign for Alliance leadership) is now not only agreeing with the lobbyist mentality but has become one - and for Summa no less.

Abitibi's shivering in its boots...

Abitibi's shivering in its boots...

Wouldn't you be if the Premier or Minister of Natural Resources threatened to take away your timber?

First of all - I have been a long time supporter of the loggers and paperworkers in this province and attended some pretty rowdy demonstrations - and yes even spoke from the back of a pick-up in Grand Falls-Windsor.

I have done whatever I could to speak openly about the plight of our paper mills - encouraged growth in Labrador in the mill or paper industry sectors. Long before Danny wanted to be Premier - I was belting out the lack of policy and planning in our forestry sector.

There was a time we had to fight the problem of land-use with good people from the west coast who knew we had to find better ways to manage our forests and find a balance between the environment and woods harvesting.

I am disappointed in the union at Grand Falls - they were not there when their brothers and sisters in Stehenville on the Port au Port Peninsula lost their jobs. I remember Grand Falls saying that they were not prepared to lose a machine to help save Stephenville. They sat silent while the Minister of Natural Resources - Kathy Dunderdale - and MHA's Hodder and Burke did nothing to encourage the hard work of the remaining local in Stephenville - to attract another operator.

Tonight I turn on the Evening News (CBC) and see the local rep making the case for Grand Falls - as Abitibi ups the stakes at that operation. Save 10 million or else!!! As far as I know the fight would have been much easier had the locals stood together - the successive government's of Grimes and Williams were successful in a divide and conquer strategy.

Having said that the workers at the mill - their families and communities in Central Newfoundland need our support - but this time we should be fighting for the life of Grand Falls-Windsor and the rebirth of Stephenville. They require our help as the government does not wield a big stick when threatening to do something to Abitibi should they shut down an operation.

I wonder is Kathy Dunderdale being "politically naive" when she makes a threat such as pulling timber licenses. We know the Premier was when he said the Stephenville Mill would not close "under his watch". We also now know the Premier was bluffing when he threatened to expropriate the mill. Make no mistake - Abitibi knows they are bluffing and Weaver's got Danny's number and probably the number of many Liberals as well. Unlike oil and gas - the pulp and paper sector is hurting and they are all looking to become more efficient. There are however opportunities in this sector in areas of new and emerging technology - new products and research.

I don't know how the internal guts of the union locals are working or how they worked during the Stephenville fiasco but I can suggest that all the workers and their families should fight and fight hard for the pulp and paper industry in our province - because the threats and stated commitments of our government have proven to be rhetoric - and not at all on the radar of our federal politicians.

I can tell you this that while Abitibi makes its plans at headquarters in Quebec - they are counting on Premier Williams to deliver that Lower Churchill Power to them in Ontario and Quebec - where the remainder of the pulp and paper sector will reside if we do not take real action.

Think about this come election day. Hi Randy "I'm a first time caller" and I'm running in ? district for the ? Party. Ask yourself - where were they while the Province needed people to speak up on issues of extreme importance to our kids and grand-kids not to mention our parents and grand-parents. Or better what Jerome Kennedy said after he lost Signal Hill - Quidi Vidi - he pointed out to Randy he wouldn't be calling anymore now.

All of us have lives and all of us are busy - but if you believe that any of these people have any more time than you or I do - to contribute on a regular basis on issues of general importance to the Province - they are not ready for public office and do not deserve your support.

Come on people do we really need to lose more industry to Quebec - Ontario - Alberta - Iceland - Norway - or even China?

You really have to think - ask the tough questions - why didn't you fix the problem when you were in government? Make no mistake the Stephenville Mill was in trouble when Grimes was there - I have had people ask me if I did anything about it. Sure - but it was not my call - it was the call of people like then Minister Kelvin Parsons and others who might be coming to your door over the next week or so.

This would be a classic case of Denial - The Latest from Clement's Office

Conservatives annoyed at impatient Canadians "We will do what we promise, given the opportunity."

As the readers to this blog know - the Conservatives let the navy run out of money as for sovereignty patrols in the North Atlantic - and that upset many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians (other than our politicians).

Minister Clement's office wrote a response to that post and I replied in kind.

Now on the heels of this exchange the Minister's senior staffer wrote back again - this time to complain about annoying Canadians who are berating his bosses.

What's interesting is there the new twist on Custodial Control of the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. If we are to listen to this Conservative supporter we might get false hope that this Hearn promise is going to happen - just give us a bit more time.

Just as a reminder here is the response Loyola Hearn gave to the St. John's Board of Trade during the last federal election campaign - re Foreign Overfishing

Foreign Overfishing

Our Party initiated the idea of custodial management. We had a resolution to that effect passed in Parliament. In our policy statements we commit to taking custodial management if we become Government.

Now here is the latest correspondence from Clement's office:

Dear Ms. Kelland-Dyer,

I find it distressing when citizens berate the Conservative government which has been in power for one year only, for not solving all the problems caused by the Liberal government over the previous 13 years. If Canadians had been even close to this diligent with the Liberals, perhaps this government would not have to try to fix everything while wielding only a minority in the House. Regarding what you refer to as Minister Hearn's "broken promise", I disagree with you. I did not read anything in the documentation you provided me that had a short time limit on it. Again, we cannot accomplish everything at one time especially when we are constantly being hampered by the Liberal opposition, in passing legislation. We have accomplished more in 1 year than the previous governments did in 13 years. Yes, they promised much much more than we did, but they were hollow and empty promises. Give us a break and allow us the same parameters you allowed the Liberals for 13 years. The difference will be easily seen at the end. We will do what we promise, given the opportunity.

Sincerely,


David J. Lowe
Chief Parliamentary Assistant to
Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.