Back to the sixties

Have we gone back to the sixties?
In the sixties we had the Panthers a group well minded until their ranks were filled with radicals and the group became franchised all over America and got a very negative reputation
Today we have Black Lives Matter again a group founded on principles but has been franchised and inundated by radicals and is quickly losing their good folks reputation
In the sixties it became OK to burn your own neighbourhood down and loot the stores set up to serve you
Guess what we are seeing this more often now
In the sixties the US had a Hawk in charge and we see a Hawk in the White House today
In the sixties peaceful marches became violent and today we see the same thing
In the sixties we had the FLQ and IRA to watch out for now we have religious extremists
In the sixties we had boat people by the hundreds now we have people by the thousands escaping war and violence
Last but not least we lost a lot of young people to drugs in the sixties and that has not changed

If we don’t learn from history we will repeat it
Heidi is just hoping that we will not see another Kent State type of shooting

Don’t think it is all about junior

Here is an alternate theory regarding juniors E Mail and the Russians.

Daddy Trump attends the G-20 and things are going not too bad until the Putin meeting after which the President became a bit curse did what he had to do then jumped on air force one without so much as have a good day see you again.

Heidi thinks maybe perhaps Mr. Putin laid down the law about one thing or the other and used the release of juniors E Mail as an example of what could happen to the Trump White House if things don’t change.

Are these E Mails just the tip of the ice burg?
Just a thought from Heidi and it appears only from Heidi.

UPDATE

Since this post the number of people at the meeting between baby Trump and the Russians has grown and so has the profile of the these people. Not only this but now we understand that  POTUS had a one on one with Putin with out any other American. In both these cases only the Russians are in a position to leak this information.

What is next?????

Omar Khadr was screwed over

Matters not if we think Omar should get the settlement or not he is getting it because the Harper government apparently did not believe in the rule of law and did everything in its power to keep him in detention and out of Canada.
When people like Jason Kenney tweet that Omar should still be in prison it is proof positive that the previous government totally screwed this file up because again they did not govern using the rule of law but the wishes of parliament.
Had the Harper government taken control of a minor child with a valid Canadian passport and brought him back to Canada and treated him like any other minor there would be no large payout. Instead the Harper government apparently did everything they could to keep Omar in lock up. It was only until the Americans wanted to close down the Cuban jail and only when public opinion changed and when Omar got a lawyer did Harper agree to take Omar back to Canada.
Even when Omar was brought back Harper apparently did all he could to make his life hell including fighting the Supreme Court on at least three different occasions.
As far as Heidi is concerned the only reason any settlement will be paid out is because the previous government cared less about the rule of law.
If you think the same way let Jason Kenney know.

Conversation between a Canadian sniper and Tom Mulcair

Tom this is Special Forces sniper I am about three and a half kilometers behind the front lines. I have a shot that will save lives, should I take it.
Wait do not take the shot we need to convene a special session of the house and debate it.
Tom lives will be saved
I repeat do not take the shot, this needs to be debated as parliament was not told Canadian snipers would shoot anybody.
So here we have it folks, the leader of a party that doesn’t want him and party that until recently no one else wanted to lead complaining about a Canadian who was over three kilometers away from the action taking a shot that saved lives. Sounds to me that he has no concern about how and why the war is waged but simply wants press time and will say anything to get it
Shame on you Tom
That is how Heidi sees it ,if you see it the same way tell Tom.

wage gap what is it

Today in the house the term wage gap was used in a lot of the questions. Heidi needs to know ,are we calculating this number correctly.
Apparently the formula used goes something like this.
[divide the median earnings of full-time, year-round, working women by the median earnings of full-time, year-round, working men]
This method will only work if there are men only and women only occupations, in today’s world there are women bulldozer drivers and male nurses as well as male and female servers and pilots and cabin crew with men and women  getting equal pay  . In reality there isn’t a wage gap between men and women doing the same work in the western world.
What Heidi believes the issue should be is equal pay for equal work example ,should a person working as part of an airline cabin crew make the same as a restaurant server, or a day care person and a preschool teacher be paid the same.

Will some one out there help Heidi out with this , are we calculating a wage gap that is not there and should we be looking at wage equality a little closer.

More false news out of Ottawa

For some time now a lot of time that should have been used to run the government of Canada in a productive manor the opposition parties have been spreading false news about a working paper on changing the standing orders of the house.
Heidi for one has read the paper and it appears the opposition has not.
Let us look at it.
1) Sittings: The paper suggests that the house not sit Fridays but spread the half day Friday over Monday to Thursday having the work day start at eight or nine rather than ten . This would give the MP a full day at home to talk to the voters. However there is a second option which would make Friday a regular day. Now both these options put the MP’s work week more in line with the average Canadian when it comes to hours in and work out.
PROBLEM is the opposition MP’s claim the paper wants to cut Friday and that’s it no other options
2) Electronic Voting: Many other countries provinces and municipalities  have adopted electronic voting as opposed to standing and being counted and since the house is due for a makeover it would a good time to add this feature.
It appears the opposition has not read this part of the paper as they do not mention it during question period
3) Routine Proceedings: The paper wants a discussion on schedule debate for motions such as opposition motions during routine preceding’s
It appears the opposition has not read this part of the paper as they do not mention it during question period
4) Private members Business: looks at ways to give allocated time for members to introduce their own bills
It appears the opposition has not read this part of the paper as they do not mention it during question period
4) Prorogation: looks at ways to better use prorogation as opposed to the way the last government used it
It is obvious why the official opposition would not like to talk about this. Since the opposition used prorogation to their advantage but to the good of the country while they were in power it is easy to see why they do not want that changed

5) Management of Debate: talks about ways to get more comprehensive answers to questions by allowing more time to answer (up from 45 to cap of 65 days with an upper limit cap)
Talks to eliminating omnibus bills .Bills that hide issues not associated with the theme of the bill such as hiding retroactive gun laws in a budget bill.
Management of debate is addressed by asking that speaking time in committee be limited so that the floor could not be high jacked. Any MP could speak as many times as they feel the need to but only for a set time each time
While in power the opposition would take away questions and never come back with answers. So why would they change this it worked well for them.
Omnibus bills: worked well for the previous government when it came to hiding legislation so again why would they want to change that
Managing debate seems like a reasonable thing to look at ,Heidi cannot see what the issue is , perhaps this is why it never comes up in question period.

Now the big complaint and the largest bit of false news is that the PM will only be in the house one day per week. Heidi hears this time and time again during question period and it is an out and out fabrication.
This is what the paper says:
Question Period is where the Government is held to account for its policies and for the conduct of Ministers. The Government committed to reform Question Period so that all Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are held to greater account. Reforms to Question Period could include instituting a Prime Minister’s Questions time, as is done in Britain, and could also include lengthening the time allotted for questions and answers.

In Britain the PM is in the house as much as their schedule will allow but the PM has a day when they take all the questions. Just to make it simple for all the opposition supporter’s out there who have managed to stay with us. This means one day the PM answers all the questions, it does not mean the PM is just in the house for one day.

In conclusion Heidi hopes that someday the opposition parties will understand they are not in the house to simply go against whatever the government of the days wants to do but are there to serve Canadian’s even it means that the Government has some good ideas.

For more details please see

https://www.canada.ca/en/leader-government-house-commons/services/reform-standing-orders-house-commons/2017/march.html

 

 

Nathan Cullen

Today in the house Heidi observed Nathan Cullen stand in his place and call out the PM on not continuing with electoral reform. Nathan went on to say that all but the governing party agreed to a proportional system and therefore the PM had mislead Canadian’s.
What Nathan left out of his rant was that the committee had not continued with their quest to define what system they wanted. Heidi says this because the committee did not say what kind of proportional system they had chosen.
If the committee had presented a complete picture to the government and that was denied then perhaps Nathan would have reason to question the sincerity of the PM.
Perhaps the good folks of Skeena-Burkley Valley should ask Nathan why the committee came up short and why he does not understand just what the real purpose of the committee was.

 

bheadone