Poll: Canadians! How will you be voting on Nov. 27?

[Eug]

<< Our immigration policies promote the brain drain of other countries.
The last doctors I've been to are white South Africans.
I know of 2nd generation Asian doctors that were more than happy to take over the family practice. >>

I'm not 100% sure I see your point, but the way I'm understanding it is that you're saying if we lose doctors than we can easily replace them. (Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth.) I'm saying we shouldn't have to lose them, and should be concerned because that costs us money, and also, family practice is only one field. As for the South African doctors, you must live in Saskatchewan or something like that? One problem with that is that many of the South African docs would rather not live in Saskatchewan (or a small town in whatever province etc.) and would rather live in a place like Vancouver or Toronto, etc. The aim of a place like Regina should not be to just accept their doctors leaving to replace them with foreign docs, but to train people who may actually want to live the rest of their lives in Sask. Many of the South African docs leave after their several year contract runs out. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 2nd gen. Asian docs though, because I'm guessing many of them grew up and were trained locally anyway, and therefore just happen to be same as any other local docs who happened to stay. Arguably the more important issue however, are the specialists. There is a dire shortage of specialists like pathologists, cardiologists, medical oncologists, etc. in places like Saskatchewan. It's gotten so bad that the province is considering hiring unlicenced foreign docs. Definitely not ideal. Perhaps the feds SHOULD give the province more leeway in handling these issues - this has reached almost crisis levels in certain rural regions. Indeed, in a lot of ways, much of the policy regarding these issues is provincially set. There does need to be some federal involvement however, since I think interprovincial portability of medical care is a right of all Canadian citizens. Uh oh... I'm starting to go off tangent here...

OTOH, personally, I'm happy that there is federal gun legislation and ever since I was a kid I was hoping there would be laws like ones recently passed, even though several of my friends hunt. Boating laws are another story though.

Edit:

Yes Calgary is doing VERY well, even in things like film, etc. It does demonstrate the value of good economic policy, although truth be known that much of the jumpstart began with big business looking for dollars in the oil industry way back when. Lots of my friends live there. Seems OK, but I wouldn't wanna live there myself. Heheh.

 

[desy]

You are right I'm from Sask and the reason doctors in Sask do not stay espcially the specialists are because we don't have the population base to support specialists. We need lots of GPs which most doctors don't want to be nowadays and the few we do get in get overworked because there isn't replacemnts. We lose specialists because the amount of surguries they do a year is the min to stay proficient. The reason we bring in outside doctors is they are qualified, they have to pass the Canadian boards, and living in Sask is way better than where they came from, yes its tough for the countries that lose doctors, but as a have country you know as well as I do that its been debated ethically do we steal from those who need?
I wasn't being flip just stating a fact and the facts are we don't have the population to retain doctors and just as the US drains us we drain others right or wrong.
Gun control is not a problem for 90% of firearms owners just this particular legislation is incredibly flawed which is why we want C-68 repealed, again it takes into account eastern problems and issues not western ones.

Heres a cut and paste of some more reasonable arguments and I suggest you read Dave Tomlinson of the NFA and proposed legislation that wouldn't cost a billion dollars to enact, hires 300 paper pushers in Ottawa. I'd rather see 300 more RCMP out there than burocrats, sorry.
If they actually enforced the existing laws they would have gone a long way to prevent crime but they came up with this BS cause the idiot Marc Lepene shot 10 women in Montreal 10 years ago. Coincidentally the firearm he used will NOT be a restricted weapon under this new law.
I can also bore you with the actual death statistics but it boils down to there are many many better ways to spend the 1/2 billion currently spent and it will go over well over a billion make no mistake and all they have done so far is register 1/3 of the owners and 1/10 th of the guns. Of the owners I've talked to about 1/23 will comply completely 1/3 partially and about 1/3 not at all.

1) The new registry is being 'sold' to Canadians as a way to fight crime. It is supposed to reduce homicides, suicides, and make the crime easier to solve (after the fact) for police by being able to trace the gun.
Hokay! Now use your common sense for a second. Do you REALLY think that simply by registering a gun on a computer, you will prevent it from being used in a crime? Do you think that there are guns out there that will NOT be registered? Do you think this law will PREVENT guns from being smuggled into Canada to be used in criminal activity? Do you really think a registered gun is any less of an option for the poor unfortunate soul who is determined to take his or her own life?

2) Did you know that there are actually going to be two different licenses for gun owners? One license will 'allow' you to keep the
guns you now legally own and to buy ammunition for them.You cannot buy any new guns however in the future. The second license will 'allow' you to own your guns, buy ammunition, and buy new guns in future. Did you know that if you want the second license, you have to pass an approved safety course, to be paid for at your own expense, about $100. So in theory, 'unsafe' owners can continue to own their guns, but if you want 'new' guns you somehow must be 'safer'than you are today?

Most non-gun owners could care less about the details, but imagine a license that lets you keep your car and buy gas for it, but never allows you to buy another car? Guns like any other mechanical device eventually can wear out and need replacement. What if you get the wrong license? Again most non-gun owners could care less. Well, use the car analogy. Imagine going to some government office 10 years from now and trying to convince anyone there to cut you a break and let you change the type of license you have. Good luck!

3) The Government always publicly assures gun owners that registration will not lead to someone knocking on your door and taking
your legally owned guns away. The general public read this in the newspaper or see it on TV and say to themselves, &quot;See,registration is not a bad thing. Those gun people are overreacting. They will get to keep their guns&quot;. This law and laws that have come before it have almost always done two things. Either they name by type and/or description certain firearms that are no longer legal to own, or they change the 'class' in which certain firearms are found, and make owners perform further registrations or make expensive modifications. Many firearms legally owned in Canada today will be lost to their owners when the new law comes into full effect. Why? The new law states that small calibre handguns (.22/.25/.32) not owned before a
certain date ( I believe Feb/94) must be surrendered to police. Other firearms such as handguns with a barrel shorter than 4&quot; must also be turned it. To my knowledge, NO COMPENSATION will be paid to these people. So, if you bought a $500 handgun, 6 years ago, you will lose it, and you will not get ANY money for it. Your gun has been legal for over five years, then poof! Is this not confiscation?
Other previously passed laws have forced owners of some types of shotguns and assault rifles to surrender them as well. Imagine owning a firearm worth 1-2,000 dollars, and getting a phone call from the police to turn it in or go to jail? Oh, how did they know who owned them? Previous legislation made 'assault rifles' a restricted weapon. That means, you could legally own it, if it was registered. Yes that's correct, registered. Some 'long guns' (not handguns) have been registered for more than a decade. Handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930's.The new law simply registers EVERYTHING that has not been registered before! As a side issue, with the Olympics just over, this new law will it would seem spell the end to Canadians competeing in the shooting sports. Linda Thom won a gold medal for Canada in 1984 in Los Angeles. Her daughter or granddaughter will never be able to try to attain the same goal. Why? The .22 pistol she used will now be outlawed.
4) Last, and certainly for me, the most distasteful part of all of this is that I have fewer rights as a gun owner than a convicted crack
dealer. Yes, that's correct. It's not B.S. It's not my opinion. I shall explain. The new 'gun registry' law has provisions in it that stipulate that I MUST co-operate with police, or be charged with obstructing justice. After a consultation with my lawyer, he put forward the following situation. For some reason, I have attracted the attention of the police. They arrive at my home with a search warrant, and wish to see my guns. OK, no problem. I must then VOLUNTEER any and all items in my home having to do with those guns. That would be magazines, videotapes, computer software, even the encyclopedia 'G' for guns. Failure to do so finds me charged with a crime, even if the original search warrant finds nothing wrong with my guns.

NOW, the crack dealer, when presented with a search warrant sits down and shuts his mouth. He lets the police tear his home apart, and if they miss his hiding spot (think of how long police searched Paul Bernardos' house and missed the videotapes in the bathroom ceiling), he is off the hook. He does not need to VOLUNTEER to the police that he has 20 kilos stashed in the garage.
So, the legal gun owner has to volunteer information or be charged, while the dope dealer and murderer get to clam up and hope they get lucky. I'm not suggesting that gun owners hide evidence from police, but we all have a right in this country to NOT incriminate ourselves by exerecising a right to shut up or not actively participate in a search. A right we as gun owners lose under this new law.

 

[SSP]

Hey Muerto, The alliance tried to get the bloc to join to defeat the liberals and the bloc told them to get lost, right when the party was formed.

 

[Trouble]

Just wanted to say this is a great thread, I've enjoyed reading it. You are truly a multi-talented and well informed group of people. I don't like the PM. He's past his time to retire. Having said this I'll add that he's got some good solid people in his party, a damn sight smarter and brighter than the majority of Studwell's crew. Not to say he doesn't have a few stars but not enough to form a cabinet that is capable of running the country effectively at this time. The incumbent government despite the broken promises, we all know what they are, has still got the debt under control and is providing tax relief. Money is going to start flowing back into cash strapped programs again. Not at breakneck speed but it'll happen. It's not perfect but it's better.

Someone mentioned the financial harm the separation of Quebec would do to Canada. Ahem. Quebec is a have not province. Money flows in at a much higher rate than it flows out. We'd probably retain the South shore and Labrador, they'd lose their government jobs, we'd be the parents who'd just gotten rid of that 30 year old child who refuses to pay rent and eats us out of house and home. Don't get me wrong, I'd hate to see it happen but if it does it would hurt them a lot more than it would us. IMHO, I'm not a political scientist, just an observer.

To our American friends. Wanna bet we know who our PM is before you know who your president is? I may eat my words but if the vote counters in Florida keep eating the little pieces of paper it's going to take forever.

 

[Handle]

Oh, and everyone, are you voting in the poll for this thread? With the number of messages (and I'm assuming there are readers who are not responding) there should be more votes.

 

[billandopus]

lesser of two evils I suppose.

Should I vote with my conscience? Or should I vote realistically to which party and leader will help our country better?

 

[Looney]

Um, it's a pretty known fact that Stockwell is oppose of abortion... how well do you know your party if you aren't aware of that fact?

And we don't need a larger military... an upgraded one, yes, but we're a nation of 30million, no need to have an army the size of the US. And the world is getting more dangerous? Are you on drugs? Not saying it's not dangerous, but MORE dangerous? uh huh

Immigration AirForce? Well, i REALLY do wonder how much you know about your party if you haven't heard that. That AirForce bit was Stockwell being attacked by somebody in his own party, because they didn't want Stockwell to be leader of the party. I'm just pointing out how moronic his views are if he even thought that this was even remotely a viable idea.

A few in this threads have mentioned that the debt should be paid off... do most of you agree or not? How the hell is that going to happen with massive tax cuts?



<< gives away tax payers money to other countries >>



If a man was dying beside you, and you had the ability to save him with a few dollars from your pocket, would you do it? Or would you walk away and go play some video games? Because the amount we give to other nations in aids is only a few dollars out of each of our pockets.



<< Well Chretien has had 8 years to do something about the situation >>



And what does he need to do? Or has he failed to do? The Mulroney era left Canada in a VERY bad situation, something that takes longer than a couple of weeks to fix. I'm not defending Chretien, but your comments are nothing more than one liners.



And what's with the &quot;lesser of two evils?&quot; We have like 5 parties to vote from, and you can't find a single party you can identify with? The Liberals are good, and i would vote for them again, but i don't think Chretien deserves a 3rd term. It's Martin turn, and he damn well deserves it.
So i'm going PC. Liberals won't lose, just not enough votes out there for any other party to take it.. unless they join with the Bloc, which would NEVER happen.