No. Make more. Flood the market. Pay them reasonably good but fix their work-life balance by having more. Asking for more money is the unimaginative response that people do whenever something is wrong - doctors seem to have plenty of money, so it is probably something else that is wrong.

Perhaps make deals to train more, and send people to train, in less expensive foreign markets rather than depleting those markets of their much needed doctors by luring them to Canada. People should have the right to move to a different country but blatant brain drain tactics have always seemed morally dubious to me.

Yeah. Totally worth the $30 mill cut from the wild fire prevention services since 2018 (~25% of the budget). And the $350 mill cut off the wildfire contingency fund (~75% of previous budget). Get used to the smoke everyone.

I think it’s worth pursuing. People who are on programs now that would risk losing those programs by getting a job, could now go get a job, and some of those people will excel and grow and make money and pay lots of taxes. All low wage jobs would suddenly be that much more interesting and there wouldn’t be as much pressure to drive up the minimum wage.

I’d be curious about how the dollars work out How expensive would it be if we didn’t need AISH, employment insurance, CPP, or any number of other living assistance programs anymore (or which of those it makes most sense to axe, which to keep, and which can be dialed back). Definitely worth exploring the idea, in isolation or in comparison to other cash expenditures.

More nuanced rules would be good in some ways, but I think more nuanced rules would require a larger government and more expensive services to oversee, or even to make such rules. I would be in support of trying that, as I think the long term benefits will exist, but many are not as there is an increase in short term pain because we’d have to pay long before we’d see a benefit, and people would have to keep voting to be in pain before results are realized. Hard to sell.