Moose Jaw Forum

I found this article on DiscoverMooseJaw this morning, and I had to make mention of something. In their headline, it said few candidates responded to this survey. I'd like to add why I didn't respond.

It's because I didn't get the email. Now, if I didn't get it, what are the chances others didn't get it. I tried emailing the agency to let them know I didn't receive the survey and it wouldn't let me complete it properly (it kept telling me to enter in a city, which I had done several times), so, I'll have to contact them the old fashioned way: by phone.


"The use of cosmetic pesticides is an unlikely election issue, but the Canadian Cancer Society hopes to change that. The pesticides are used to beautify small greenspaces and early research has found a link certain types of cancer.

Through a recent questionnaire, the Canadian Cancer Society asked candidates to weigh in on its use. Spokesperson Sanela Begic says just five Moose Jaw candidates responded.

"I don't believe there is a policy in place in Moose Jaw. I've checked the bylaws and there is nothing in the bylaws regarding biological pesticides as opposed to cosmetic." Begic says this is not to be confused with agricultural pesticides.

Cosmetic pesticides are used just to make a greenspace look good and the Canadian Cancer Society recommends using other biological brands instead.

You can click here to see how the local candidates responded to the questionnaire."

This is the link to the survey: http://www.cancer.ca/saskatchewan/how%2 ... sc_lang=en

And if I am corect there are a lot of special interest groups who did this sort of thing. I am not saying that what they asked is wrong or I do not support what they are hoping to achieve, what I am saying is does the new council represent us the voter or the special interest people?

I am quite surprised that the Cancer assoc. would use this tactic to sway voters opinion, obviously setup by someone to promote their choices by using a well known name. I wonder if head office is aware of this tactic ??????????

Gee, do you think that if you are going to asking a candidate a question that you admit is off the radar, it is fair to expect a yes/no answer? Maybe some candidates ignored it because it couldnt be answered responsibly. Then again, they didnt want responsible answers, they wanted answers that reflected their own opinions.

jimbo wrote:I am quite surprised that the Cancer assoc. would use this tactic to sway voters opinion, obviously setup by someone to promote their choices by using a well known name. I wonder if head office is aware of this tactic ??????????

I believe they are doing it all over. It is just common for all special interests to do this.

Just as a note to clarify that this survey was not received by several candidates that I know of. Further calls have determined that the Cancer Society sent the survey to city administration to distribute.
As the day progresses, you will likely find more responses posted on the Cancer Society site as candidates find ways to respond to a survey they never got.

Isn't that rather irresponsible of Discovermoosejaw and Golden West Radio to make the assumption that few responded without actually calling the candidates to find out if they even received it?

They made the candidates sound real bad with a title that said something like "Few candidates respond" indicating a real lack of concer by the majority of candidates. I see they've changed the title, but that doesn't free them fro responsibility by airing something without checking the facts first.

How many more times are they going to do stuff like this before they get the point? Does it take someone filing a formal complaint with the Authorities before they get a slap on the wrist and start to do it right?

Found the original article title in Google's cache. It was:

Few Moose Jaw Candidates Respond

The headline isn't inaccurate, just five candidates responded. Of course I see where you are coming from and tend to agree. It looks like whatever information was supplied was given to them by the Cancer society and I see now there is a correction on the site explaining the confusion.

Actually, I'd say it is incorrect at the worst, misleading at the least.

How can you say few candidates respond?

You can't respond to a survey you never got.

And 100% of those who got it may have responded.