Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

Ya, it'd be a real shame if AI crafted legislation that included violating the rights of citizens on the regular. There would be outrage.


The reality is you are gonna feed it requirements for legislation, it'll spit out a bunch of stuff a first year legal clerk could do, and lawyers will have to review the #### out of it and edit it. But they'll be able to bandy about saying it's the first AI legislation and we saved so much money(it will cost more).

[The Fisher Account]

The "funded by foreign actors" bit is quite hilarious given the recent X revelations.

Back to the old 'every criticism of these conservatives is a projection' bit

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

They want to use artifical intelligence to create legislation. As opposed to their current method where no intelligence is used at all.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...bish-9.6988138

What is great about this is that it could start to demonstrate that we could lay off all of the elected officials and just have AI become the representative of the people. Unlike the UCP, AI would actually listen to us.....

Put an app on everyone's phone and poll the population when big questions come up. Otherwise, AI can just quietly run the government as efficiently as possible by working with the services instead of trying to undermine them at every step.

Techno-populism + Direct-Democracy.

Think of the money we would save by not paying for the MLA salaries and pensions!!!

[#-3]

Like a broken clock, I see no problem with this.

At the end of the day the era of AI first drafting everything is here and should be done. But for them to say there isn't human review would be for the MLAs to admit they they don't read what they are voting on, so they are still accountable to review and understand what is written.

[woob]

We didn't use the NWC! It was the AI!

[puffnstuff]

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...rivate-sectors


Tabled today Bill 11 — the Health Statutes Amendment Act 2025, was tabled in the legislature on Monday. The bill proposes a number of changes to existing pieces of legislation that if passed would advance the province’s refocusing of the health-care system, make the province the “payor of last resort” for drug coverage, ensure Albertans have to renew health cards, make changes to food safety, and broaden the eligibility criteria for a chief medical officer of health.

[Dynamic]

Sounds like I will have to renew my health card number? And there might be a fee associated with that? I know it’s early to say what exactly they are pushing but that is what it sounds like to me. The party of low taxes and red tape reduction for businesses. For the poors, more red tape and more taxes.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...rivate-sectors


Tabled today Bill 11 — the Health Statutes Amendment Act 2025, was tabled in the legislature on Monday. The bill proposes a number of changes to existing pieces of legislation that if passed would advance the province’s refocusing of the health-care system, make the province the “payor of last resort” for drug coverage, ensure Albertans have to renew health cards, make changes to food safety, and broaden the eligibility criteria for a chief medical officer of health.

So basically means we'll all be paying more for our employee health plans etc.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

broaden the eligibility criteria for a chief medical officer of health.

Who's our version of RFK Jr? Theo?

[troutman]

News Release: Call for Ethics Investigation into Minister Todd Loewen

https://albertawilderness.ca/news-re...UfnDayXT5rmiKw

Since taking office, Minister Loewen has made decisions that put Alberta’s wildlife species at risk. This includes expanding cougar hunting quotas and area, allowing members of the public to hunt “problem” grizzly bears, and removing furbearer trapping limits, among other changes.

His decisions favour a small group of hunters, trappers, and outfitters, including extensive promotion to attract international hunters, at the expense of many local hunters and trappers, Indigenous nations, birdwatchers and naturalists, tourism operators, wildlife photographers, biologists, and other Albertans who benefit from these animals.

Minister Loewen has not hidden his connections to the hunters and trappers, particularly international organizations that promote trophy hunts or the hunting of large predators. He was the former owner of Red Willow Outfitters, which is now under the ownership of his wife and son. His actions disregard his responsibilities to Albertans and his commitments under the Conflict of Interest Act.

The Minister has not provided any evidence to justify these changes, nor to justify that they are in the public interest. They were made against the advice of wildlife biologists and the currently available science, and they lacked public consultation.

Since taking office, Minister Loewen has made several international trips aimed at promoting the Minister’s Special License. In 2025, he made 5 separate trip to visit 6 locations on taxpayer dollars, costing $20,953.90, according to the Alberta government’s Travel and Expense Disclosure Table[5]. This does not include a July trip announced for Oklahoma “Promoting bird hunting and conservation[6]”. Only $4,473.84 was spent by the Minister other business this year. In total, he has spent $37,600.79 on international trips to promote hunting since becoming Minister of Forestry and Parks.

[Slava]

Man public office would suck so bad. Like $20k in four international trips seems like absolutely nothing to me.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Man public office would suck so bad. Like $20k in four international trips seems like absolutely nothing to me.

What, you don't think he's being treated like a king on these trips to hang out with his buddies who all what access to our shootin' beasts?


They also told us before they were elected they were done listening to experts, so it should be no surprise they don't listen to experts. You know, one of those actions voters are responsible for approving. But ya, no, sorry, not the voters fault. What am I thinking.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What, you don't think he's being treated like a king on these trips to hang out with his buddies who all what access to our shootin' beasts?


They also told us before they were elected they were done listening to experts, so it should be no surprise they don't listen to experts. You know, one of those actions voters are responsible for approving. But ya, no, sorry, not the voters fault. What am I thinking.

I think that roughly $4k for a trip somewhere is nothing. Flights are $1500 (no idea where they are going, but that's not crazy), hotels are not cheap, and that's another $1500. So $1000 on food/drink, and my being wrong on the guesses for costs is hardly a big deal.

I know we hate these guys, but it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's really not hard to spend a lot when you're traveling, and traveling for work doesn't make that cheaper.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that roughly $4k for a trip somewhere is nothing. Flights are $1500 (no idea where they are going, but that's not crazy), hotels are not cheap, and that's another $1500. So $1000 on food/drink, and my being wrong on the guesses for costs is hardly a big deal.

I know we hate these guys, but it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's really not hard to spend a lot when you're traveling, and traveling for work doesn't make that cheaper.

I think it’s why he’s travelling and the fact that he spent more travelling to promote hunting internationally than anything else he did.

Bit weird for the Minister of Forestry and Parks

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slava

Man public office would suck so bad. Like $20k in four international trips seems like absolutely nothing to me.

In contrast, previous ministers rarely made trips for the international promotion of hunting. For instance, Jason Nixon, formerly Minister of Forestry, Parks and Tourism, spent an average of $5,445.21 between 2019 and 2021. He took one international trip in 2022, costing $3,893.50, and spent a total of $9,547.91 that year. None of these trips were aimed specifically at promoting the Minister’s Special License abroad.

It’s more than usual, and it personally benefits his family business.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that roughly $4k for a trip somewhere is nothing. Flights are $1500 (no idea where they are going, but that's not crazy), hotels are not cheap, and that's another $1500. So $1000 on food/drink, and my being wrong on the guesses for costs is hardly a big deal.

I know we hate these guys, but it doesn't seem like a big deal. It's really not hard to spend a lot when you're traveling, and traveling for work doesn't make that cheaper.

Considering he should be spending $0 of our dollars on this, that is a significant expense for zero (or even negative) value to the people of Alberta. The conflict of interest makes it significantly worse, he should be removed from office for that.

It is really no different than other UCPers who have personally benefited from their decisions in office. Like Shandro when he was head of health made decisions that made things worse for Albertans and directly benefited his wife's health insurance company.

Those grifts are actions that should put a politician in jail.

[Fuzz]

The combination of making the government the “payor of last resort” with requiring employer-sponsored drug and supplementary benefit plans to maintain coverage for employees 65 years and older who are employed — is anticipated to save the government between $35 to $54 million annually.

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...rivate-sectors


This sounds a lot like cuts to healthcare(not that lying is a concern for them). By doing this, those who do not have an employee plan and have to buy health coverage themselves may well exhaust coverage limits on drug costs, which leaves them no coverage for other things their plan offers, but you'd hit the max spend only on the drugs. Most non-group coverage is already incredibly expensive and paying the premium only makes sense if you use a lot of the services. If you can't access the other stuff, why not just shift it all to the govenrment plan? I suspect this will happen which will cost the govenrment plan more in the end, and people will have access to fewer resources, sending them to the health care service of last resort, the ER.


More stupid short sited garbage "money saving" Conservative ideas. Thanks, ####os.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...rivate-sectors


This sounds a lot like cuts to healthcare(not that lying is a concern for them). By doing this, those who do not have an employee plan and have to buy health coverage themselves may well exhaust coverage limits on drug costs, which leaves them no coverage for other things their plan offers, but you'd hit the max spend only on the drugs. Most non-group coverage is already incredibly expensive and paying the premium only makes sense if you use a lot of the services. If you can't access the other stuff, why not just shift it all to the govenrment plan? I suspect this will happen which will cost the govenrment plan more in the end, and people will have access to fewer resources, sending them to the health care service of last resort, the ER.


More stupid short sited garbage "money saving" Conservative ideas. Thanks, ####os.

When this came up over the summer there was another point about how this would put more of a burden onto unions and their medical plans. For the retired teachers who have medical plans through their union, by moving the government to the "last payor" it means that those medical costs will drain the union funds instead. The whole drug coverage part of the story is a big shift toward putting a bigger financial burden on individuals while allowing pharma corps to make more money by jacking up the prices because the individuals do not have the buying power that the government has.

As for the doctor part of the scam. Similar to education, by allowing doctors to make more money by doing private work the UCP will be able to say "we are working to ensure you have a public medical option" but then say "it's weird, we cannot find any doctors for the public sector" because they all went private. The private sector continues to undermine the public sector until the public sector collapses.

It is a lose-lose for Albertans while the UCP and their corporate lobbyists make bank in the grifts.

The only positive of this losing scenario is that these changes will likely hit the rural Albertans harder and faster than the city folk. If there is one doctor in a small town and that doctor goes private, that means the people of that town will either start paying out of pocket or have to drive to a larger city for medical. Maybe once they live that pain for a bit they will reconsider their votes.

[puffnstuff]

Reminder that the UCP has still not released the results of the Alberta Next survey.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Otto-matic

Im just claiming I qualify for phase 1 to get it for free.

Did it on the weekend, Said I had SAD and bingo free shot. Eff the UCP