Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Spurs

I didn't vote for them in the last election.

A Greenie. I knew it.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Muta

The only thing they have in common is that they work out of the same building.

Yeah, but because of the conservatives it's a super expensive fancy building.

[Fuzz]

Alberta's top elected officials made decisions about pandemic-related health measures, but the law required those to be made by the province's then-chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw, a Calgary judge has ruled.

Justice Barbara Romaine's long-anticipated 90-page decision filed Monday afternoon comes following a court action which began in December 2020 when a group of plaintiffs — including two churches and a gym owner — argued pandemic-related public health measures were contrary to Alberta's Bill of Rights and unlawfully breached Albertans' Charter-protected rights.

Romaine found that when it came to public health measures, "the informed and well-qualified" Hinshaw made recommendations and ultimately implemented the restrictions, but it was cabinet and committees which had final decision making power.

"Although, Dr. Hinshaw was maligned during the pandemic and afterwards as the symbol of the restrictions, she was not in fact the final decision-maker," wrote Romaine.

Romaine wrote that the orders made were in fact, outside the powers of Alberta's Public Health Act because they were made by politicians and not Hinshaw.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...sion-1.6923171

As was suspected, the politicians called the shots.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...sion-1.6923171

As was suspected, the politicians called the shots.

I think it's fine if the politicians are making those final decisions though. We have recourse against a politician, and none against bureaucrats. It seems like the system functioned as it should've here. The expert gave their recommendations and the government took the actions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think it's fine if the politicians are making those final decisions though. We have recourse against a politician, and none against bureaucrats. It seems like the system functioned as it should've here. The expert gave their recommendations and the government took the actions.

Did you read the first sentence? Legally she is who should have been making the decisions.

That could be changed in law, (and I suspect it will be Which brings about the question, do you want Danielle Smith making health decisions during the next pandemic? Danielle "cancer is your fault" Smith? She took Ivermectin, and went to the US for one shot of one of the least effective vaccines, because her "research" told her it was a good option. No, no, #### that. I want a medical professional making pandemic decisions.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did you read the first sentence? Legally she is who should have been making the decisions.

That could be changed in law, (and I suspect it will be Which brings about the question, do you want Danielle Smith making health decisions during the next pandemic? Danielle "cancer is your fault" Smith? She took Ivermectin, and went to the US for one shot of one of the least effective vaccines, because her "research" told her it was a good option. No, no, #### that. I want a medical professional making pandemic decisions.

I'd like to know how she got into the US for the shot. Weren't borders closed?

[CliffFletcher]

Nvm

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did you read the first sentence? Legally she is who should have been making the decisions.

That could be changed in law, (and I suspect it will be Which brings about the question, do you want Danielle Smith making health decisions during the next pandemic? Danielle "cancer is your fault" Smith? She took Ivermectin, and went to the US for one shot of one of the least effective vaccines, because her "research" told her it was a good option. No, no, #### that. I want a medical professional making pandemic decisions.

I read the first sentence, and that's all great. I just disagree. Do we really want bureaucrats making those decisions? I get this situation where you were entirely in favour of lockdowns, but to me that is a dangerous precedent.

[Ozy_Flame]

I don't want elected politicians having the final day during a health crisis. They're not the experts, even if in Alberta they pretend to be on everything from protests to carbon taxes to macroeconomics to constitutional law.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I read the first sentence, and that's all great. I just disagree. Do we really want bureaucrats making those decisions? I get this situation where you were entirely in favour of lockdowns, but to me that is a dangerous precedent.

"Bureaucrats" who are experts in their field, appointed by the government, and able to be removed by the government? There are still checks on their power, and if the government doesn't like their decisions, they can fire them, with all the ramifications that entails.


Kenney's government was far too cowardly to do that, so instead ignored the law and hid behind Hinshaw whenever the public got hot. Of course there will be zero ramifications for that. But the reality is, the law is the law, and they broke it in as cowardly a way as you could imagine.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't want elected politicians having the final day during a health crisis. They're not the experts, even if in Alberta they pretend to be on everything from protests to carbon taxes to macroeconomics to constitutional law.

Well to me, its preposterous that bureaucrats with literally no elected mandate and no recourse, would have the green light for actions that could limit peoples civil liberties.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well to me, its preposterous that bureaucrats with literally no elected mandate and no recourse, would have the green light for actions that could limit peoples civil liberties.

False. it seems you misunderstand how this works. For reference, see how Smith fired Hinsahaw the first chance she got.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"Bureaucrats" who are experts in their field, appointed by the government, and able to be removed by the government? There are still checks on their power, and if the government doesn't like their decisions, they can fire them, with all the ramifications that entails.


Kenney's government was far too cowardly to do that, so instead ignored the law and hid behind Hinshaw whenever the public got hot. Of course there will be zero ramifications for that. But the reality is, the law is the law, and they broke it in as cowardly a way as you could imagine.

OK, so the government can't make the call and the bureaucrat gives advice they don't like. They're bound by the law and have to go along with that...otherwise they can just fire them? I'm sure that wouldn't pose any problems

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well to me, its preposterous that bureaucrats with literally no elected mandate and no recourse, would have the green light for actions that could limit peoples civil liberties.

It would seem weird to me that the 'final say' of something that is extraordinary to normal human society - like a pandemic, or perhaps, something worse like an existential crisis - would be in the hands of the not-most qualified voices in the room. And civil liberties were barely touched during COVID, even though it broke poor Jason Kenney's numpty little heart to follow recommended health orders.

Remember, we exist in a social contract to live in a functioning society, even during the hard times when we have to pull through together as a community. And privilege is confusing inconvenience for tyranny.

[The Big Chill]

An expert is only an expert in one field, but these decisions impact all fields.

Elected politicians should be making the final call IMO, but it would certainly be nice if we could elect competent people to be in these positions.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

OK, so the government can't make the call and the bureaucrat gives advice they don't like. They're bound by the law and have to go along with that...otherwise they can just fire them? I'm sure that wouldn't pose any problems

Do you want to look back at the original law, and maybe consider the reasoning behind the CMOH having overruling power to the government of the day? Maybe, just maybe, there are good reasons for that? Maybe many deaths could have been prevented during the Delta wave if she actually exercised that power during the best summer ever as she watched on in silent terror while Kenney was MIA on vacation?


It's amazing how short memories of what actually happened are, and how flippant the dismissal of alternate paths that would have saved lives is. The UCP ignoring her has directly led to tragic unnecessary deaths of Albertans, that's not really up for debate.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Do you want to look back at the original law, and maybe consider the reasoning behind the CMOH having overruling power to the government of the day? Maybe, just maybe, there are good reasons for that? Maybe many deaths could have been prevented during the Delta wave if she actually exercised that power during the best summer ever as she watched on in silent terror while Kenney was MIA on vacation?


It's amazing how short memories of what actually happened are, and how flippant the dismissal of alternate paths that would have saved lives is. The UCP ignoring her has directly led to tragic unnecessary deaths of Albertans, that's not really up for debate.

I'm sure that you would have had no objection to her implementing things and the government just firing her because they disagree?

[Derek Sutton]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Do you want to look back at the original law, and maybe consider the reasoning behind the CMOH having overruling power to the government of the day? Maybe, just maybe, there are good reasons for that? Maybe many deaths could have been prevented during the Delta wave if she actually exercised that power during the best summer ever as she watched on in silent terror while Kenney was MIA on vacation?


It's amazing how short memories of what actually happened are, and how flippant the dismissal of alternate paths that would have saved lives is. The UCP ignoring her has directly led to tragic unnecessary deaths of Albertans, that's not really up for debate.

Spare us your emotion. Decision making needs to not only be about facts but also have balance. Using the pandemic as an example, considerations around the economy, social order/ disorder, public image and enforcement all need to be considered.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm sure that you would have had no objection to her implementing things and the government just firing her because they disagree?

I'd have a problem with a government doing that, as I suspect most people would, which is why Kenney didn't do it. It holds the politician accountable so they only do it under conditions where they are convinced they are right, AND that the public would support. This is kind of the perfect example, because Kenney provides us the situation where a politician was terrified to do that because he KNEW it wasn't the right thing to do, but was also balancing keeping his own political power and job.


If you think it through, it all makes pretty good sense and provides checks and balances. The problem in this case is that Kenney ignored the law and there don't appear to be any repercussions for that, though maybe they are coming. So perhaps the first change we shoudl make is finding a way to ensure that politicians follow the laws on the books. If they don't like them,change them, an deal with the political ramifications of that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Spare us your emotion. Decision making needs to not only be about facts but also have balance. Using the pandemic as an example, considerations around the economy, social order/ disorder, public image and enforcement all need to be considered.

Sure thing, this has nothing to do with emotion, it is FACT.

Kenney’s government did not introduce new measures until early September. By then, the crisis forced the government to scramble to double the number of intensive care beds, cancel thousands of surgeries and call in the Armed Forces to provide medical help.

https://globalnews.ca/news/8348574/p...d-19-failures/

You can ignore reality and forget what happened all you want, but the reality is, things were dire in Alberta(and you can go compare to other Canadian jurisdiction at the time to confirm this) and it was precisely because of Kenney's decisions and actions.

You could also argue pretty robustly that some of our problems in the medical system now, like staffing issues, are because of these decisions where HCW had had enough, and left their careers because politicians didn't give a #### about how they were being treated.