Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Because that is the role of the government. The province has to continue to operate, shutting the province in for two years cannot be an option. If the recommendations from the CMOH don't include those aforementioned aspects the governments job is to find the balance. And this is the way all other departments of the government run in all three levels.

If shutting the province for two years was the only way to respond to a public health emergency, you better believe it can be an option.

I don’t think you entirely get it. The law quite literally dictates the way the government is supposed to run in a public health emergency, and you’re saying “actually their role is to ignore the laws”? That’s a bit absurd, no? Any other laws you think the government should be able to ignore?

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If shutting the province for two years was the only way to respond to a public health emergency, you better believe it can be an option.

I don’t think you entirely get it. The law quite literally dictates the way the government is supposed to run in a public health emergency, and you’re saying “actually their role is to ignore the laws”? That’s a bit absurd, no? Any other laws you think the government should be able to ignore?

It wasn’t.


“the law” I guess the arrests should be out shortly deputy. Lol

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

Because that is the role of the government. The province has to continue to operate, shutting the province in for two years cannot be an option. If the recommendations from the CMOH don't include those aforementioned aspects the governments job is to find the balance. And this is the way all other departments of the government run in all three levels.

I'm not sure some people realize how lucky we actually were in some cases with Covid. It could have been far deadlier (even being "mild" a huge amount of people died). Imposing those kind of absolutes saying that "something can't be an option" really makes it sound like you can't imagine a very possible reality that could have been far worse. Hindsight is easy. It is much better to possibly overreact compared to the alternative.

[belsarius]

“Anytime you are dealing with an outbreak, if it appears like you overreacted, then you probably did the right thing,” Krutika Kuppalli, a fellow in the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity program

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by belsarius

“Anytime you are dealing with an outbreak, if it appears like you overreacted, then you probably did the right thing,” Krutika Kuppalli, a fellow in the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity program

I think that's the problem with the "hands off" types. During a pandemic, you can't 'scale up' accordingly. the virus doesn't wait for people to be ready. You're better off 'scaling down' over time and as the patterns play out.

I think we saw the 'scale up' approach work poorly at the beginning of COVID, with planes carrying infected Canadians coming back before rules tightened. I am hoping with better tech, airports, travel hubs and authorities can stop people at point of departure before even getting to point of entry. But of course, that's just one of many mechanisms that would be needed for a future pandemic.

[curves2000]

Bottom line is that it's a slippery slope for all involved that happened with Covid. Did the AB Government listen to the CMOH all the time? Not 100% all the time. Who made the final call on everything? Who really knows? Did the government officials and medical officials get everything right or wrong? Mistakes all around.

The amount of political and medical expert mistakes that were made with Covid in Canada and elsewhere is staggering. It's shocking and incomprehensible yet a lot of people who made a mountain of mistakes are still collecting solid paychecks.

I know this is an AB thread but let's get real, the same issues apply to every corner of Canada. Did Kenney and company make decisions that may have gone against the CMOH recommendations or suggestions? Sure, but does that mean that Hinshaw would 100% be responsible for those decisions? Doubtful. For full disclosure, I don't like how she was treated by some in government and how she was fired.

There is a mountain of examples in Canada where decisions where made that were either government/political or were medical advice from the experts that were just flat out wrong, were not rooted in logic or risk management and could only have applied by someone in government or an expert in their field without thinking outside the box. Who made the decisions? Only they know but whoever did, got it wrong a lot as well.

[timun]

I think that several people commenting about this decision really need to take a peek at it... At issue in this particular judgment was whether the provincial Cabinet had the authority to issue public health orders in addition or in lieu of the CMOH, not the substance of the directives themselves. Justice Romaine quite clearly stated (bolded is my emphasis):

However, had the impugned Orders been validly enacted by the CMOH, they would not have been, however, are not unconstitutional. While they may have infringed certain of the Applicants' rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 and the Alberta Bill of Rights, RSA 2000 c A-14, these limitations were amply and demonstrably justified as reasonable limits in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1 of the Charter and that they were enacted pursuant to a valid legislative purpose.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by curves2000

Bottom line is that it's a slippery slope for all involved that happened with Covid. Did the AB Government listen to the CMOH all the time? Not 100% all the time. Who made the final call on everything? Who really knows?

We do, because this entire discussion stems from a 90-page court document that says the government made the final call on everything.

Whether that should have been the case is literally what we are discussing, not whether it was the case.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by 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.

Exactly. Even in a health crisis, governments have to balance addressing that crisis with the economic health of the community, civil liberties, education, etc. In times of war, like WW2, we didn’t hand over government to military authority - we recognized that even an existential global war had competing public interests that needed to be recognized and safeguarded.

[timun]

In WWII we didn't hand military authority over to government either, recognizing that elected officials were scarcely qualified to make those kinds of decisions. We also had unprecedented curtailment of civil liberties, government expropriation of land and property without compensation, strictly enforced rationing and price controls, etc.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by timun

In WWII we didn't hand military authority over to government either, recognizing that elected officials were scarcely qualified to make those kinds of decisions. We also had unprecedented curtailment of civil liberties, government expropriation of land and property without compensation, strictly enforced rationing and price controls, etc.

But the military didn’t get to make those decisions on conscription, curtailing of civil liberties, rationing, etc. They explained what they wanted and why it was important, and elected civilian governments made the call. A lot of times the military didn’t get what they wanted.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But the military didn’t get to make those decisions on conscription, curtailing of civil liberties, rationing, etc. They explained what they wanted and why it was important, and elected civilian governments made the call. A lot of times the military didn’t get what they wanted.

Ya but, could I visit someone in Montana? What about people in Manitoba? Also, something about Christmas in Quebec?

[timun]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But the military didn’t get to make those decisions on conscription, curtailing of civil liberties, rationing, etc. They explained what they wanted and why it was important, and elected civilian governments made the call. A lot of times the military didn’t get what they wanted.

Sometimes. Mostly they got whatever they wanted.

[GGG]

Who should pick how many people are acceptable to allow to die in an epidemic?

That seems like a political number rather than a health number if it’s greater than 0.

Secondly if there are a range of effective options to reduce R-values like schools might be worth .3 and in person dining is worth .1, and vaccine passports are worth .2 and measles are worth whatever and you need to reduce it by .3 who should decide between the array of potential options that would accomplish the health goals. Again deciding between shutting schools, shutting business and limiting the mobility of people seems like a political decision rather than a medical one.

I think we got lucky that Himshaw was just carried over and there wasn’t a stooge in place. Also if Hinshw felt her recommendations weren’t being sufficiently followed she should have resigned. When she did not resign she is backing whatever was implemented regardless of who had final say.

One thing Kenny did do well was removing restrictions faster than other areas. He was always late and undermining restrictions in advance but that attitude benefited us on the down swing while maintaining hospital capacity.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

I mean that is really... false. Were you forced to close your business because the government deemed it non essential? I'm guessing not. Were you not allowed to attend your own mothers funeral because your family exceeded 10 people? Likely no. Could you not go see your daughter who lives in Montana for a 1 1/2 years because the border was closed? I mean the list goes on and on, and going beyond Alberta. Being told you could not have guests to your home, police raiding homes in Montreal because their Christmas gathering was "too many people". What else would you have willingly given up?

Speaking of false (and hyperbole), businesses were closed for a pretty minimal amount of time. And borders were only closed for unvaccinated. Plus, going TO the US was affacted by US law, not Canada. And if you were the person out of 10 who wasn't allowed to go to the funeral, what does that say about you?

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/t.../index-en.aspx

[Slava]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Speaking of false (and hyperbole), businesses were closed for a pretty minimal amount of time. And borders were only closed for unvaccinated. Plus, going TO the US was affacted by US law, not Canada. And if you were the person out of 10 who wasn't allowed to go to the funeral, what does that say about you?

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/t.../index-en.aspx

I guess it depends on what your business was. If you were running a gym you were closed off and on for significant periods of time and when you could re-open you faced caps on the number of people and restrictions. Restaurants and bars were also subject to ongoing issues.

Of course, when the Covid restrictions first hit, some businesses were to close because they didn't sell essential goods and in the meantime Canadian Tire or Costco was selling all kinds of junk with no problem at all. It was far from equitable.

[Amethyst]

The judge interpreted the law to say the CMOH makes the decisions. Who made the law in the first place? Government. The likely outcome of this decision is not that the government will step aside in the future and let the CMOH make all the decisions. Most like they will change the law to make certain powers the responsibility of the government.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

The judge interpreted the law to say the CMOH makes the decisions. Who made the law in the first place? Government. The likely outcome of this decision is not that the government will step aside in the future and let the CMOH make all the decisions. Most like they will change the law to make certain powers the responsibility of the government.

Of course, Danielle Smith wouldn't want an expert in charge of anything she can do with herself the first thought that pops in her head.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Amethyst

The judge interpreted the law to say the CMOH makes the decisions. Who made the law in the first place? Government. The likely outcome of this decision is not that the government will step aside in the future and let the CMOH make all the decisions. Most like they will change the law to make certain powers the responsibility of the government.

Moreover, Hinshaw was asked to respond to three questions relevant to the case at hand:

• Did the premier/cabinet direct her to impose more severe restrictions than she recommended?
• Did cabinet direct her to impose more severe restrictions on churches, gyms, schools, etc. than she had recommended?
• Did she ever recommend to cabinet that restrictions be lifted/loosened and that recommendation was refused or ignored?

The answer to all of those questions was 'no'.

All the court determined was that the way in which some public health orders were made were held to be in violation of Alberta public health laws because the orders were issued through cabinet rather than direct from Hinshaw as CMOH. The actual content of the orders were held to be constitutional.

[Fuzz]

“There are some things so crazy you have to be an elected liberal or socialist to believe them.”

He’s going to get a bruising on Twitter for that comment.

Williams says he isn’t worried.

“The solace I take is we won an election and we told Albertans exactly what we wanted to do.”

In fact, says the UCP cabinet minister, if the party’s policy on drug treatment and recovery was the only question on the ballot they would have won a super-majority.

https://edmontonsun.com/opinion/colu...0-a713d5be543c

Dan Williams, everyone. I'm not sure if the addiction plan stands a chance in hell of working or not, but holly #### is this dude every arrogant. And arrogance rarely leads to long term success, becuase you don't let facts and results guide you.