Each candidate's published statement is read in full and summarized under five common topics, so voters can compare candidates side by side. A "position" can be a proposed policy, a guiding principle, a priority, a concern the candidate recognizes or a practice they report using. Mentioning an issue isn't the same as proposing a solution, and each summary says which kind of statement it rests on.
How to read a position
Each position is labeled with its basis:
- Explicit: the candidate directly expresses the view, priority, concern or practice. A detailed proposal isn't required.
- Inferred: a narrow connection to the topic is reasonable but isn't directly stated. The summary says what was inferred.
- Not stated: the statement doesn't say enough about the topic to support a position.
These labels describe the evidence, not how strongly a candidate holds a view. Explicit doesn't mean "supports," and not stated doesn't mean "opposes."
Each position also notes the kind of statement it rests on: a policy principle, a stated priority, recognition of an issue, a reported practice or an inferred connection. More than one can apply, and none ranks above another. Under every position, Evidence and limits quotes the passages it relies on and says what can't be concluded from them.
1. AI and the Practice of Law
How AI and other legal technology affect legal work, clients, professional obligations and regulation, including both the benefits of adopting it and concerns about risk and oversight. Broader technology counts too, since a candidate may speak about automation without naming AI; the summary says when AI isn't named.
- AI use and client service: research, drafting, document review and client service, and their effect on cost and quality.
- AI risks and regulation: accuracy, confidentiality, accountability, human oversight and regulatory guidance.
- Broader technology: digital practice, automation, cybersecurity and responsible adoption of new tools.
- Competence and training: the skills lawyers need to use these tools responsibly.
Not enough on its own: a general mention of "innovation" or "change," or listing a technology presentation or practice area.
2. Rural and Remote Practice
Rural: see candidate positions
Both whether clients outside the major centers can get legal help and whether lawyers can build and sustain a practice there. "Remote" means geographically remote; working from home counts only when it's tied to serving those communities.
- Client access: the availability and cost of help, travel distances, access to courts and unmet legal needs.
- Practice sustainability: recruitment, retention, succession, workload, costs and the viability of practice in smaller markets.
- Lawyer support: professional isolation, mentoring, education and access to specialist advice.
- Regional delivery and training: virtual or regional services and training tied to rural or remote communities.
Not enough on its own: a rural address, a regional identity or experience practicing outside a city, or a small-firm issue with no geographic connection.
3. Regulatory Burden on Solo and Small Firm
Regulatory Burden: see candidate positions
What professional regulation asks of sole practitioners and small firms, and how it's carried out: the cost and effort of compliance, whether rules are proportionate and the support available. Views favoring fewer requirements, better implementation, more help, or keeping or strengthening safeguards all fit here.
- Compliance cost and administration: fees, insurance, audits, trust accounting, reporting and overlapping obligations.
- Proportionate regulation: rules that reflect risk, firm size and resources while protecting the public.
- Guidance and support: clear rules, practical resources and manageable implementation.
- Practice realities: linking regulatory decisions to the circumstances of smaller practices.
Not enough on its own: general concerns about rent, staffing or wellbeing with no link to regulation, or experience running a small firm. General support for proportionate regulation is recorded as inferred, without implying support for lower fees, fewer audits or weaker safeguards.
4. Pathways to the Profession
Pathways: see candidate positions
Entering, moving within and changing the regulated legal professions: becoming a lawyer and getting established, moving between jurisdictions or roles, and proposals that change who can provide legal services and with what qualifications. This includes the accreditation of foreign legal education by the National Committee on Accreditation (NCA) and the integration of foreign-trained lawyers.
- Legal education: admissions, affordability, an additional Alberta law school or more seats, and new or expanded programs.
- Training and qualification: articling, supervision, practical courses, assessments and alternative routes.
- Early career support: mentoring, practical skills and becoming established.
- NCA accreditation and foreign-trained lawyers: recognition of foreign education and experience, costs, timelines, bridging and integration.
- Mobility and re-entry: moving between jurisdictions or roles, and returning to practice.
- The lawyer's role and other legal professions: new or limited licenses, other regulated roles and routes between them.
- Standards: competence, ethics and public protection on every route.
Each of these is assessed separately: support for better integration of foreign-trained lawyers doesn't imply support for changing NCA exams. Personal experience, such as completing the NCA process or teaching law, isn't a reform position on its own, and general statements about diversity or professional development need a link to entering or moving within the profession. A new law school or training program can also count under Rural, A2J or AI when the candidate ties it to those goals.
5. Access to Justice through Allied Professionals
How clients could get help from other legal professionals, related professions such as mediators or social workers, trained legal-support workers or community navigators, or a collaborative service model. Each role is described only as far as the candidate describes it.
- Access through allied providers: affordability, availability and the roles they might play in advice, representation, documents, dispute resolution or navigation.
- Collaborative service: multidisciplinary teams, community partnerships and referrals.
- Safeguards: competence, confidentiality, accountability, insurance, complaints and a clear scope.
- Reform and evaluation: pilots, and measuring access, quality and outcomes.
Not enough on its own: general support for access to justice, legal aid or pro bono work with no link to other providers. Valuing referrals to outside support services doesn't imply support for giving those providers new powers. Pathways asks who qualifies, and for which role; this topic asks what help clients can get and how it's delivered. A statement can address both.
How positions are assessed
- The whole statement is read. Only the candidate's own statements are used: their published election statement and any supplemental statement they send to the site. CVs, outside pages, commentary and personal characteristics aren't used to fill gaps.
- A substantive passage is identified. It has to express a view, priority, concern or proposal, or a practice with a stated purpose. Biography isn't a view: serving as an articling principal is experience, while explaining why mentoring matters is a view.
- It's matched to the topics. The candidate doesn't need to use a topic's name, but the connection must come from the text. One passage can count under more than one topic if each connection stands on its own.
- The narrowest fair summary is written. Summaries keep qualifications such as "no specific reform is proposed" and don't turn broad aspirations into commitments.
- The evidence is quoted and checked. Every explicit or inferred position quotes its supporting passages, checked against the original statement, and notes what it doesn't show.
The summaries were prepared with an AI assistant following this method. They interpret the statements; they aren't the candidates' own words, and the candidates haven't reviewed or endorsed them.
Comparing candidates
Two candidates can address the same topic while talking about different things. One may describe using AI to serve clients while another calls for careful oversight of new technology, and neither statement shows either candidate rejecting the other's view. A difference in emphasis isn't disagreement, and the site doesn't label anyone as supporting or opposing a policy. Not stated means only that a statement doesn't address the topic, not that the candidate has no view.