What are the chances that Alberta just agreed to an increased industrial carbon tax in exchange for a pipeline that never gets built?
Well, euthanizing 1/3 of the population would certainly help alleviate the housing crisis...
Agreed - it's pretty unlikely that you'd be able to prove something like that.
I suppose you could try to apply precedents surrounding HIV disclosure, but I think it'd be a tough sell.
Edit: And to be clear, even in that situation, we're talking about disclosure, not actual treatment-related choices.
It was certainly the case when I was in school, and that was decades ago.
I think that's pretty universal, and it's been the case for decades.
It's the perfect crime! The feds create a problem with a solution that's under provincial jurisdiction...
Yeah, I lucked out in having nothing better to do at the time. I'm not sure if I'll be able to catch all of the rest of the series, but I'm definitely going to keep an eye on it!
I don't really follow baseball at all, and haven't watched any of the playoffs to date. But I did watch this.
"As the labour movement in this province, our leaders have made a commitment to rise to that challenge, defend the teachers and their rights, defend worker rights more broadly, and to defend our democracy. We have no choice."
[Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour] stopped short of confirming whether that response would include a provincewide strike, but said, “it’s one of the things that's actively under consideration."
I'm not in Alberta, but pay doesn't seem to be the sticking point here - the union is trying to negotiate on class sizes (which AFAIK the province is refusing to even disclose) and classroom supports.
And the pipeline deal is why she was asking, so what's the difference, exactly?