plant lover, cookie monster, shoe fiend
20934 stories
·
20 followers

The AGtivist: whistleblower warns of “complete supply chain collapse” as climate crisis escalates - Wicked Leeks

1 Share

We all take it for granted that when we visit a supermarket, or order our weekly shop online, the food we want and need will be available. With the exception of the early days of the Covid pandemic, which saw panic buying and restrictions on some goods, this is what, in the UK at least, we have experienced for many years.     

But the signs that this comfortable status quo won’t continue are becoming increasingly obvious and alarming. Whether it’s dire warnings sparked by one of the lowest cereal harvests in recent British history due to this year’s intense heat and drought, or government campaigns encouraging us to stockpile bottled water and food amid growing concerns about the impacts of the climate crisis, risks of cyber attacks and threats from hostile states, these crises are now in plain sight. 

During more than two decades reporting on the global food industry, the AGtivist has heard repeated warnings from numerous scientists, environmental campaigners, politicians, public health experts and many others that things cannot stay as they are without serious consequences. From clamouring around climate change, the destruction of ecologically-vital rainforests, the threat of growing food insecurity and the dangers of overfishing, the perils of antibiotic-resistant disease, the scandal of food miles and fossil fuel dependence, the scourge of factory farms, pesticide poisoning of land and water resources, the list is endless.   

Even some within the vast, sprawling food industry itself have begun to break ranks and raise the alarm; last year, for example, the AGtivist highlighted a litany of concerns raised by a group of industry insiders about the increasing intensification of the UK’s meat and dairy sectors.       

Now, another food sector whistleblower has emerged, this time to draw attention to the risk of “complete supply chain collapse” due to the climate emergency, and the lack of awareness amongst most ordinary people. The insider’s account offers such a damning indictment of apparent corporate indifference and government inaction on this issue that it deserves to be read in full, and act as a powerful wake up call for those of us still in any doubt about what’s in store:

Sleepwalking to disaster

“The British public is in the dark about the fragility of our food system and if we don’t wake up to the urgency of the situation, we will soon sleepwalk into disaster. I have worked at a senior level in the food industry for several years now and like others in the sector I am frustrated at just how woefully uninformed Britons are about the reality of the system. 

To put it crudely, the public is oblivious to the risk of complete supply chain-collapse due to climate change. From what I have seen, industry executives are refusing to confront the situation and the government is not being upfront about it. 

Consumers have no reason to question the status quo because, so far, they’ve never been denied the food they need. If the UK has a bad wheat harvest, we can buy from North America and Canada. The price of a loaf of bread might go up, but that’s the worst of it. 

But if those countries are facing the same problem – and thanks to climate change, they will be – then everyone is stuck. The alternatives don’t exist. The bread is no longer expensive, it’s not available at all. And that’s just wheat. What if this starts happening to all sorts of crops, all around the world, all at once?

I can tell you that this is not some faraway prospect. It will be in the not-too-distant future, and it is going to happen suddenly.

Climate change is wreaking havoc on the yield and quality of harvests, which makes supply less reliable and food more expensive. The company I work for recently saw inflation of over 100% on the price we paid for certain varieties of orange. We buy them from the Mediterranean, where the harvest had been terrible because of droughts. It meant we lost millions of pounds – and we responded by hiking up our prices. Consumers had to fork out.

The price of an orange going up may not sound like a big deal but these small rises have a huge cumulative effect: the UK is currently going through a historic cost-of-living crisis. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Soon the crisis of cost will become a crisis of availability. 

Driven by profits

The most senior people within the food industry are part of the problem. They might claim to care about climate change if you ask them one-on-one, but their decisions are dictated by the pressure to return a profit and deliver to the shareholders in the next quarter. If they’re left to go it alone, companies will continue defaulting to quick-fix solutions.

We need industry leaders to come together and address, on a national scale, the problems that will harm all their companies in the longer term. Can we invest in soil health across the UK to make sure we’ll be able to grow enough food in 10 years’ time? How should we share risk fairly through the supply chain? How can we invest in long-term contracts with UK farmers? Can we cut down on imported fertiliser? 

This unity is also needed in communications with the government. At the moment, the big lobby groups often struggle to agree on a single approach that suits all of their members. While more progressive companies might push for mandatory measures on packaging or healthy sales, for example, others will want to lobby hard against it. This is especially the case for big branded businesses who often hide behind trade bodies when they want to resist something. The net result is that neither position is put to the government as a matter of priority.

Meanwhile, powerful global food corporations are lobbying to ensure they can continue doing business in ways that are compounding the crisis in the long-term, like the meat companies linked to catastrophic deforestation in the Amazon.

Public awareness

Beyond this, we need a national campaign that makes clear to the public just how fragile our food system is – and what can be done to strengthen it.

The solutions exist, and there’s much that the government can do. It can source food regionally when procuring for public hospitals, care homes, prisons and government buildings. It can support British farmers and back a more regenerative farming system which supports long term soil health and productivity. There is currently money available for intensified animal farming or soy-based feed, but the right government subsidies and support could help struggling farmers diversify their production.

None of these things come cheap, and people might have to pay more for their food in the short-term. But they might be prepared to do so if they knew about the alternative.

Remember the scenes at the beginning of the pandemic, when the panic-buying of staples like pasta led to scuffles in supermarket aisles? We are closer to food-related social unrest in this country than people think. This is not a case of what you don’t know won’t hurt you,” the testimony ends.

Like so many of the warnings that have come before, the facts involved are clear, and the consequences of doing nothing are stark. The question is, who is listening? And what are they – and we the people – going to do about it?    

Wicked Leeks readers can learn more about the work of Professor Tim Lang and the National Preparedness Commission and The National Emergency Briefing here.

The whistleblower’s testimony was organised by the campaign group Inside Track, which seeks to build confidential groups of senior professionals within powerful industries who want to see their sectors play a more positive role in society. 

The AGtivist is an investigative journalist specialising in food and agriculture issues who’s been covering this beat for 20+ years. The AGtivist column at Wicked Leeks shines a light on the key issues around intensive farming, Big Ag, Big Food, food safety, and the environmental impacts of intensive agribusiness.    

Read the whole story
sarcozona
51 minutes ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Canada broke promise to end thermal coal exports | Canada's National Observer: Climate News

1 Share

In a scathing report tabled Thursday on behalf of the Auditor General of Canada, a federal climate watchdog says Ottawa effectively broke its promise to ban thermal coal exports more than a year ago — but never told anyone. 

Five years ago, the federal government announced it would ban thermal coal exports by 2030, referring to the type of coal burned in power plants to generate electricity. The government set up a series of initiatives to help meet that goal, including co-chairing the international Powering Past Coal Alliance, and earmarking $1 billion to help countries transition off coal-fired electricity. 

But in 2025, as part of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government-wide review of spending, that work was quietly shut down but was not publicly communicated. 

“I don't remember a time in the past 20 years where I’ve seen work stop like that,” Deputy Auditor General Andrew Hayes said.

That year, thermal exports remained higher than in 2021, when the promise was first made.  

The audit found Westshore Terminals and Trigon Pacific Terminals, the two ports in British Columbia that thermal coal is shipped from, lobbied Environment and Climate Change Canada and other senior officials while the ban was under development. 

The findings are detailed in a new report from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Jerry DeMarco, on behalf of the Auditor General of Canada. The audit examined the government’s commitment to end thermal coal exports, and concluded that not only did Environment and Climate Change Canada fail to tell the public that it had ended the program, it also did not share information with Global Affairs Canada, affected parties or Indigenous communities. 

The audit also says it could not find any “clear records” that Environment and Climate Change Canada ever filled Minister Julie Dabrusin in on the change. It does not say whether she ever requested the project be reassessed.

In a statement to Canada’s National Observer, Dabrusin’s office did not say why the decision to stop work on the ban was never communicated, or if she ever requested an assessment from the department on the implications of ending the work. 

“In 2024, the previous government paused efforts to implement the thermal coal export ban,” spokesperson Keean Nembhard said. “Canada's new government is assessing current policies against the backdrop of ongoing energy availability, affordability, security pressures, and Canada’s wider climate ambitions.”

Dabrusin has sat as a Liberal MP since 2015, but was first appointed as the environment minister by Carney in 2025.

Timeline of Canada’s commitment to end thermal coal exports via Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The audit recommended Global Affairs Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada should better coordinate their work, publicly communicate decisions, and publicly report on lessons learned. The departments said they agree and would commit to doing so. 

Over the past decade, exports of thermal coal have increased, reaching a peak in 2023. Last year, about 61 per cent of the thermal coal exported from Canada originated in the US. It was passed through Canadian ports because of export restrictions in Washington, Oregon and California that had been put in place over environmental and safety concerns. 

Graph via Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Graph via Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Burning coal to generate electricity releases a massive amount of climate pollution. According to the International Energy Agency, nearly a third of global carbon dioxide emissions come from burning coal for power, representing the largest source of energy-related emissions. 

According to the Lancet Countdown, in 2022, emissions from burning coal in power plants were responsible for more than 600,000 premature deaths worldwide. For emissions to drop in line with the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement would require global coal use to drop to 80 per cent below 2010 levels by 2030, according to a study from Climate Analytics. 

“This report confirms how the federal government is failing Canadians and the world through its inaction on thermal coal,” said Candela Cerpa, a climate organizer with Stand.earth, in a statement. “The Canadian federal government claimed they heard us, but that claim is worthless if it isn’t followed by action.”

In a statement, Ecojustice lawyer Fraser Thomson called the report a wake-up call. 

“Largely driven by US thermal coal, exports out of the Port of Vancouver have more than doubled over the past decade,” he said. 

“As we continue to act as a pollution corridor for US thermal coal and shipping our own, we are contributing to climate trends — like Canada warming at twice the global average rate and northern Canada warming at three times the global average rate.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Landmark study finds three in four NFL players die with CTE | Scientific American

2 Shares

American football can be brutal. Scientists have long known that the hits, tackles and other collisions that are central to the sport come with health risks, but what these impacts do to the brain has been less clear. What we do know is that many footballers have died with brains that have shown evidence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a disease associated with symptoms such as mood swings and dementia. But because a diagnosis requires that investigators look for damage in a person’s brain after they die, it’s unclear just how common CTE is among current or former athletes.

But now, in a study published in JAMA Network Open, an analysis of medical records from thousands of deceased former NFL players—including hundreds who donated their brains to science—estimates that about 75 percent of these players likely died with CTE.

“No other environmental or occupational exposure ever studied is known to have increased dementia risk at death by that amount,” says Yorghos Tripodis, senior author of the paper and a professor of biostatistics at Boston University.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The study is based on records of 2,362 former NFL players who died between 2008 and 2023 and played in the league for an average of five years. Among those who donated their brains—almost 400 players—a stunning 93.5 percent had CTE. Signs of CTE in the brain can include atrophy, or tissue wasting, as well as clusters of tau protein—a symptom that is also linked to Alzheimer’s disease.

The high incidence of CTE in those donors may reflect the sample itself: people who donate their brains to science tend to have more severe behavioral symptoms, Tripodis says. That could skew the dataset, potentially making CTE rates appear artificially high.

To better estimate how common CTE might have been across all 2,362 former players in the study, Tripodis and his colleagues analyzed the medical records of donors and nondonors. The team found that people with cognitive symptoms were about five times more likely to donate their brain. Given that, the researchers recalculated their incidence estimate to find that some three in four football players in the study likely had CTE.

For comparison, among the general population, fewer than 1 percent of brains in community-based brain banks show signs of CTE, Tripodis says.

The study only includes NFL players who had died, and it remains difficult, if not impossible, to diagnose CTE in living players. It is hard to say what the risk to NFL players today is, Tripodis says. The NFL has also taken steps to mitigate the risk of head injuries.

The records may also be incomplete or imprecise. For instance, symptoms of CTE such as dementia may not be listed on death records, Tripodis says. And even if dementia is listed, it can have other—even multiple—causes.

This study is “the best attempt so far to correct for selection bias in CTE brain bank data,” says Russell Lonser, a professor in neurological surgery at the Ohio State University, who was not involved in the study. But “it is an estimate from a model and should be read that way.”

"Without similar men who never played contact sports, we can’t tell how much of the pathology or dementia comes from football,” Lonser says. “The 75 percent includes any CTE pathology, even early changes that may never have caused symptoms.”

To better understand how football increases the risks of CTE, Lonser says, you’d need to study players, with and without symptoms, over time, along with conducting brain analyses and including a comparison group of people who had no exposure to head impacts. “Until that work is done, we won’t know how common CTE really is or what, specifically, it means for players.”

Still, Tripodis hopes the findings will prove useful for families who have been affected by CTE and will inform current and future players of the risks involved in the sport.

“CTE is a preventable disease. We find, in study after study, that the more blows to the head over your lifetime, the higher the risk of CTE,” Tripodis says. “If you reduce exposure to repetitive head impacts, then you reduce the risk of CTE.”

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Dental care needs better communication: auditor general

1 Comment
Report finds program is mostly efficient, but that many people in it don't know how much dental care it covers



Download audio: https://www.canadianaffairs.news/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/ElevenLabs_Untitled_project-2-7.mp3
Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
This would be easier if we had a Canadian Dental Service
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

No one paid me to disagree with Jonathan Haidt. It was teenagers who taught me that he was wrong.

1 Share

According to recently released discovery materials, Meta directly targeted Jonathan Haidt by trying to stir up academics to oppose him. The odd thing is that many of us scholars who disagree with him knew nothing about this and weren’t not involved in it. And so now scholars like the amazing Candice Odgers are being doubted about the sincerity of their critique. WTAF upside down world are we living it?

What’s super frustrating is that many scholars in the teens-tech-mental health space are repeatedly accused of fabricating research or being corporate shills when our research is politically inconvenient. I know that I have been. Repeatedly. And it sucks.

When I was still in graduate school, I was asked to serve on the Internet Safety Technical Task Force. One of my responsibilities was to oversee the research effort. I worked with other scholars to track down all studies that focused on content, contact, and conduct related harms involving the internet. The politicians were primarily interested in the question of pedophiles. When I provided the report to then Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, he told me to go find different data. He did not like what I had found. I didn’t know what to say.

Predation is real. It’s devastating. But it’s a more complex dynamic than most people’s mental image allows for. And when it comes to internet-enabled predation, the biggest risk is not teenagers using the latest social media site. The biggest risk is single moms using online dating apps. Pedophiles seek out these women to get access to their children. It’s sick. But no one wants to hear that. They want to focus on the digital tools young people use.

After our report was published, I started getting calls from journalists. I earnestly and naively responded to all of them. One of the journalists was from PBS Frontline. She called me up repeatedly, drilling me on questions about arguments in the report. I responded by providing study after study to every inquiry, pointing her to different researchers who were experts on different parts of this puzzle. After a few weeks of this, I got what would be the last call from her. She started out by apologizing to me.

Unbeknownst to me, some of Richard Blumenthal’s ardent supporters for his Senatorial campaign were outraged that I dared to challenge the politician’s arguments about internet safety. They were determined to prove that I was falsifying data on behalf of the tech industry. The Frontline reporter told me she was assigned to uncover my duplicitousness. She had concluded I hadn’t done anything but report on the scientific insights of the field. She spiked the story, but she warned me that I had pissed off some very powerful people and I would probably have to deal with being demonized going forward for standing up for research. Ugh.

Ironically, I first started truly despising Facebook-the-company while I was working on that task force. I got to watch up close how the company built a coordinated campaign against MySpace, intentionally creating the impression that MySpace was dangerous while Facebook was safe. And I witnessed teenagers process this through the language of racism and classism, prompting me to write a very controversial essay that turned into my paper “White Flight in Networked Publics?” I was fascinated – and disgusted – by the executive who seemed to do the dirty work on behalf of the CEO and COO, unbeknownst to others in the company. I called him the bulldog. The bulldog continued to harass all sorts of different people.

These days, I have absolutely nothing nice to say about Meta-the-company despite knowing a few amazing people who work there. I think the company is unethical to the core. And the products have enshittified so badly that they’re unrecognizable compared to what teenagers used to use. Hence my argument that “Social Media is Now Parasocial Media.” But I still stand by my research on teens and the research of others who have done rigorous analyses putting teens’ lives into context. Teenagers live in the world we create for them – and they use what’s available to them, regardless of how they feel about it. In the past, teens turned to Facebook to socialize and make sense of public life. Today, Facebook is dead to teens and Instagram feels more like some sketchy version of MTV. Socialization is on group chats, some of which unfold on WhatsApp. But most teens have nothing nice to say about Facebook.

Many teenagers in our contemporary world are struggling. I’ve gotten to see that upfront through my work at Crisis Text Line, which I adore. And I’ve gotten to consistently witness how the problems that they face cannot be explained by their tech use. Because of this, removing tech from their lives will not solve the major problems. And for some, like many of the teens who text Crisis Text Line in their darkest moments, losing access to a cell phone will eradicate an essential lifeline.

I have no interest in defending tech companies, but I am deeply committed to defending teenagers’ agency and choices in the world that we have given them. I am determined to make sure that those teens who don’t have supportive parents have pathways to get help. And my research has repeatedly led me to conclude that when we fail to empower teenagers to transition into adult worlds, we do them more harm. And when we focus on the tech, we fail to help those who need the help the most.

Many of the problems that I have with tech use are actually about adult tech use. Too many adults treat their phones as a pacifier to help them self-regulate. They’ve taught this bad habit to their kids. Too many adults fail to role model healthy sociality digitally and in-person friendship. Too many adults use their phones to be distracted from their own children. And then we’re surprised by the mirrors that teens offer back at us. “I learned it from watching you, dad.”

What kills me in the contemporary teens-and-tech debate is that there’s no space for actual research or critical nuance. You’re either opposed to the tech companies or in their pockets. And this week’s absurd discovery reinforces this infuriating polarity, painting those of us who are critical of Jonathan Haidt as being corporate shills. I find this especially frustrating because I did work in tech for a lot of my career. I played the role of friction inside many companies (although never Meta). I repeatedly got threatened by tech executives for challenging corporate mantras or providing research that contradicted their interests – and yet I persisted. Cuz many tech companies are far more complicated than people realize.

Still, I’ve had to grit and bear as I am attacked by other scholars for taking money from tech (as if any money in late-stage capitalism is clean money). And I had to stomach calls from representatives of the National Academies that I can’t even talk with their committee members because Jonathan Haidt told them that I was a corporate shill. And I’ve had to not weigh in on numerous recent debates because my peers and news outlets tell me I am tainted. In this political climate, I am unable to convince people that my research stems from the lessons I learned from teens, not what I learned from tech. I’ve mostly shrugged. But when journalists started going after Candice, I lost my mind and felt the need to share my story. The idea that she is being painted as a corporate shill is ludicrous.

Cuz here’s the thing… It IS possible to despise the tech companies AND understand why teenagers use their products and find value from doing so. Listen to teenagers; they get these contradictions. Their hatred of the tech companies is growing exponentially even as they use the tools those companies provide. (You should see their attitudes towards AI companies. Oooh-whee…) It’s also possible to care about kids’ mental health AND think that the solution doesn’t start and stop with tech. And it’s possible to do rigorous research AND discover that tech isn’t the biggest monster in teens’ lives that anti-tech advocates think it is.

Truth be told, I’d have no problem if certain social media platforms would be banned for everyone. I think that many of the products in this space have devolved into garbage. My objection is a teen-specific ban. I oppose legal controls of teenagers because adults are trying to cope with the guilt about their own failings. We are living through an era of anxious parents. It’s heartbreaking the costs of this anxiety.

Of course, if politicians want to implement an age-specific ban to target those most harmed by social media platforms, I’d be totally fine with banning elders from social media. That would do society a lot of good. Just think of what it would mean in terms of identity theft and fraud, not to mention disinformation. But that’s the rub. We believe that adults’ freedom of choice needs to never be constrained, but that it’s perfectly OK to micromanage teenagers. THIS is what I object to. I believe that teenagers deserve rights and agency. I think it’s utterly asinine that the United States never ratified the UN Rights of the Child. This doesn’t make me a corporate shill. This makes me an advocate for teenagers.

As I wrote over a decade ago, we’ve made ridiculous decisions that have undermined teenagers’ ability to socialize and connect with friends. And it keeps getting worse. Teens have lost the right to roam. In many parts of the country, they’re overscheduled and have nowhere to go to hang out with friends besides each other’s homes. Teenagers don’t have sustained access to mental health services (and they often have to go through their parents’ insurance to get access). They’re living through a polycrisis. And what they’re seeing in the world of adults is depressing. There’s a lot that we can do to help young people. But much of it starts locally. Much of it starts with adults checking their own behaviors. Much of it starts with intentionally investing in the social lives of young people. Giving them options. Creating space for them. Ensuring that they have robust social fabrics. Tech is a relief valve, and an increasingly terrible one. But taking tech away won’t do squat to address the underlying issues. And, worse, banning social media is basically an advertisement for it. Cuz right now, social media is dying a slow death among teens cuz it sucks so much. But teens are still looking for spaces in which they can connect and socialize and make sense of the world around them. What will it take for us to actually invest in young people?

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete

Poor oversight and vague outlines

1 Share

It was Auditor General Day yesterday, and there were a bunch of reports released, including three from the Environment Commissioner, who is in her office. And so, this is what they found:

  • The CBSA’s new digital management software, CARM, is still glitchy two years later and they spend a lot of time on manual workarounds.
  • FINTRAC continues to be plagued by reporting backlogs that aren’t going to be cleared until next year at least.
  • National Defence didn’t manage their ammunition inventory effectively.
  • Ways to improve the dental care programme after it exceeded its budget.
  • The government still won’t outline their plan to meet their 2030 emissions targets.
  • The procurement process for new call centre technology has been a mess.
  • Health Canada isn’t following up on high-risk pesticides identified with monitoring.
  • PHAC has not effectively managed their emergency stockpiles.
  • The government stopped work on banning thermal coal exports without saying so.

There is a common theme about a lack of oversight in many of these reports, and while a lot of these issues are from the Trudeau era, I have observed that there was an issue with a lack of proper management of government departments, where the attitude seemed to be that these civil servants were left to manage their own affairs, which they didn’t necessarily do effectively. Whether that’s because ministers didn’t feel they were qualified to because they were constantly reporting to the Centre (meaning the chief of staff) was a possibility, or perhaps it was because they didn’t realise that it was their responsibility to do so. I wonder if it will get worse under Carney, however, as ministers are preoccupied with trying to use digital asbestos to “find efficiencies,” or because major projects and decisions are being shunted off to Crown corporations to manage them instead, which are more arm’s-length, and as a result get less scrutiny. We’ll have to see, but the trend is not encouraging.

The government also released their first National Security Strategy in twenty years, and it was a slim, high-level document that had very few details, but outlined five broad themes, including a focus on economic security. There is also concern outlined about “frontier” digital asbestos being a major threat. Philippe Lagassé considers the defence-related items, while Stephanie Carvin has her initial thoughts here.

Carney says we are "forging new partnerships with allies that are anchored in our common values."What are our "common values" with China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Türkiye, and Modi's India? If the common value is making money, then he should just come out and say so.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-30T00:54:22.514Z

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-10-29T19:08:01.843Z

Ukraine Dispatch:

A Russian drone killed fourteen after hitting a rail platform in Dnipro. There were other attacks on Kyiv and Kharkiv. De-mining operations around Oleshky have completed so the relief mission and possible evacuation can begin, while president Zelenskyy warns of intelligence about another ballistic missile attack.

Noteworthy:

  • The Logic has an excellent reality check about why even a Democrat sweep of the US midterms won’t actually do much to improve the trade relationship.
  • Justin Ling recaps some of the Trump erraticism ahead of the midterms.

What is there to opt out of for dental care? It's 100% a federally-funded, privately-administered insurance programme. It has nothing to do with the province. And pharmacare is pretty much a dead letter federally anyway, because most of the premiers, including Alberta's, balked.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-10-29T14:06:47.422Z

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content. 

Read the whole story
sarcozona
1 day ago
reply
Epiphyte City
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories