Alberta teachers vote 95 per cent in favour of strike action
Alberta teachers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action, beginning a 120-day window during which negotiations will continue but amid the possibility of educators walking off the job.
Article content
On Tuesday, the Alberta Teachers' Association (ATA) released the results of its strike vote held last weekend, with 95 per cent of those who cast a ballot, or 36,862 teachers, voting in favour of strike action.
Article content
Article content
Article content
ATA president Jason Schilling said the results send 'an unmistakable message.'
Article content
Article content
'We are united, we are determined, and we will no longer hold up a crumbling public education system that this government fails to fund properly,' he said.
Article content
'The cracks are now impossible to ignore. If anything, they are growing larger.'
Article content
Teachers now have 120 days to begin strike action if a deal can't be reached. The two sides are set to meet twice more this month, with more dates set aside in August.
The ATA's provincial executive council will meet this Thursday and Friday to determine next steps.
Article content
Over 99 per cent of teachers voted in favour of authorizing a strike in a separate vote last month. Before that, 62 per cent of eligible ATA members who cast a ballot voted against a mediator's settlement recommendation.
Article content
The union's last round of central table bargaining two years ago saw increases of under four per cent over two years.
Article content
Article content
The ATA's most recent collective agreement expired in August 2024.
Article content
Teachers are now seeking larger wage increases to counter inflation as well as more manageable workloads, including smaller class sizes and better supports to address the growing complexity of students' needs in classrooms.
Article content
Most students in Edmonton and Calgary's public and Catholic schools are set to return after the summer on Sept. 2, or 84 days from Tuesday.
Article content
Postmedia has contacted the office of Finance Minister Nate Horner seeking comment.
Article content
Article content
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
11 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
GUNTER: Carney Liberals build groundwork to blame pipeline failure on private sector
Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with all of Canada's premiers during the First Ministers' Meeting at TCU Place. Photo taken in Saskatoon, Sask. on Monday, June 2, 2025. Photo by Michelle Berg / Postmedia You don't have to look far for proof that a cross-country pipeline is more of a pipedream. The usual suspects — Quebec, the federal cabinet, the B.C. government, Indigenous activists and environmentalists — are never going to consent to one being built, even if Prime Minister Mark Carney declares one to be in the national interest. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Already, if you look closely enough, the foundations are being laid to reject a new transnational pipeline and pin the blame on investors and the oil industry for lack of interest. Oh, sure. There's some good lip service toward boosting conventional oil and gas production. In late May, new Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson caused sighs of relief when he told the Calgary Chamber of Commerce that the Carney Liberals' energy policy 'begins with a vision: to build Canada into a conventional and clean energy and natural resources superpower.' Early on in his tenure as PM, Carney had given the clear impression he was in favour of expansion of oil and gas, maybe even the oilsands. Then the Liberal platform came out mid-campaign and gone was any reference to oil, gas or pipelines. It was only 'clean energy,' such as wind and solar, bug burps and Tibetans prayer wheels, or whatever other trendy 'green' energy sources have mesmerized 'progressives.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Even when Carney met with the 13 premiers last week, the oil-province premiers Danielle Smith of Alberta and Scott Moe of Saskatchewan left the summit believing there was a real chance a pipeline might make it onto the Liberal government's approved list of national-interest projects. Read More Forgive me for being a cynic or a pessimist but just look at what federal cabinet ministers and other premiers are saying now. Speaking Monday in Korea as part of a 10-day trade swing through Asia, B.C. Premier David Eby said its wasn't his government standing in the way of a pipeline to northwestern B.C. Rather, there's 'no proponent, no money and no project right now.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Like Justin Trudeau on LNG, Eby was saying there's 'no business case' for a new pipeline. The private sector has been scared off energy projects by politicians' and activists' obstructionism in the past decade. That won't change until governments re-establish credibility with pipeline companies that new projects have a decent chance being approved in a timely manner and, after approval, have a decent chance of being built without endless court challenges and protests. Otherwise, who's going to step forward with billions of dollars to risk? Remember that Justice Minister Sean Fraser said national projects could be built without full Indigenous buy-in, only to be forced by the prime minister's office to walk those words back less than 24 hours later, under pressure from the Assembly of First Nations and others. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Former environment minister (now heritage minister) Steven Guilbeault has been the most blunt. He has come right out and said there is no need for more pipelines because oil demand will soon begin declining, even though there is no proof of his claim. And Guilbeault's protege, current Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, under questioning in the House of Commons on Monday, said while she had no definition of the 'consensus' that would be required to get a pipeline approved, 100 per cent would be a good place to start. Dabrusin would not commit to whether that meant provincial politicians and First Nations had vetoes, but the logic is not hard to follow. This is how the Trudeau government killed the Energy East pipeline — adding enough delays and regulatory changes that eventually TC Energy, the line's owner, withdrew. That allowed the federal Liberals to claim the pipeline's demise was a business decision, not a political one. And that's what I think we are being set up for now on a new East-West pipeline. The Carney government will claim to be in favour, but kowtow to special interests until investors shy away. Celebrity NHL Editorial Cartoons Toronto Maple Leafs Music
Winnipeg Free Press
19 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know after anti-immigrant violence flares in a Northern Ireland town
LONDON (AP) — Police in Northern Ireland say 17 officers were injured during a second night of anti-immigrant violence in the town of Ballymena, where rioters threw bricks, bottles, petrol bombs and fireworks and set several vehicles and houses on fire. Police used water cannon and fired rubber bullets to disperse a crowd of several hundred people. The Police Service of Northern Ireland said Wednesday that the violence died down by about 1 a.m. (0000GMT). Five people were arrested on suspicion of 'riotous behavior.' What sparked the violence? Violence erupted Monday after a peaceful march to show support for the family of the victim of an alleged sexual assault on the weekend. Two 14-year-old boys have been charged. The suspects have not been identified because of their age. They were supported in court by a Romanian interpreter. After the march, a crowd of mostly young people set several houses on fire and pelted police with projectiles. The Police Service of Northern Ireland said 15 officers were injured that night. There were similar scenes after dark on Tuesday, as well as small pockets of disorder in several other Northern Ireland towns. Police said agitators on social media were helping fuel what Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson called 'racist thuggery.' What is the background? Some politicians said immigration had strained the town of about 30,000 some 25 miles (40 km) northwest of Belfast, long known as a bastion of hardline pro-British Loyalism. Jim Allister, leader of the conservative party Traditional Unionist Voice, said 'unchecked migration, which is beyond what the town can cope with, is a source of past and future tensions.' Some Romanians in Ballymena told Britain's PA news agency they had lived in the town for years and were shocked by the violence. Several houses in the Clonavon Terrace area that was the focus of the violence put up signs identifying their residents as British or Filipino in an apparent attempt to avoid being targeted. Henderson said there was no evidence that Loyalist paramilitaries, who still hold sway over Protestant communities, were behind the disorder. Has this happened before? Northern Ireland has a long history of street disorder stretching back to tensions between the British unionist and Irish nationalist communities. Though three decades of violence known as 'the Troubles' largely ended after a 1998 peace accord, tensions remain between those — largely Protestants — who see themselves as British and Irish nationalists, who are mostly Catholic. In Belfast, 'peace walls' still separate working-class Protestant and Catholic areas. Street rioters sporadically clash with police, and recently immigrants have become a target. Anti-immigrant violence erupted in Northern Ireland as well as England last year after three girls were stabbed to death at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in the northwest England town of Southport. Authorities said online misinformation wrongly identifying the U.K.-born teenage attacker as a migrant played a part. What will happen next? Police condemned the latest violence and said they would call in officers from England and Wales to bolster their response if needed. All the parties in Northern Ireland's power-sharing government issued a joint statement appealing for calm and urging people to reject 'the divisive agenda being pursued by a minority of destructive, bad faith actors.' On the alleged sexual assault, the statement added that 'it is paramount that the justice process is now allowed to take its course so that this heinous crime can be robustly investigated. Those weaponizing the situation in order to sow racial tensions do not care about seeing justice and have nothing to offer their communities but division and disorder.'
Vancouver Sun
21 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Canadians reject that they live on 'stolen' Indigenous land, although new poll reveals a generational divide
A majority of Canadians reject the idea they live on stolen Indigenous land, and the older people are, the more likely they are to say they don't, according to a new public opinion poll. Among all respondents across Canada, 52 per cent said they did not live on stolen Indigenous land, with 27 per cent saying they do. The remaining 21 per cent said they didn't know or declined to answer. Notably, there was a significant generational divide among those who answered the national opinion survey , conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies and provided to Postmedia. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. More respondents in the youngest cohort, 18-to-24-year-olds, agreed they did live on stolen Indigenous land (41 per cent) than rejected the idea (37 per cent). That contrasts with those in the oldest age group of 65 years or older, who overwhelmingly said they did not live on stolen land (65 per cent) with only 15 per cent agreeing they did. In between them, the remaining age groups were on an unbroken sliding scale in their answers: the older they were the more likely they were to reject the statement they lived on stolen land, and, conversely, the younger they were the more likely they were to agree that they did. The sentiment rejecting the idea they live on stolen Indigenous land was a low majority regardless of the respondents' region in Canada, except for in Atlantic Canada, where most people still rejected the idea, but at a nationally low rate of 44 per cent, with 29 per cent of Atlantic respondents saying yes, they do live on stolen land. The type of land people live on also impacted their feelings on the issue. Canadians living in rural areas were the least likely to agree they live on stolen Indigenous land, with urban dwellers the most likely to agree. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement 'I live on stolen Indigenous land,' 56 per cent of respondents living in a rural area said they disagree, 24 per cent said they agree, and 20 per cent said they didn't know or didn't answer. For those living in a suburban area, 50 per cent said they disagree, 29 per cent said they agree, and 21 per cent didn't give an answer. For urban dwellers, 46 per cent disagreed, 34 per cent agreed and 20 per cent didn't answer. The city they live in also impacted opinions. Those living in Calgary were the most vociferous in rejecting that their land is 'stolen' among the cities named in the polling data. In Calgary, 69 per cent said no, 20 per cent said yes, and 11 per cent didn't answer. That differs sharply from those living in Edmonton, just 300 kilometres away in the same province, where respondents were the most amenable to the idea: 41 per cent said no, 32 per cent said yes, and 27 per cent didn't answer. Montrealers had the second most forceful rejection: 53 per cent said no, 26 per cent yes, and 21 per cent didn't answer. Next came those living in the Hamilton-Niagara peninsula, where 50 per cent said no, 27 per cent said yes, and 23 per cent didn't answer, followed by the greater Ottawa area with 50 per cent saying no, 35 per cent saying yes, and 15 per cent not answering; Vancouver was next, where 45 per cent said yes, 34 per cent said no, and 21 per cent didn't answer. In the Greater Toronto Area, 43 per cent said no, 30 per cent said yes, and 27 per cent didn't answer. A majority of respondents who are Indigenous (53 per cent) said they live on stolen Indigenous land, although more than one third of Indigenous respondents (36 per cent) said no. Homeowners are more likely to reject the belief they're living on stolen Indigenous land than renters (53 per cent said no compared to 42 per cent). Students (50 per cent) and the unemployed (37 per cent) are more likely to agree they live on stolen land than workers, with full-time workers (35) more likely to agree than part-time workers (30). Respondents who described themselves as non-immigrants are more likely to reject that they live on stolen land than those who identified as immigrants (51 per cent compared to 44 per cent). 'Most Canadians reject the idea that they live on stolen Indigenous lands,' said Jack Jedwab, president of the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies. 'This reflects not just a disagreement over language, but a deeper divide in how people view Canada's history — highlighting ongoing political conversations about land ownership and societal values. 'The findings also raise important questions about the impact of public land acknowledgments, particularly when they are made without genuine understanding or conviction…. The survey results suggest that requiring Canadians to publicly acknowledge they live on stolen Indigenous lands would imply that the majority does so without conviction.' The poll asking Canadians if they think they live on 'stolen' Indigenous land suggests it may be more palatable to use a different word: unceded. The term unceded has become popular in modern usage, particularly in land acknowledgements that are frequently read at the start of government meetings and official public gatherings. Even King Charles III in his recent throne speech in Ottawa began by saying: 'I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people. This land acknowledgement is a recognition of shared history as a nation.' There has been some pushback. In April professors launched a lawsuit against the at the University of British Columbia complaining that land acknowledgments saying the school is on 'unceded Indigenous' land violates legislation requiring universities to be non-political. The petition claims the word unceded 'is often considered synonymous or closely affiliated in meaning with the assertion that the territory of Canada is 'stolen land' and that the speaker, at least to some degree, and in this respect, does not recognize Canada as a lawful or legitimate state.' Compared to the 52 per cent who declared in the recent poll they did not live on 'stolen Indigenous land,' a 2021 survey found only 42 per cent of respondents rejected the statement that they live on 'unceded Indigenous territory.' 'Paradoxically, the push back on the word 'stolen' may reflect not indifference, but the weight and seriousness people associate with it, and what such acknowledgement might imply,' said Jedwab. 'Dismissing such views does little to advance issues that are highly relevant for the country's past and future.' The public opinion survey was conducted with 1,537 adult respondents in Canada from May 16 to 18. As a non-probability sample in a panel survey, traditional margins of error do not apply. • Email: ahumphreys@ | Twitter: AD_Humphreys Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
