Connect with us

Alberta

Focus on tangible policies—not political finger-pointing— to reduce fire risks

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Was the very specific area around Jasper—not the entire forested lands of Alberta—managed aggressively enough?

With the picturesque town of Jasper badly damaged by fire, Albertans and Canadians across the country are wondering how such destruction was allowed to happen.

Much of the public debate assumes that the disaster, in some way, was human-caused or aggravated by governmental negligence or incompetence. Some argue that government policies to suppress natural wildfires, which were widely implemented across North America after the Second World War, allowed the build-up of massive amounts of fuel for potential mega-blazes. Others argue that governments have been negligent by failing to allow aggressive logging of dead trees and by using insufficient controlled burns to manage fuel loads of underbrush. Some, of course, blame climate change—specifically human-caused climate change. And yes, the climate has changed, warming about 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1850, which may contribute to a heightened risk of forest fires (although there’s no ability to attribute any single climatic event to climate change).

But focusing on these issues misses the forest for the trees and raises philosophical questions about humanity’s relationship with nature, specifically, whether or not it’s desirable—much less feasible—for humanity to think we can control nature at large scales and turn the world into a giant tame botanical garden. Further, focusing on these questions of “too much” or “too little” intervention mostly serves political interests trying to beat each other over the head about climate policies, which are at best capable of only slightly—very slightly—affecting the risk of future forest fires.

Rather, having studied environmental, health and safety policy for several decades, I believe we should focus on very different specific questions about how the fire was allowed to ravage Jasper. These questions cut through the foggier questions of how we manage nature and instead focus on how we manage human risks.

So, was the very specific area around Jasper—not the entire forested lands of Alberta—managed aggressively enough? In 2018, 350 hectares of trees around Jasper were removed. Apparently, that was not enough to protect the human-built environment. Parks Canada will have to answer that question in time.

Did the provincial and federal governments fall short in maintaining sufficient fire-fighting capabilities to protect Jasper? According to some reports, this was a significant source of failure, where the federal government, which maintains no ability to fight fires at night, failed to coordinate with Alberta’s provincial government, which does have night-fighting capabilities.

Did the town of Jasper take enough precautions to protect itself from the risk of conflagration? Are building codes in Jasper sufficiently stringent at fire-proofing human structures? Is the fuel burden within the township itself sufficiently controlled? More broadly, how much are we willing to spend to reduce risks? And how far should we aim to reduce those risks?

The answers to these questions could help produce tangible policies that may help reduce the risk of fire damage in the future.

There’s a lot of finger-pointing right now. Political point-scoring is the order of the day, particularly in the realm of climate policies. But using the Jasper fire for political ends distracts from the important questions about whether or not anybody or any level of government should try to tame nature outside of human-built environments. And about what policies will work best to protect towns like Jasper.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Calgary’s new city council votes to ban foreign flags at government buildings

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.

Western Canada’s largest city has put in place what amounts to a ban on politically charged flags from flying at city-owned buildings.

“Calgary’s Flag Policy means any country recognized by Canada may have their flag flown at City Hall on their national day,” said Calgary’s new mayor Jeromy Farkas on X last month.

“But national flag-raisings are now creating division. Next week, we’ll move to end national flag-raisings at City Hall to keep this a safe, welcoming space for all.”

The motion to ban foreign flags from flying at government buildings was introduced on December 15 by Calgary councilor Dan McLean and passed by a vote of 8 to 7. He had said the previous policy to allow non-Canadian flags to fly, under former woke mayor Jyoti Gondek, was “source of division within our community.”

“In recent months, this practice has been in use in ways that I’ve seen have inflamed tensions, including instances where flag raisings have been associated with anti-Semitic behavior and messaging,” McLean said during a recent council meeting.

The ban on flag raising came after the Palestinian flag was allowed to be raised at City Hall for the first time.

Farkas, shortly after being elected mayor in the fall of 2025, had promised that he wanted a new flag policy introduced in the city.

It is not yet clear if the flag motion applies to other flags, such as LGBT ones.

Despite Farkas putting forth the motion, as reported by LifeSiteNews he is very much in the pro-LGBT camp. However, he has promised to focus only on non-ideological issues during his term.

“When City Hall becomes a venue for geopolitical expressions, it places the city in the middle of conflicts that are well beyond our municipal mandates,” he said.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, other jurisdictions in Canada are considering banning non-Canadian flags from flying over public buildings.

Recently a political party in British Columbia, OneBC, introduced legislation to ban non-domestic government flags at public buildings in British Columbia.

Across Canada there has also been an ongoing issue with so-called “Pride” flags being raised at schools and city buildings.

Continue Reading

Trending

X