Thank the beetle and deadwood ‘fuel’ that should have been cleared

Todayville

Published

6 months ago

6 minute read

By Josh Andrus

Originally posted in the Western Standard

Parks Canada officials admit they failed to conduct controlled burns of dead pine trees, which now pose a significant fire risk.

While Ottawa fixates on climate change rhetoric, their neglect of forest fire prevention has left Alberta’s landscapes vulnerable to devastation.

Last week, a shining beacon of the beauty of our province was partially destroyed as a wildfire burned through the picturesque town of Jasper. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims.

Thankfully there has been no reported loss of life. But many people’s livelihoods have been wiped out. The question is how did this happen, and what could have been done to prevent it?

Smokey Bear’s famous saying was: “Only you can prevent forest fires.” And, in this case, proactive measures certainly could have made a difference.

Unfortunately, the entire federal government seems to have forgotten Smokey’s key point. Fire prevention on national park land is federal jurisdiction.

In 2022, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault was informed that Parks Canada managers had not taken adequate precautions to protect the Town of Jasper from wildfires, according to documents obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter. At that time, Parks Canada officials admitted they had failed to conduct controlled burns of dead pine trees, which posed a significant fire risk.

“A mountain pine beetle infestation has brought significant changes to forests in Alberta, including Jasper National Park, with consequences for wildfire risk,” Guilbeault was informed.

Almost half of Jasper’s Whitebark Pine forest, 44%, was infected by beetles. However, few steps were taken to reduce the risk to the Town of Jasper with controlled burns of the surrounding forest, records show.

“Fire has not yet been applied for Whitebark Pine restoration,” stated a 2022 implementation report. “Mechanical thinning has been completed in 1.6 hectares, which is a small area relative to the amount of Whitebark Pine habitat.”

No reason was given for failing to take precautions. Since the fire, Guilbeault has made no public mention of the management reports.

Even though federal officials, including his department, knew the raging pine beetle was a serious hazard, Guilbeault blamed climate change: “As we are seeing in Canada and all around the world, we are seeing more and more aggressive forest fires,” he said on a media call on Monday.

Landon Shepherd, Incident Commander for Parks Canada, also attributed the intensity of the blazes to climate change: “This isn’t meant to be a discussion about climate change, but anyone who’s involved in fire management can tell you that things have become more difficult, especially in the last five years, to manage impacts.”

The 2022 warnings were not the first time concerns about a lack of fire prevention in national parks have been raised.

In 2018, CBC reported concerns from experts. Emile Begin and Ken Hodges, foresters for 40 years who had been studying Jasper National Park, found multiple issues with the forest that make it susceptible to a fire.

“You have fire suppression that has occurred for many years — therefore, you get a lot of dead fuel that would have been consumed by a natural process,” Hodges said. “The mountain pine beetle adds even more fuel to the situation.”

“You’ve got a major catastrophe on your hands if you get a match thrown into that.”

When pressed about the concerns, Alan Fehr, a superintendent for Jasper National Park, said: “We’re quite comfortable with where we are with our own emergency planning and evacuation planning.”

Hodges disagreed: “The potential that’s out there is actually scary. Hopefully, we’re wrong.”

Despite the repeated warnings of potential devastation due to forest management practices, Ottawa continues to point to climate change as the cause of the fires.

The Alberta government has been preparing, and increased its firefighting budget by more than 50% to $155.4 million this year. Alberta’s firefighting budget is now the highest it has ever been (despite misinformation about cuts.)

However, without proper fire prevention on national park land, blazes can become out of control quickly — as the warnings indicated.

Smokey Bear would be horrified. Clearly, Ottawa needs to spend less time interfering in provincial jurisdiction and more time focusing on things that actually are federal jurisdiction, like fire prevention in national parks.

Their inability to see the forest through the trees and take legitimate action to protect our national parks from the fury of an out-of-control wildfire demonstrates a degree of ineptitude that is, quite frankly, shocking.

Ottawa needs to stay in its lane and focus on its own jurisdiction, and they need to stop blaming climate change for their own ineptitude.

Todayville

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

So What ARE We Supposed To Do With the Homeless?

Disaster / 2 hours ago

Army Black Hawk Was On Training Flight

Business / 3 hours ago

Long Ignored Criminal Infiltration of Canadian Ports Lead Straight to Trump Tariffs

Alberta

With $15 a day flat rate, Alberta transitions to publicly funded child care

Published on January 30, 2025

Government of Alberta

Introducing $15 a day child care for families

Alberta is introducing a flat monthly parent fee of $326.25 for full-time licensed child care, or roughly $15 a day.

As part of the $3.8-billion Canada-Alberta Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, Alberta is supporting families to access affordable child care across the province with their choice in provider.

Starting Apr. 1, parents with children zero to kindergarten age attending full-time licensed daycare facilities and family day home programs across the province will be eligible for a flat parent fee of $326.25 per month, or roughly $15 a day. Parents requiring part-time care will pay $230 per month.

To support these changes and high-quality child care, about 85 per cent of licensed daycare providers will receive a funding increase once the new fee structure is in place on Apr. 1.

Every day, parents and families across Alberta rely on licensed child-care providers to support their children’s growth and development while going to work or school. Licensed child-care providers and early childhood educators play a crucial role in helping children build the skills they need to support their growth and overall health. As Alberta’s population grows, the need for high-quality, affordable and accessible licensed and regulated child care is increasing.

While Alberta already reduced parent fees to an average of $15 a day in January 2024, many families are still paying much more depending on where they live, the age of their child and the child-care provider they choose, which has led to inconsistency and confusion. Many families find it difficult to estimate their child-care fees if they move or switch providers, and providers have expressed concerns about the fairness and complexity of the current funding framework.

A flat monthly fee will provide transparency and predictability for families in every part of the province while also improving fairness to providers and increasing overall system efficiency. On behalf of families, Alberta’s government will cover about 80 per cent of child-care fees through grants to daycare facilities and family day homes.

This means a family using full-time daycare could save, on average, $11,000 per child per year. A flat monthly parent fee will ensure child care is affordable for everyone and that providers are compensated for the important services they offer.

As opposed to a flat monthly parent fee, Alberta’s government will reimburse preschools up to $100 per month per child on parents’ behalf, up from $75.

“Albertans deserve affordable child-care options, no matter where they are or which type of care works best for them. We are bringing in flat parent fees for families so they can all access high-quality child care for the same affordable, predictable fee.”

Matt Jones, Minister of Jobs, Economy and Trade

“Reducing child care fees makes life more affordable for families and gives them the freedom to make choices that work for them—whether that’s working, studying or growing their family. We’ll keep working to bring costs down, create more spots, and reduce waitlists for families in Alberta and across the country, while ensuring every child gets the best start in life.”

Jenna Sudds, federal minister of Families, Children, and Social Development

To make Alberta’s child-care system affordable for all families, the flat monthly parent fee is replacing the Child Care Subsidy Program for children zero to kindergarten age attending child care during regular school hours. The subsidy for children attending out-of-school care is not changing.

As the province transitions to the new flat parent fee, child-care providers will have flexibility to offer optional services for an additional supplemental parent fee. These optional services must be over and above the services that are provided to all children in individual child-care programs. Clear requirements will be in place for providers to prevent preferential child-care access for families choosing to pay for optional services.

Cutting red tape and supporting child-care providers

By moving to a flat monthly parent fee, Alberta’s government is continuing the transition to a primarily publicly funded child care system. To support high-quality child care, approximately 85 per cent of licensed daycare providers will receive a funding increase once the new structure is in place on Apr. 1.

The province is enhancing the system to streamline the child-care claims process used to reimburse licensed child-care providers on behalf of Alberta parents. Alberta’s government is also putting technological solutions in place to reduce administrative burden and red tape.

Looking ahead

Over the final year of the federal agreement, Alberta’s government is working to support the child-care system while preparing to negotiate the next term of the agreement, reflective of the needs of Albertans and providers. Alberta joins its provincial and territorial partners across the country in calling for a sustainable, adequately funded system that works for parents and providers long term.

Quick facts

In line with requirements under the Canada-Alberta Canada-Wide Early Learning and Child Care Agreement, the flat monthly parent fee only applies to children zero to kindergarten age requiring care during regular school hours.
Children attending 100 or more hours in a month are considered full-time and parents will pay $326.25 a month. Children attending between 50 and 99 hours are considered part-time and parents will pay $230 a month.
Families with children attending preschool for up to four hours a day are eligible for up to $100 per month.
There are no changes to the out-of-school care Child Care Subsidy Program for children requiring care outside of school hours in grades 1 to 6 and attending full-time kindergarten.
Programs may choose to provide optional services for a supplemental fee. Examples may include transportation, field trips and food. Child-care programs are not required to charge parents additional supplemental fees.

Related information

Federal-provincial child care agreement

Alberta

AMA challenged to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review

Published on January 29, 2025

Todayville

Justice Centre President sends an open letter to Dr. Shelley Duggan, President of the Alberta Medical Association

Dear Dr. Duggan,

I write in response to the AMA’s Statement regarding the Final Report of the Alberta Covid Pandemic Data Review Task Force. Although you did not sign your name to the AMA Statement, I assume that you approved of it, and that you agree with its contents.

I hereby request your response to my questions about your AMA Statement.

You assert that this Final Report “advances misinformation.” Can you provide me with one or two examples of this “misinformation”?

Why, specifically, do you see this Final Report as “anti–science and anti–evidence”? Can you provide an example or two?

Considering that you denounced the entire 269-page report as “anti–science and anti–evidence,” it should be very easy for you to choose from among dozens and dozens of examples.

You assert that the Final Report “speaks against the broadest, and most diligent, international scientific collaboration and consensus in history.”

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware of the “consensus” whereby medical authorities in Canada and around the world approved the use of thalidomide for pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s, resulting in miscarriages and deformed babies. No doubt you are aware that for many centuries the “consensus” amongst scientists was that physicians need not wash their hands before delivering babies, resulting in high death rates among women after giving birth. This “international scientific consensus” was disrupted in the 1850s by a true scientist, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand-washing.

As a medical doctor, you should know that science is not consensus, and that consensus is not science.

It is unfortunate that your AMA Statement appeals to consensus rather than to science. In fact, your AMA Statement is devoid of science, and appeals to nothing other than consensus. A scientific Statement from the AMA would challenge specific assertions in the Final Report, point to inadequate evidence, debunk flawed methodologies, and expose incorrect conclusions. Your Statement does none of the foregoing.

You assert that “science and evidence brought us through [Covid] and saved millions of lives.” Considering your use of the word “millions,” I assume this statement refers to the lockdowns and vaccine mandates imposed by governments and medical establishments around the world, and not the response of the Alberta government alone.

What evidence do you rely on for your assertion that lockdowns saved lives? You are no doubt aware that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading to every city, town, village and hamlet, and that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading into nursing homes (long-term care facilities) where Covid claimed about 80% of its victims. How, then, did lockdowns save lives? If your assertion about “saving millions of lives” is true, it should be very easy for you to explain how lockdowns saved lives, rather than merely asserting that they did.

Seeing as you are confident that the governments’ response to Covid saved “millions” of lives, have you balanced that vague number against the number of people who died as a result of lockdowns? Have you studied or even considered what harms lockdowns inflicted on people?

If you are confident that lockdowns did more good than harm, on what is your confidence based? Can you provide data to support your position?

As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware that the mRNA vaccine, introduced and then made mandatory in 2021, did not stop the transmission of Covid. Nor did the mRNA vaccine prevent people from getting sick with Covid, or dying from Covid. Why would it not have sufficed in 2021 to let each individual make her or his own choice about getting injected with the mRNA vaccine? Do you still believe today that mandatory vaccination policies had an actual scientific basis? If yes, what was that basis?

You assert that the Final Report “sows distrust” and “criticizes proven preventive public health measures while advancing fringe approaches.”

When the AMA Statement mentions “proven preventive public health measures,” I assume you are referring to lockdowns. If my assumption is correct, can you explain when, where and how lockdowns were “proven” to be effective, prior to 2020? Or would you agree with me that locking down billions of healthy people across the globe in 2020 was a brand new experiment, never tried before in human history? If it was a brand new experiment, how could it have been previously “proven” effective prior to 2020? Alternatively, if you are asserting that lockdowns and vaccine passports were “proven” effective in the years 2020-2022, what is your evidentiary basis for that assertion?

Your reference to “fringe approaches” is particularly troubling, because it suggests that the majority must be right just because it’s the majority, which is the antithesis of science.

Remember that the first doctors to advocate against the use of thalidomide by pregnant women, along with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis advocating for hand-washing, were also viewed as “advancing fringe approaches” by those in authority. It would not be difficult to provide dozens, and likely hundreds, of other examples showing that true science is a process of open-minded discovery and honest debate, not a process of dismissing as “fringe” the individuals who challenge the reigning “consensus.”

The AMA Statement asserts that the Final Report “makes recommendations for the future that have real potential to cause harm.” Specifically, which of the Final Report’s recommendations have a real potential to cause harm? Can you provide even one example of such a recommendation, and explain the nature of the harm you have in mind?

The AMA Statement asserts that “many colleagues and experts have commented eloquently on the deficiencies and biases [the Final Report] presents.” Could you provide some examples of these eloquent comments? Did any of your colleagues and “experts” point to specific deficiencies in the Final Report, or provide specific examples of bias? Or were these “eloquent” comments limited to innuendo and generalized assertions like those contained in the AMA Statement?

In closing, I invite you to a public, livestreamed debate on the merits of Alberta’s lockdowns and vaccine passports. I would argue for the following: “Be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on Albertans from 2020 to 2022 did more harm than good,” and you would argue against this resolution.

Seeing as you are a medical doctor who has a much greater knowledge and a much deeper understanding of these issues than I do, I’m sure you will have an easy time defending the Alberta government’s response to Covid.

If you are not available, I would be happy to debate one of your colleagues, or any AMA member.

I request your answers to the questions I have asked of you in this letter.

Further, please let me know if you are willing to debate publicly the merits of lockdowns and vaccine passports, or if one of your colleagues is available to do so.

Yours sincerely,