Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

News

Alberta just created the world’s largest boreal protected forest.. right next to the oil sands!

Published

10 minute read

From the Province of Alberta

The largest contiguous area of boreal protected land in the world has been established in northern Alberta.

The Government of Alberta partnered with The Government of Canada, the Tallcree First Nation, Syncrude and the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) on the conservation of more than 6.7 million hectares (67,000 sq. km) of boreal forest.

The creation of the Kazan, Richardson and Birch River wildland provincial parks connects the federal government’s Wood Buffalo National Park to other existing wildland provincial parks.

The new and expanded wildland provincial parks are: Kazan, Richardson, Dillon River, Birch River and Birch Mountains. In total, these northern Alberta parks contribute more than 1.36 million hectares to the province’s protected area network.

This is the largest addition to the Alberta Parks system in its history, and will constitute the largest contiguous protected boreal forest in the world under the guidelines of the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

“Our government is committed to protecting our land, water and forests for future generations. Preserving these areas has allowed Alberta to establish the largest contiguous boreal protected area in the world. This historic achievement shows what can be accomplished when governments, First Nations, industry and environmental organizations work together.”

Shannon Phillips, Minister of Environment and Parks

“The environment and the economy go together – that’s why our government is investing in protecting nature and wildlife habitat. It’s encouraging to see governments, Indigenous peoples, industry and conservation groups working together to protect this significant part of Alberta’s boreal forest as an important natural legacy for Albertans, Canadians, the world and future generations.”

Catherine McKenna, federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change

Identified in the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan (LARP) in 2012, the new parks were fully reviewed to ensure there are no economic impacts on natural resource industries or communities. Industry tenures in the parks were compensated years ago, leaving the lands free for protection.

For the five new and expanded wildland provincial parks, the Government of Alberta proposes to enter into cooperative management arrangements with Indigenous communities. Indigenous advice and knowledge will inform decision-making and management of these lands and the province will provide resources to support this process.

“Our government is listening to the Indigenous peoples of Alberta who share a deep connection with this land. This opportunity for cooperative management will help to enrich and strengthen the planning, management and operation of Alberta’s provincial parks, while also implementing our commitment to reconciliation and our respect for Indigenous heritage and traditional knowledge.”

Richard Feehan, Minister of Indigenous Relations

“This collaboration between the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the governments of Canada and Alberta, and industry are aligned with the Tallcree Tribal Government’s values regarding the preservation of the boreal forest. The boreal forest holds greater value to the First Nation for exercising our traditional way of life and the quiet enjoyment of our treaty rights.”

Rupert Meneen, Chief, Tallcree First Nation

In addition, Alberta plans to integrate an Indigenous Guardian Program into these wildland provincial parks. Under this program, First Nations and Metis peoples will be hired to monitor the areas, help maintain the lands and provide education and outreach to park visitors.

“The new wildland provincial parks ensure Indigenous peoples have places to hunt and fish with their families for generations to come. The Government of Alberta’s commitment to work collaboratively with Indigenous communities to develop cooperative management plans provides a historic opportunity to have Indigenous knowledge and values influence land-use planning.”

Bill Loutitt, CEO, McMurray Metis

Treaty 8’s Tallcree First Nation, in cooperation with the NCC and the Alberta and federal governments and with support from Syncrude, generously relinquished their Birch River area timber licence and quota to enable one of the new parks (Birch River WPP) to proceed.

The Government of Alberta thanks the Tallcree First Nation for working with the government and the NCC to achieve this historic outcome. Alberta and the Tallcree First Nation have agreed to manage the Birch River WPP with mutual benefit toward conservation and economic opportunities.

“Canada’s boreal forest is unique in the world. The ecological value of this region cannot be overstated—this is a conservation achievement of global significance. Through partnership, we have been able to make a significant step forward in advancing meaningful conservation in Canada.”

John Lounds, president & CEO, Nature Conservancy of Canada

In addition, the environmental benefits created through the establishment of the Birch River WPP will provide conservation offsets that Syncrude can apply towards future industrial activities.

“Syncrude is proud to play a role in this remarkable initiative that provides both economic and environmental benefits for Albertans and Canadians. This agreement supports our commitment to responsible development of the oil sands resource while contributing to the conservation of the boreal forest for future generations.”

Doreen Cole, managing director, Syncrude Canada Ltd.

“Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc. (Al-Pac) extends our support and congratulates the Government of Alberta as it formalizes the creation of the world’s largest network of protected areas in Canada’s boreal forest. Al-Pac has long recognized the importance of conservation areas as an integral part of managing human activity in the boreal forest for the long-term benefit of both biodiversity and the economy. ”

Elston Dzus, forest ecologist, Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries Inc.

Establishing the wildland provincial parks (WPPs) will mean a protected area that is more than twice the size of Vancouver Island (32,000 sq. km), slightly smaller than the province of New Brunswick (72,908 sq. km), slightly bigger than the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia (64,000 sq. km), and 10 times the size of the Greater Toronto Area (7,124 sq. km).

Background

  • In 2010, the Lower Athabasca Regional Advisory Council, consisting of representatives from municipalities, industry, First Nations, and environmental non-governmental organizations, recommended that the Government of Alberta establish the Kazan, Dillon River and Richardson WPPs and expand the existing Birch Mountains WPP.
  • In 2012, the Government of Alberta completed the Lower Athabasca Region Plan (LARP), establishing the Birch River Conservation Area in a section of the A9 forestry management unit (FMU). While the oil sand agreements in the area were cancelled, forestry was permitted.
  • Between 2012 and 2016, the Government of Alberta spent $45 million to purchase oil sands and metallic mineral leases in the identified conservation areas.
  • In March 2018, the Government of Alberta, the NCC, the Tallcree First Nation, and Syncrude signed a Memorandum of Understanding that would see the Tallcree First Nation relinquish its timber licence and quota in the A9 FMU to the Government of Alberta.
  • By Tallcree First Nation voluntarily relinquishing its timber licence and quota, commercial forestry will no longer take place in Birch River WPP.
  • The establishment of the Kazan (570,822 hectares of new land for a total of 659,397 hectares), Richardson (264,727 hectares of new land for total of 312,068 hectares), Dillon River (191,545 hectares) and Birch River (331,832 hectares) WPPs, and the expansion of the Birch Mountains WPP (by an additional 1,563 hectares) create 1,360,390 hectares of new protected land.
  • Birch Mountains WPP is already designated and is now 145,969 hectares in size.

Before Post

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

Internet

It’s only a matter of time before the government attaches strings to mainstream media subsidies

Published on

Misinformation is not exclusive to alternative online news organizations

The purpose of news ought to be to ensure that Canadians have a shared set of facts around which they can form their opinions and organize their lives.

Please consider becoming a subscriber.

In a previous world, whether they succeeded or failed at that was really no one’s business, at least provided the publisher wasn’t knowingly spreading false information intended to do harm. That is against the law, as outlined in Section 372 of the Criminal Code, which states:

“Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.”

Do that, and you can be imprisoned for up to two years.

But if a publisher was simply offering poorly researched, unbalanced journalism, and wave after wave of unchallenged opinion pieces with the ability to pervert the flow of information and leave the public with false or distorted impressions of the world, he or she was free to do so. Freedom of the press and all that.

The broadcasting world has always been different. Licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), content produced there must, according to the Broadcasting Act, be of “high standard”—something that the CRTC ensures through its proxy content regulator, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).

Its most recent decision, for instance, condemned Sportsnet Ontario for failing to “provide a warning before showing scenes of extraordinary violence” when it broadcast highlights of UFC mixed martial arts competitions during morning weekend hours when children could watch. If you don’t understand how a warning would have prevented whatever trauma the highlights may have caused or how that might apply to the internet, take comfort in the fact that you aren’t alone.

The CRTC now has authority over all video and audio content posted digitally through the Online Streaming Act, and while it has not yet applied CRTC-approved CBSC standards to it, it’s probably only a matter of time before it does.

The same will—in my view—eventually take place regarding text news content. Since it has become a matter of public interest through subsidies, it’s inevitable that “high standard” expectations will be attached to eligibility. In other words, what once was nobody’s business is now everybody’s business. Freedom of the, er, press and all that.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith

Which raises the point: is the Canadian public well informed by the news industry, and who exactly will be the judge of that now that market forces have been, if not eliminated, at least emasculated?

For instance, as former Opposition leader Preston Manning recently wondered on Substack, how can it be that “62 per cent of Ontarians,” according to a Pollara poll, believe Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to be a separatist?

“The truth is that Premier Smith—whom I’ve known personally for a long time—is not a separatist and has made that clear on numerous occasions to the public, the media, and anyone who asks her,” he wrote.

I, too, have been acquainted for many years with the woman Globe and Mailcolumnist Andrew Coyne likes to call “Premier Loon” and have the same view as Manning, whom I have also known for many years: Smith is not a separatist.

Manning’s theory is that there are three reasons for Ontarians’ disordered view—the first two being ignorance and indifference.

The third and greatest, he wrote, is “misinformation—not so much misinformation transmitted via social media, because it is especially older Ontarians who believe the lie about Smith—but misinformation fed into the minds of Ontarians via the traditional media” which includes CBC, CTV, Global, and “the Toronto-based, legacy print media.”

No doubt, some members of those organizations would protest and claim the former Reform Party leader is the cause of all the trouble.

Such is today’s Canada, where the flying time between Calgary and Toronto is roughly the same as between London and Moscow, and the sense of east-west cultural dislocation is at times similar. As Rudyard Kipling determined, the twain shall never meet “till earth and sky stand presently at God’s great judgment seat.”

This doesn’t mean easterners and westerners can’t get along. Heavens no. But what it does illustrate is that maybe having editorial coverage decisions universally made in Hogtown about Cowtown (the author’s outdated terminology), Halifax, St John’s, Yellowknife, or Prince Rupert isn’t helping national unity. It is ridiculous, when you think about it, that anyone believes a vast nation’s residents could have compatible views when key decisions are limited to those perched six degrees south of the 49th parallel within earshot of Buffalo.

But CTV won’t change. Global can’t. The Globe is a Toronto newspaper, and most Postmedia products have become stripped-down satellites condemned to eternally orbit 365 Bloor Street East.

The CRTC is preoccupied with finding novel ways to subsidize broadcasters to maintain a status quo involving breakfast shows. So we can’t expect any changes there, nor can we from the major publishers.

Which leaves the job to the CBC, whose job it has always been to make sure the twain could meet. That makes it fair to assume Manning will be writing for many years to come about Toronto’s mainstream media and misinformation about the West.

(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)

Thanks for reading The Rewrite!

Please help us grow our audience by sharing this post.

Share


Hundreds of paid subscribers
Seeking and destroying journalism doing harm to journalism
Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Big Tech Cover-Up: Google distorts search results to protect Obama

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Google is under fire after a new study revealed it buried Tulsi Gabbard’s bombshell claims that Barack Obama fabricated Trump-Russia intel—flooding search results with leftist attacks and downplaying the story to protect the former president.

Key Details:

  • DNI Tulsi Gabbard accused Obama of fabricating intelligence to bolster the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
  • Google News allegedly buried Gabbard’s exposé by promoting stories attacking her instead of covering her claims.
  • MRC found that 90% of Google’s promoted coverage came from left-leaning outlets, leaving just 10% for right-leaning perspectives—almost exclusively Fox News.

Image

Diving Deeper:

During a July 23 press briefing, Tulsi Gabbard revealed explosive allegations against the Obama administration, accusing the former president of overriding intelligence assessments that found no Russian interference favoring Donald Trump in 2016. According to Gabbard, Obama “manipulated” the intelligence community to promote a “contrived narrative,” aimed at undermining Trump and, by extension, the will of American voters.

But rather than spotlighting the story’s significance, Google appeared to move swiftly to suppress it. As the MRC study shows, Google’s News tab was flooded with coverage designed to discredit Gabbard—many articles outright calling her a liar or suggesting she was distracting from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. One article from The Atlantic branded Trump’s public support for her findings as “desperate,” while others derided her evidence as “thin gruel” or claimed she was trying to “rewrite history.”

A closer look at Google’s search results between July 24 and July 29 paints a troubling picture. The MRC analyzed the first page of results for the term “Tulsi Gabbard” and found that out of 42 articles, 33 were from outlets classified by AllSides as “Lean Left” or “Left.” Only four were from right-leaning sources—and all four came from a single outlet: Fox News. Three of those Fox articles focused not on Gabbard’s claims, but on attacks against her, often echoing Democratic Party criticism.

MRC highlighted how even these rare conservative pieces offered little defense of Gabbard’s findings. One article simply quoted Rep. Adam Schiff dismissing the accusations as “dishonest.” Others featured video clips of NBC’s Kristen Welker pressing GOP figures like Sen. Lindsey Graham about the credibility of Gabbard’s claims. Only one article directly addressed the substance of her evidence.

Meanwhile, prominent left-leaning outlets featured in Google’s curated feed pushed narratives designed to ridicule or minimize the allegations. MSNBC dismissed her claims as “absurd,” while Politico suggested Gabbard had become a “weapon” for President Trump. CNN accused her of attempting to “rewrite history,” and FactCheck.org labeled her statements “misleading.”

The implications go beyond this single controversy. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that two-thirds of Americans rely on search engines like Google for their news. This means most Americans are receiving information that has been filtered through what critics argue is an increasingly leftist editorial algorithm.

By not allowing a diversity of viewpoints on such a critical national security issue—especially one involving a former president—Google’s conduct raises serious concerns about media bias and the integrity of information distribution. While it is unsurprising to see The New York Times or CNN toe the DNC line, the monopoly Google holds over digital search amplifies this bias into something far more powerful and dangerous.

The episode underscores a growing divide in how news is curated and presented online. For conservative Americans, it also reinforces a longstanding suspicion: Big Tech is not just biased—it’s actively working to sanitize narratives unfavorable to the Democratic Party.

In this case, shielding Obama and undermining a sitting Trump administration official.

Continue Reading

Trending

X