Untitled

[skeenanews]

B.C. Wildfire Emergency: As Communities Fight for Their Homes, the Skeena Watches and Prays SKEENA REGION — British Columbia is in the midst of a major wildfire emergency. Communities in the southern Interior have been evacuated, homes and livelihoods have been lost, thousands of people have been displaced and firefighters are working around the clock to protect communities from fires that have demonstrated extraordinary speed and intensity. On August 8, Premier David Eby declared a provincewide state of emergency as wildfire conditions escalated across B.C. At the centre of the emergency is the Bald Range wildfire near Summerland, a fire that went from being discovered on the afternoon of August 7 to forcing mass evacuations within hours. The events have been followed closely throughout the Skeena. From Terrace and Kitimat to Smithers, Houston, Hazelton, New Hazelton, Burns Lake, Stewart and surrounding communities, residents are watching what is happening hundreds of kilometres away. The Skeena is not currently facing the same wildfire emergency, but the people affected are fellow British Columbians — and across the region, people are keeping them in their thoughts and prayers. A fire that grew by thousands of hectares in hours The Bald Range wildfire was discovered at approximately 5 p.m. on August 7, about 15 kilometres west of Summerland. By 6:42 p.m., tactical evacuations were already underway in the Faulder corridor as the fire exhibited extreme Rank 4 and Rank 5 behaviour. Evacuation orders expanded through the evening, reaching Brent Road, upper Princeton Avenue and western Summerland. By approximately 11 p.m., the fire had grown to an estimated 5,000 hectares. Shortly after midnight on August 8, the entire District of Summerland — a community of approximately 12,000 people — was ordered to evacuate. Peachland was subsequently placed under evacuation orders, while Highway 97 was closed in both directions between Peachland and Kickininee Provincial Park. The evacuation happened rapidly enough that traffic became heavily congested as residents attempted to leave. By the morning, the fire had also contributed to a power failure in Summerland and a boil-water advisory as emergency crews worked to maintain essential services. That afternoon, the province declared a state of emergency. More than 20,000 people forced from their homes The scale of the evacuation quickly became one of the defining features of the emergency. More than 20,000 people from Summerland, Peachland and surrounding rural areas were forced to leave their homes. For many, there was little time to prepare. Residents faced smoke, falling ash, blocked roads and rapidly changing conditions as they attempted to get themselves, their families and their animals to safety. One death has been officially confirmed. An 80-year-old woman from Meadow Valley died on August 7 while attempting to evacuate. The circumstances surrounding her death are being investigated by the B.C. Coroners Service. The fire also produced situations in which evacuation by road was no longer possible. BC Wildfire Service crews carried out tactical helicopter rescues, airlifting 55 people who had become trapped behind fire lines. Vulnerable residents were also moved from care facilities. More than 200 seniors were relocated to facilities in Penticton and Kelowna as a precaution. Homes, farms and infrastructure affected The wildfire has caused damage across rural communities west of Summerland, including Faulder, Meadow Valley, Garnet Valley and Prairie Valley. Structure-protection crews have worked to defend the central commercial area of Summerland, while residential areas outside the community have experienced significant losses. The agricultural impact has also been substantial. The research identifies approximately 146 farms within mandatory evacuation areas and estimates that about 50,000 farm animals were affected by the emergency. Emergency animal-response teams have been working to provide food and water and assist with rescues where access is possible. For the people who own those farms and homes, the situation is not simply a wildfire statistic. It is the uncertainty of not knowing what remains behind an evacuation line. It is a family wondering when it can return. It is a farmer thinking about livestock. It is a homeowner wondering whether the place they have spent years building is still standing. A response stretching across borders The scale of the fires has required an equally significant emergency response. Approximately 1,724 wildland firefighters have been involved in the provincial response, supported by aviation assets, heavy equipment, structure-protection personnel and incident-management teams. Help has also arrived from outside British Columbia and outside Canada. One hundred wildland firefighters from Mexico arrived in B.C. on August 11 and were deployed to the Kamloops Fire Centre. Assistance has also been provided through international wildfire-response arrangements involving Australia, New Zealand and France. The federal government has authorized assistance, while the Canadian Armed Forces have been placed on standby should their support be required. Behind those numbers are people spending long hours in dangerous conditions while evacuees wait for the opportunity to return home. The situation in the Skeena The picture in the Skeena is currently very different from the southern Interior. As of August 13, there were no active evacuation orders or evacuation alerts in the Northwest Fire Centre, according to the research compiled for this report. Air Quality Health Index readings in Smithers, Terrace and Kitimat were at Level 1, classified as Low Risk, while Highways 16 and 37 were operating normally without wildfire-related closures. That distinction is important. The provincewide state of emergency does not mean that communities throughout the Skeena are currently under evacuation orders or facing the same immediate threat as Summerland and the surrounding Interior communities. But the emergency has not gone unnoticed here. The Skeena is a collection of communities spread across a vast part of northwestern British Columbia. Residents know what it means for neighbours to depend on one another when circumstances change quickly. And when another part of the province is experiencing that kind of crisis, people here are watching. A province watching out for its own There is something particularly Canadian about the way a crisis in one community can become a concern for people far beyond it. A family leaving a home in Summerland may be hundreds of kilometres from Terrace. A firefighter working a fire in the Interior may have travelled from another part of the province. An evacuee staying in a reception centre may never have visited the Skeena. But none of that makes their situation less important to people here. Across Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Houston, Hazelton, New Hazelton, Burns Lake, Stewart and communities throughout the Skeena, residents are watching the evacuation updates, the rescue efforts and the continuing work of firefighters. Some may know people directly affected. Others do not. Many are simply watching the images and stories of families being forced from their homes and hoping for their safety. And for many throughout the Skeena, that concern is expressed through prayer. Not as a political statement or a campaign, and not belonging to one particular community or faith — simply as an expression of concern for people facing a difficult and frightening time. The same is true of the gratitude being expressed toward those working on the front lines: firefighters, emergency personnel, police, paramedics, search-and-rescue teams, volunteers and the many people providing food, accommodation and other assistance to evacuees. From the Skeena The fires burning in the southern Interior have already changed thousands of lives. More than 20,000 people have been displaced. One person has died. Homes have been lost. Farms and livestock have been affected. Communities have been evacuated. And firefighters from B.C., across Canada and around the world are working alongside local crews to protect people and property. The Skeena is fortunate not to be experiencing that same emergency today. But being fortunate does not mean being disconnected. Across the Skeena, people are watching what is happening in the Interior. They are thinking about the families who have been evacuated, those who have lost homes and livelihoods, the communities facing uncertainty and the first responders working to protect them. And throughout our communities, people are praying for their safety and for the day when those who have been forced from their homes can return. For now, from the Skeena, there is one simple message for the communities facing the fires: Our thoughts are with you. Our prayers are with you. And we hope you get home safely. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Northwest B.C. Keeps Losing Its Communications. Where Are the Leaders Who Represent Us? Repeated telecommunications outages have exposed a vulnerability in Northwest B.C. that governments, carriers and elected representatives have known about for years. Residents deserve to know what their leaders are actually doing about it. SKEENA REGION — When a telecommunications cable is cut in Northwest British Columbia, the consequences can extend far beyond a lost internet connection. Businesses can lose the ability to process payments. Residents can lose reliable access to communications. Healthcare facilities can be forced onto backup systems. Emergency communications can be disrupted. Communities hundreds of kilometres apart can suddenly find themselves facing the same problem. And in 2026, this has happened repeatedly. The question now is not simply who cut the cable? The bigger question is: Why does Northwest B.C. remain so vulnerable to a single physical failure? The region has known for years that telecommunications redundancy is a problem. Yet repeated outages continue to expose the same underlying weakness. That should concern every resident—and every elected representative who claims to represent them. This is bigger than one cable and bigger than one political party The May 4 outage, the August 2 outage and the August 11 disruption were different incidents with different circumstances, but together they have demonstrated the consequences of a telecommunications system vulnerable to physical disruption. The research reviewed by Skeena News identifies a recurring dependence on linear telecommunications infrastructure along major transportation corridors. The region's communities are connected across enormous distances, while alternative routes do not necessarily provide the kind of geographically independent redundancy residents might reasonably expect from critical infrastructure. That distinction matters. Having a backup system is not necessarily the same as having a truly independent backup route. If the primary and alternative systems ultimately depend on the same corridor, exchange point or vulnerable section of infrastructure, a second route may not provide the protection people assume it does. The August 11 outage demonstrated why that matters. The research identifies a situation in which a primary route was disrupted while an alternative route was also unavailable, producing a much larger failure. This is precisely why telecommunications resilience deserves to be treated as an infrastructure issue rather than merely a crime story. The region was warned about this vulnerability The problem did not suddenly appear in 2026. Connected Coast was developed in part to improve connectivity and create greater redundancy for Northern and coastal communities. Its project documentation describes the historical vulnerability of communities along the Highway 16 corridor and the need for an alternate transport path. The project represents tens of millions of dollars in public and partner investment. Yet the experience of 2026 raises an uncomfortable question: How much redundancy does Northwest B.C. actually have today? Not how much has been announced. Not how much has been promised. Not how much infrastructure exists somewhere along the coast. How much redundancy can actually protect Terrace, Smithers, Kitimat, Hazelton, Burns Lake, Prince Rupert and other communities when a critical terrestrial route fails? That is the question residents deserve answered clearly. A letter is not the same as a solution Skeena MLA Claire Rattée has raised the issue with B.C.'s Minister of Citizens' Services. Her letter identifies the repeated outages and argues that Northwest B.C. cannot continue relying on a telecommunications corridor vulnerable to cable theft, wildfire, severe weather and other disruptions. She specifically asks the provincial government about redundancy, additional fibre routes, alternative technologies and a long-term strategy for the region. Those are reasonable concerns. But residents are entitled to distinguish between raising a concern and achieving something concrete. A letter can ask a minister what the government intends to do. It cannot, by itself, build a second fibre route. It cannot appropriate funding. It cannot create geographic redundancy. It cannot guarantee 911 continuity. It cannot change the architecture of private telecommunications networks. And that is why the public should look beyond the letter. What happened next? What commitment was obtained? What changed? What will actually be different before the next major outage? Those are legitimate questions for the MLA and for every other elected official representing the region. Where is the federal representative? Telecommunications are not solely a provincial matter. Federal institutions have major responsibilities for telecommunications regulation and policy. That means the region's federal representative cannot simply watch from Ottawa while communities repeatedly experience large-scale communications failures. Residents should reasonably expect their MP to understand the problem, engage with the relevant federal agencies and push for solutions within federal jurisdiction. If the answer is that the problem belongs to the Province, then residents deserve to know why. If the answer is that it belongs to the CRTC or telecommunications companies, then residents deserve to know what the MP is doing to bring those parties to the table. And if federal funding is part of the solution, residents deserve to know whether that funding is being pursued. Representation should not stop at issuing a statement after an outage. And where is the provincial government? The same standard applies to the government in Victoria. The NDP government has responsibility for areas that intersect with telecommunications resilience, infrastructure corridors, emergency management and provincial funding programs. The question is not whether the government is aware that outages are happening. It clearly is. The question is whether the government believes the existing system provides an acceptable level of resilience for Northern communities. If it does, residents deserve to understand why. If it does not, residents deserve a serious plan. Not another temporary workaround. Not another emergency repair. Not another promise to study the problem. A resilience plan means identifying the vulnerability, identifying the required infrastructure, identifying the cost, identifying who pays and establishing a realistic path toward completion. Mayors cannot be spectators either The issue also belongs at the municipal level. Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Prince Rupert and other affected communities do not exist as isolated islands when telecommunications infrastructure fails. A failure in one part of Northern B.C. can affect businesses, healthcare, emergency communications and residents in another municipality. Mayors and councils therefore have a legitimate role in advocating collectively for regional infrastructure. Residents should know whether their local leaders are treating telecommunications resilience as a regional priority or simply responding to each outage as it happens. There is nothing unreasonable about residents asking their mayor: What have you actually done about this? Not what did you post. Not what did you say. What did you do? Political leadership should not be measured only during election season This is where the issue becomes larger than telecommunications. Every election, politicians ask residents for their trust. They tell voters that they will fight for their communities. They promise to bring investment, protect services, create jobs, improve infrastructure and make their communities stronger. Those promises should mean something after the election. When a problem repeatedly affects the people a politician represents, residents should expect that politician to be able to explain: What did I do? Who did I contact? What did I demand? What did I achieve? What remains unresolved? And if nothing changed, voters have every right to ask why. That applies equally to an MLA, an MP, a mayor, a cabinet minister, an opposition politician or any other person presenting themselves as a leader. This isn't about Conservative versus NDP It would be easy to turn this into another political fight. That would miss the point. The telecommunications network does not care which party represents Terrace. A fibre cable does not care whether the government in Victoria is NDP or Conservative. A business unable to process payments does not care which party controls Ottawa. And someone trying to reach emergency services does not care which politician won the last election. The problem is fundamentally about representation and infrastructure. If politicians from different parties genuinely believe Northwest B.C. needs better telecommunications resilience, they should be capable of working together to pursue it. If they disagree about the solution, they should explain their alternatives. What residents should not receive is silence, political theatre or competing claims of who is to blame while the underlying vulnerability remains. Residents should start asking harder questions Skeena News believes residents have every right to question the people who represent them. Not only when an election is approaching. Now. When a politician comes to your community asking for your vote, ask what they did about the telecommunications vulnerability. When an MLA holds a public meeting, ask what concrete action has resulted. When an MP visits the region, ask what has been raised in Ottawa. When a mayor asks for another term, ask what the municipality has done collectively with neighbouring communities. When a government announces another broadband investment, ask whether it improves speed or actually improves resilience. And when a politician says the problem belongs to somebody else, ask: What have you done to make the people you represent heard by that other level of government? That is what representation means. Northwest B.C. deserves more than emergency repairs Emergency roaming, satellite connections and rapid repair crews are valuable. They can prevent an outage from becoming an even greater crisis. But they should not become an excuse to accept the underlying vulnerability as permanent. The investigative material reviewed by Skeena News identifies several existing forms of contingency infrastructure—including subsea connectivity, emergency wireless roaming and satellite backup for critical facilities—but also identifies continued vulnerabilities for inland communities dependent on terrestrial routes. The goal should therefore not simply be to become better at responding after the next cable is cut. The goal should be to make sure the next cable cut doesn't take the region down with it. That requires infrastructure. It requires planning. It requires cooperation between governments and telecommunications companies. And it requires political representatives willing to make the issue a priority when there is no election immediately in front of them. The question now belongs to the people who represent us Three major disruptions in 2026 should be enough to make telecommunications resilience a serious regional political issue. Residents should not have to wait for another outage before politicians start talking about it. They should not have to accept a letter as the end of the process. They should not have to choose between parties simply because one blames the other. And they should not have to remember promises made during an election campaign without ever seeing the results. MLAs, MPs, mayors, cabinet ministers and opposition leaders all have different powers and responsibilities. But they share one thing: they ask the public to trust them with leadership. That trust comes with a responsibility to act. Northwest B.C. has already demonstrated what happens when its communications infrastructure fails. Now its political leadership needs to demonstrate what happens when they decide that repeated failures are no longer acceptable. The next outage should not be the event that finally forces action. The time to build a resilient Northwest B.C. telecommunications network is before the next cable is cut—not after. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Terrace emergency calls rise 23% as suspicious fires and staffing pressures challenge fire department TERRACE, B.C. — The Terrace Fire Department responded to 576 emergency incidents during the first six months of 2026, as rising call volumes, a sharp increase in overlapping emergencies and a series of suspicious fires put additional pressure on the city's emergency-response system. Fire department figures for January 1 through June 30 show that the 576 incidents included 263 fire responses, 243 immediate medical-care calls and 70 rescue calls. The total represents a significant increase from the same period in 2025. Primary emergency incidents rose from 350 to 432, while the number of occasions when multiple emergencies were occurring simultaneously increased from 58 to 107 — an 84.5 per cent increase. The increase in concurrent incidents is particularly significant because it can require the department to divide its available crews between emergencies or call in additional personnel and mutual-aid resources. Suspicious fires add another challenge The increased emergency workload comes as Terrace has also experienced a series of suspicious fires. Fire Chief Joel Brousson confirmed that the department documented 12 suspicious fires between January and August 2026. The incidents have involved a range of targets, including building exteriors, dumpsters, vehicles and brush areas. According to Brousson, handheld lighters and liquid accelerants, primarily gasoline, have been identified as common ignition methods. One of the most serious incidents was the May 21 fire that destroyed the historic Terrace Bowling Alley. The fire originated at the building's front north exterior corner and spread into the roof and attic areas. The structure was ultimately declared a total loss. The incident required an immediate response from Terrace's career firefighters, the recall of off-duty personnel and assistance from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department. A subsequent investigation by the Terrace Fire Department and Terrace RCMP determined that the fire was suspicious, and the RCMP General Investigation Section identified two persons of interest. A second recent case occurred on August 4, when firefighters responded to a residence in the 4400 block of Greig Avenue after an exterior fire was reported at approximately 10:30 a.m. Crews found flames climbing the outside wall toward the roof. The fire was contained before it could spread throughout the residence, with an early 911 call by a passing member of the public playing an important role in the response. Investigators determined the fire had been deliberately set. Union calls for more firefighters The increase in emergency activity has also brought renewed attention to the department's staffing levels. Terrace currently has 12 full-time career firefighters, organized into four crews of three. However, because of vacation, lieu time and sick leave, the department operates with three firefighters on duty only about 40 per cent of the time. For approximately 60 per cent of operational periods, the minimum guaranteed staffing level is two firefighters. During a presentation to Terrace City Council on July 13, Captain Jeff Minhinnick, president of the Terrace Firefighters Union, asked council to increase the guaranteed minimum staffing level from two firefighters to four firefighters on duty at all times. The union's position is that the current minimum staffing level can create operational challenges when crews arrive at a working structure fire. Minhinnick cited fire-growth rates and occupational safety requirements, including the principle commonly referred to as “Two-In, Two-Out,” which requires firefighters entering a dangerous structure-fire environment to have a dedicated backup team available. With only two firefighters initially available, crews may have to wait for additional personnel or mutual aid before undertaking certain interior operations. The issue becomes even more significant when another emergency is occurring elsewhere in the city. Cost of additional staffing remains a question Increasing staffing would come with a significant financial cost. City administration has estimated that adding one full-time career firefighter costs approximately $200,000 annually, including compensation, benefits and equipment. That figure is roughly equivalent to the approximately $218,000 in municipal revenue generated by a one-per-cent property-tax increase. However, city officials have not yet determined the exact number of additional firefighters or the total cost that would be required to guarantee four firefighters on duty during every shift. The staffing debate comes after property-tax increases of 7.64 per cent in 2025 and 4.8 per cent in 2026, with further budget pressures expected in 2027. Nearly $6 million in property exposed to fire The department's first-half figures also show the financial stakes involved in fire response. Between January and June, Terrace firefighters responded to residential and commercial structure fires involving an estimated $5.9 million in assessed property value. Approximately $3.9 million of that property value was preserved, while roughly $2 million was destroyed. That means firefighters preserved approximately 66 per cent of the assessed property value exposed to fire, while approximately 34 per cent was lost. The figures highlight the importance of rapid response, particularly when crews are already dealing with another emergency. City reviewing staffing and operational capacity The staffing question is now the subject of a formal operational review. Chief Brousson announced the review during his presentation to Terrace City Council on July 27. The review is examining staffing levels, deployment practices, shift scheduling and the department's overall operational capacity, with the goal of determining how the department can meet response objectives as call volumes and overlapping emergencies increase. Brousson indicated that the completed review is expected to be presented to council by the end of 2026. Until then, Terrace will continue relying on its existing career crews, off-duty call-backs and regional mutual-aid agreements when emergencies overwhelm available resources. The Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department has already played an important role in major incidents, including the Bowling Alley fire. Terrace firefighters have also provided assistance outside the city when requested, demonstrating the reciprocal nature of the region's emergency-response arrangements. For Terrace, the numbers point to a growing public-safety challenge: more emergency calls, substantially more simultaneous incidents and a series of suspicious fires are placing additional demands on a department operating with a relatively small career workforce. The results of Brousson's operational review, along with the city's eventual decision on staffing, could determine whether Terrace's current model is sufficient for the level of emergency demand the community is now experiencing. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Terrace emergency calls rise 23% as suspicious fires and staffing pressures challenge fire department TERRACE, B.C. — The Terrace Fire Department responded to 576 emergency incidents during the first six months of 2026, as rising call volumes, a sharp increase in overlapping emergencies and a series of suspicious fires put additional pressure on the city's emergency-response system. Fire department figures for January 1 through June 30 show that the 576 incidents included 263 fire responses, 243 immediate medical-care calls and 70 rescue calls. The total represents a significant increase from the same period in 2025. Primary emergency incidents rose from 350 to 432, while the number of occasions when multiple emergencies were occurring simultaneously increased from 58 to 107 — an 84.5 per cent increase. The increase in concurrent incidents is particularly significant because it can require the department to divide its available crews between emergencies or call in additional personnel and mutual-aid resources. Suspicious fires add another challenge The increased emergency workload comes as Terrace has also experienced a series of suspicious fires. Fire Chief Joel Brousson confirmed that the department documented 12 suspicious fires between January and August 2026. The incidents have involved a range of targets, including building exteriors, dumpsters, vehicles and brush areas. According to Brousson, handheld lighters and liquid accelerants, primarily gasoline, have been identified as common ignition methods. One of the most serious incidents was the May 21 fire that destroyed the historic Terrace Bowling Alley. The fire originated at the building's front north exterior corner and spread into the roof and attic areas. The structure was ultimately declared a total loss. The incident required an immediate response from Terrace's career firefighters, the recall of off-duty personnel and assistance from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department. A subsequent investigation by the Terrace Fire Department and Terrace RCMP determined that the fire was suspicious, and the RCMP General Investigation Section identified two persons of interest. A second recent case occurred on August 4, when firefighters responded to a residence in the 4400 block of Greig Avenue after an exterior fire was reported at approximately 10:30 a.m. Crews found flames climbing the outside wall toward the roof. The fire was contained before it could spread throughout the residence, with an early 911 call by a passing member of the public playing an important role in the response. Investigators determined the fire had been deliberately set. Union calls for more firefighters The increase in emergency activity has also brought renewed attention to the department's staffing levels. Terrace currently has 12 full-time career firefighters, organized into four crews of three. However, because of vacation, lieu time and sick leave, the department operates with three firefighters on duty only about 40 per cent of the time. For approximately 60 per cent of operational periods, the minimum guaranteed staffing level is two firefighters. During a presentation to Terrace City Council on July 13, Captain Jeff Minhinnick, president of the Terrace Firefighters Union, asked council to increase the guaranteed minimum staffing level from two firefighters to four firefighters on duty at all times. The union's position is that the current minimum staffing level can create operational challenges when crews arrive at a working structure fire. Minhinnick cited fire-growth rates and occupational safety requirements, including the principle commonly referred to as “Two-In, Two-Out,” which requires firefighters entering a dangerous structure-fire environment to have a dedicated backup team available. With only two firefighters initially available, crews may have to wait for additional personnel or mutual aid before undertaking certain interior operations. The issue becomes even more significant when another emergency is occurring elsewhere in the city. Cost of additional staffing remains a question Increasing staffing would come with a significant financial cost. City administration has estimated that adding one full-time career firefighter costs approximately $200,000 annually, including compensation, benefits and equipment. That figure is roughly equivalent to the approximately $218,000 in municipal revenue generated by a one-per-cent property-tax increase. However, city officials have not yet determined the exact number of additional firefighters or the total cost that would be required to guarantee four firefighters on duty during every shift. The staffing debate comes after property-tax increases of 7.64 per cent in 2025 and 4.8 per cent in 2026, with further budget pressures expected in 2027. Nearly $6 million in property exposed to fire The department's first-half figures also show the financial stakes involved in fire response. Between January and June, Terrace firefighters responded to residential and commercial structure fires involving an estimated $5.9 million in assessed property value. Approximately $3.9 million of that property value was preserved, while roughly $2 million was destroyed. That means firefighters preserved approximately 66 per cent of the assessed property value exposed to fire, while approximately 34 per cent was lost. The figures highlight the importance of rapid response, particularly when crews are already dealing with another emergency. City reviewing staffing and operational capacity The staffing question is now the subject of a formal operational review. Chief Brousson announced the review during his presentation to Terrace City Council on July 27. The review is examining staffing levels, deployment practices, shift scheduling and the department's overall operational capacity, with the goal of determining how the department can meet response objectives as call volumes and overlapping emergencies increase. Brousson indicated that the completed review is expected to be presented to council by the end of 2026. Until then, Terrace will continue relying on its existing career crews, off-duty call-backs and regional mutual-aid agreements when emergencies overwhelm available resources. The Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department has already played an important role in major incidents, including the Bowling Alley fire. Terrace firefighters have also provided assistance outside the city when requested, demonstrating the reciprocal nature of the region's emergency-response arrangements. For Terrace, the numbers point to a growing public-safety challenge: more emergency calls, substantially more simultaneous incidents and a series of suspicious fires are placing additional demands on a department operating with a relatively small career workforce. The results of Brousson's operational review, along with the city's eventual decision on staffing, could determine whether Terrace's current model is sufficient for the level of emergency demand the community is now experiencing. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Terrace emergency calls rise 23% as suspicious fires and staffing pressures challenge fire department TERRACE, B.C. — The Terrace Fire Department responded to 576 emergency incidents during the first six months of 2026, as rising call volumes, a sharp increase in overlapping emergencies and a series of suspicious fires put additional pressure on the city's emergency-response system. Fire department figures for January 1 through June 30 show that the 576 incidents included 263 fire responses, 243 immediate medical-care calls and 70 rescue calls. The total represents a significant increase from the same period in 2025. Primary emergency incidents rose from 350 to 432, while the number of occasions when multiple emergencies were occurring simultaneously increased from 58 to 107 — an 84.5 per cent increase. The increase in concurrent incidents is particularly significant because it can require the department to divide its available crews between emergencies or call in additional personnel and mutual-aid resources. Suspicious fires add another challenge The increased emergency workload comes as Terrace has also experienced a series of suspicious fires. Fire Chief Joel Brousson confirmed that the department documented 12 suspicious fires between January and August 2026. The incidents have involved a range of targets, including building exteriors, dumpsters, vehicles and brush areas. According to Brousson, handheld lighters and liquid accelerants, primarily gasoline, have been identified as common ignition methods. One of the most serious incidents was the May 21 fire that destroyed the historic Terrace Bowling Alley. The fire originated at the building's front north exterior corner and spread into the roof and attic areas. The structure was ultimately declared a total loss. The incident required an immediate response from Terrace's career firefighters, the recall of off-duty personnel and assistance from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department. A subsequent investigation by the Terrace Fire Department and Terrace RCMP determined that the fire was suspicious, and the RCMP General Investigation Section identified two persons of interest. A second recent case occurred on August 4, when firefighters responded to a residence in the 4400 block of Greig Avenue after an exterior fire was reported at approximately 10:30 a.m. Crews found flames climbing the outside wall toward the roof. The fire was contained before it could spread throughout the residence, with an early 911 call by a passing member of the public playing an important role in the response. Investigators determined the fire had been deliberately set. Union calls for more firefighters The increase in emergency activity has also brought renewed attention to the department's staffing levels. Terrace currently has 12 full-time career firefighters, organized into four crews of three. However, because of vacation, lieu time and sick leave, the department operates with three firefighters on duty only about 40 per cent of the time. For approximately 60 per cent of operational periods, the minimum guaranteed staffing level is two firefighters. During a presentation to Terrace City Council on July 13, Captain Jeff Minhinnick, president of the Terrace Firefighters Union, asked council to increase the guaranteed minimum staffing level from two firefighters to four firefighters on duty at all times. The union's position is that the current minimum staffing level can create operational challenges when crews arrive at a working structure fire. Minhinnick cited fire-growth rates and occupational safety requirements, including the principle commonly referred to as “Two-In, Two-Out,” which requires firefighters entering a dangerous structure-fire environment to have a dedicated backup team available. With only two firefighters initially available, crews may have to wait for additional personnel or mutual aid before undertaking certain interior operations. The issue becomes even more significant when another emergency is occurring elsewhere in the city. Cost of additional staffing remains a question Increasing staffing would come with a significant financial cost. City administration has estimated that adding one full-time career firefighter costs approximately $200,000 annually, including compensation, benefits and equipment. That figure is roughly equivalent to the approximately $218,000 in municipal revenue generated by a one-per-cent property-tax increase. However, city officials have not yet determined the exact number of additional firefighters or the total cost that would be required to guarantee four firefighters on duty during every shift. The staffing debate comes after property-tax increases of 7.64 per cent in 2025 and 4.8 per cent in 2026, with further budget pressures expected in 2027. Nearly $6 million in property exposed to fire The department's first-half figures also show the financial stakes involved in fire response. Between January and June, Terrace firefighters responded to residential and commercial structure fires involving an estimated $5.9 million in assessed property value. Approximately $3.9 million of that property value was preserved, while roughly $2 million was destroyed. That means firefighters preserved approximately 66 per cent of the assessed property value exposed to fire, while approximately 34 per cent was lost. The figures highlight the importance of rapid response, particularly when crews are already dealing with another emergency. City reviewing staffing and operational capacity The staffing question is now the subject of a formal operational review. Chief Brousson announced the review during his presentation to Terrace City Council on July 27. The review is examining staffing levels, deployment practices, shift scheduling and the department's overall operational capacity, with the goal of determining how the department can meet response objectives as call volumes and overlapping emergencies increase. Brousson indicated that the completed review is expected to be presented to council by the end of 2026. Until then, Terrace will continue relying on its existing career crews, off-duty call-backs and regional mutual-aid agreements when emergencies overwhelm available resources. The Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department has already played an important role in major incidents, including the Bowling Alley fire. Terrace firefighters have also provided assistance outside the city when requested, demonstrating the reciprocal nature of the region's emergency-response arrangements. For Terrace, the numbers point to a growing public-safety challenge: more emergency calls, substantially more simultaneous incidents and a series of suspicious fires are placing additional demands on a department operating with a relatively small career workforce. The results of Brousson's operational review, along with the city's eventual decision on staffing, could determine whether Terrace's current model is sufficient for the level of emergency demand the community is now experiencing. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Terrace emergency calls rise 23% as suspicious fires and staffing pressures challenge fire department TERRACE, B.C. — The Terrace Fire Department responded to 576 emergency incidents during the first six months of 2026, as rising call volumes, a sharp increase in overlapping emergencies and a series of suspicious fires put additional pressure on the city's emergency-response system. Fire department figures for January 1 through June 30 show that the 576 incidents included 263 fire responses, 243 immediate medical-care calls and 70 rescue calls. The total represents a significant increase from the same period in 2025. Primary emergency incidents rose from 350 to 432, while the number of occasions when multiple emergencies were occurring simultaneously increased from 58 to 107 — an 84.5 per cent increase. The increase in concurrent incidents is particularly significant because it can require the department to divide its available crews between emergencies or call in additional personnel and mutual-aid resources. Suspicious fires add another challenge The increased emergency workload comes as Terrace has also experienced a series of suspicious fires. Fire Chief Joel Brousson confirmed that the department documented 12 suspicious fires between January and August 2026. The incidents have involved a range of targets, including building exteriors, dumpsters, vehicles and brush areas. According to Brousson, handheld lighters and liquid accelerants, primarily gasoline, have been identified as common ignition methods. One of the most serious incidents was the May 21 fire that destroyed the historic Terrace Bowling Alley. The fire originated at the building's front north exterior corner and spread into the roof and attic areas. The structure was ultimately declared a total loss. The incident required an immediate response from Terrace's career firefighters, the recall of off-duty personnel and assistance from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department. A subsequent investigation by the Terrace Fire Department and Terrace RCMP determined that the fire was suspicious, and the RCMP General Investigation Section identified two persons of interest. A second recent case occurred on August 4, when firefighters responded to a residence in the 4400 block of Greig Avenue after an exterior fire was reported at approximately 10:30 a.m. Crews found flames climbing the outside wall toward the roof. The fire was contained before it could spread throughout the residence, with an early 911 call by a passing member of the public playing an important role in the response. Investigators determined the fire had been deliberately set. Union calls for more firefighters The increase in emergency activity has also brought renewed attention to the department's staffing levels. Terrace currently has 12 full-time career firefighters, organized into four crews of three. However, because of vacation, lieu time and sick leave, the department operates with three firefighters on duty only about 40 per cent of the time. For approximately 60 per cent of operational periods, the minimum guaranteed staffing level is two firefighters. During a presentation to Terrace City Council on July 13, Captain Jeff Minhinnick, president of the Terrace Firefighters Union, asked council to increase the guaranteed minimum staffing level from two firefighters to four firefighters on duty at all times. The union's position is that the current minimum staffing level can create operational challenges when crews arrive at a working structure fire. Minhinnick cited fire-growth rates and occupational safety requirements, including the principle commonly referred to as “Two-In, Two-Out,” which requires firefighters entering a dangerous structure-fire environment to have a dedicated backup team available. With only two firefighters initially available, crews may have to wait for additional personnel or mutual aid before undertaking certain interior operations. The issue becomes even more significant when another emergency is occurring elsewhere in the city. Cost of additional staffing remains a question Increasing staffing would come with a significant financial cost. City administration has estimated that adding one full-time career firefighter costs approximately $200,000 annually, including compensation, benefits and equipment. That figure is roughly equivalent to the approximately $218,000 in municipal revenue generated by a one-per-cent property-tax increase. However, city officials have not yet determined the exact number of additional firefighters or the total cost that would be required to guarantee four firefighters on duty during every shift. The staffing debate comes after property-tax increases of 7.64 per cent in 2025 and 4.8 per cent in 2026, with further budget pressures expected in 2027. Nearly $6 million in property exposed to fire The department's first-half figures also show the financial stakes involved in fire response. Between January and June, Terrace firefighters responded to residential and commercial structure fires involving an estimated $5.9 million in assessed property value. Approximately $3.9 million of that property value was preserved, while roughly $2 million was destroyed. That means firefighters preserved approximately 66 per cent of the assessed property value exposed to fire, while approximately 34 per cent was lost. The figures highlight the importance of rapid response, particularly when crews are already dealing with another emergency. City reviewing staffing and operational capacity The staffing question is now the subject of a formal operational review. Chief Brousson announced the review during his presentation to Terrace City Council on July 27. The review is examining staffing levels, deployment practices, shift scheduling and the department's overall operational capacity, with the goal of determining how the department can meet response objectives as call volumes and overlapping emergencies increase. Brousson indicated that the completed review is expected to be presented to council by the end of 2026. Until then, Terrace will continue relying on its existing career crews, off-duty call-backs and regional mutual-aid agreements when emergencies overwhelm available resources. The Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department has already played an important role in major incidents, including the Bowling Alley fire. Terrace firefighters have also provided assistance outside the city when requested, demonstrating the reciprocal nature of the region's emergency-response arrangements. For Terrace, the numbers point to a growing public-safety challenge: more emergency calls, substantially more simultaneous incidents and a series of suspicious fires are placing additional demands on a department operating with a relatively small career workforce. The results of Brousson's operational review, along with the city's eventual decision on staffing, could determine whether Terrace's current model is sufficient for the level of emergency demand the community is now experiencing. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Terrace emergency calls rise 23% as suspicious fires and staffing pressures challenge fire department TERRACE, B.C. — The Terrace Fire Department responded to 576 emergency incidents during the first six months of 2026, as rising call volumes, a sharp increase in overlapping emergencies and a series of suspicious fires put additional pressure on the city's emergency-response system. Fire department figures for January 1 through June 30 show that the 576 incidents included 263 fire responses, 243 immediate medical-care calls and 70 rescue calls. The total represents a significant increase from the same period in 2025. Primary emergency incidents rose from 350 to 432, while the number of occasions when multiple emergencies were occurring simultaneously increased from 58 to 107 — an 84.5 per cent increase. The increase in concurrent incidents is particularly significant because it can require the department to divide its available crews between emergencies or call in additional personnel and mutual-aid resources. Suspicious fires add another challenge The increased emergency workload comes as Terrace has also experienced a series of suspicious fires. Fire Chief Joel Brousson confirmed that the department documented 12 suspicious fires between January and August 2026. The incidents have involved a range of targets, including building exteriors, dumpsters, vehicles and brush areas. According to Brousson, handheld lighters and liquid accelerants, primarily gasoline, have been identified as common ignition methods. One of the most serious incidents was the May 21 fire that destroyed the historic Terrace Bowling Alley. The fire originated at the building's front north exterior corner and spread into the roof and attic areas. The structure was ultimately declared a total loss. The incident required an immediate response from Terrace's career firefighters, the recall of off-duty personnel and assistance from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department. A subsequent investigation by the Terrace Fire Department and Terrace RCMP determined that the fire was suspicious, and the RCMP General Investigation Section identified two persons of interest. A second recent case occurred on August 4, when firefighters responded to a residence in the 4400 block of Greig Avenue after an exterior fire was reported at approximately 10:30 a.m. Crews found flames climbing the outside wall toward the roof. The fire was contained before it could spread throughout the residence, with an early 911 call by a passing member of the public playing an important role in the response. Investigators determined the fire had been deliberately set. Union calls for more firefighters The increase in emergency activity has also brought renewed attention to the department's staffing levels. Terrace currently has 12 full-time career firefighters, organized into four crews of three. However, because of vacation, lieu time and sick leave, the department operates with three firefighters on duty only about 40 per cent of the time. For approximately 60 per cent of operational periods, the minimum guaranteed staffing level is two firefighters. During a presentation to Terrace City Council on July 13, Captain Jeff Minhinnick, president of the Terrace Firefighters Union, asked council to increase the guaranteed minimum staffing level from two firefighters to four firefighters on duty at all times. The union's position is that the current minimum staffing level can create operational challenges when crews arrive at a working structure fire. Minhinnick cited fire-growth rates and occupational safety requirements, including the principle commonly referred to as “Two-In, Two-Out,” which requires firefighters entering a dangerous structure-fire environment to have a dedicated backup team available. With only two firefighters initially available, crews may have to wait for additional personnel or mutual aid before undertaking certain interior operations. The issue becomes even more significant when another emergency is occurring elsewhere in the city. Cost of additional staffing remains a question Increasing staffing would come with a significant financial cost. City administration has estimated that adding one full-time career firefighter costs approximately $200,000 annually, including compensation, benefits and equipment. That figure is roughly equivalent to the approximately $218,000 in municipal revenue generated by a one-per-cent property-tax increase. However, city officials have not yet determined the exact number of additional firefighters or the total cost that would be required to guarantee four firefighters on duty during every shift. The staffing debate comes after property-tax increases of 7.64 per cent in 2025 and 4.8 per cent in 2026, with further budget pressures expected in 2027. Nearly $6 million in property exposed to fire The department's first-half figures also show the financial stakes involved in fire response. Between January and June, Terrace firefighters responded to residential and commercial structure fires involving an estimated $5.9 million in assessed property value. Approximately $3.9 million of that property value was preserved, while roughly $2 million was destroyed. That means firefighters preserved approximately 66 per cent of the assessed property value exposed to fire, while approximately 34 per cent was lost. The figures highlight the importance of rapid response, particularly when crews are already dealing with another emergency. City reviewing staffing and operational capacity The staffing question is now the subject of a formal operational review. Chief Brousson announced the review during his presentation to Terrace City Council on July 27. The review is examining staffing levels, deployment practices, shift scheduling and the department's overall operational capacity, with the goal of determining how the department can meet response objectives as call volumes and overlapping emergencies increase. Brousson indicated that the completed review is expected to be presented to council by the end of 2026. Until then, Terrace will continue relying on its existing career crews, off-duty call-backs and regional mutual-aid agreements when emergencies overwhelm available resources. The Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department has already played an important role in major incidents, including the Bowling Alley fire. Terrace firefighters have also provided assistance outside the city when requested, demonstrating the reciprocal nature of the region's emergency-response arrangements. For Terrace, the numbers point to a growing public-safety challenge: more emergency calls, substantially more simultaneous incidents and a series of suspicious fires are placing additional demands on a department operating with a relatively small career workforce. The results of Brousson's operational review, along with the city's eventual decision on staffing, could determine whether Terrace's current model is sufficient for the level of emergency demand the community is now experiencing. Read the full article

[skeenanews]

Terrace emergency calls rise 23% as suspicious fires and staffing pressures challenge fire department TERRACE, B.C. — The Terrace Fire Department responded to 576 emergency incidents during the first six months of 2026, as rising call volumes, a sharp increase in overlapping emergencies and a series of suspicious fires put additional pressure on the city's emergency-response system. Fire department figures for January 1 through June 30 show that the 576 incidents included 263 fire responses, 243 immediate medical-care calls and 70 rescue calls. The total represents a significant increase from the same period in 2025. Primary emergency incidents rose from 350 to 432, while the number of occasions when multiple emergencies were occurring simultaneously increased from 58 to 107 — an 84.5 per cent increase. The increase in concurrent incidents is particularly significant because it can require the department to divide its available crews between emergencies or call in additional personnel and mutual-aid resources. Suspicious fires add another challenge The increased emergency workload comes as Terrace has also experienced a series of suspicious fires. Fire Chief Joel Brousson confirmed that the department documented 12 suspicious fires between January and August 2026. The incidents have involved a range of targets, including building exteriors, dumpsters, vehicles and brush areas. According to Brousson, handheld lighters and liquid accelerants, primarily gasoline, have been identified as common ignition methods. One of the most serious incidents was the May 21 fire that destroyed the historic Terrace Bowling Alley. The fire originated at the building's front north exterior corner and spread into the roof and attic areas. The structure was ultimately declared a total loss. The incident required an immediate response from Terrace's career firefighters, the recall of off-duty personnel and assistance from the Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department. A subsequent investigation by the Terrace Fire Department and Terrace RCMP determined that the fire was suspicious, and the RCMP General Investigation Section identified two persons of interest. A second recent case occurred on August 4, when firefighters responded to a residence in the 4400 block of Greig Avenue after an exterior fire was reported at approximately 10:30 a.m. Crews found flames climbing the outside wall toward the roof. The fire was contained before it could spread throughout the residence, with an early 911 call by a passing member of the public playing an important role in the response. Investigators determined the fire had been deliberately set. Union calls for more firefighters The increase in emergency activity has also brought renewed attention to the department's staffing levels. Terrace currently has 12 full-time career firefighters, organized into four crews of three. However, because of vacation, lieu time and sick leave, the department operates with three firefighters on duty only about 40 per cent of the time. For approximately 60 per cent of operational periods, the minimum guaranteed staffing level is two firefighters. During a presentation to Terrace City Council on July 13, Captain Jeff Minhinnick, president of the Terrace Firefighters Union, asked council to increase the guaranteed minimum staffing level from two firefighters to four firefighters on duty at all times. The union's position is that the current minimum staffing level can create operational challenges when crews arrive at a working structure fire. Minhinnick cited fire-growth rates and occupational safety requirements, including the principle commonly referred to as “Two-In, Two-Out,” which requires firefighters entering a dangerous structure-fire environment to have a dedicated backup team available. With only two firefighters initially available, crews may have to wait for additional personnel or mutual aid before undertaking certain interior operations. The issue becomes even more significant when another emergency is occurring elsewhere in the city. Cost of additional staffing remains a question Increasing staffing would come with a significant financial cost. City administration has estimated that adding one full-time career firefighter costs approximately $200,000 annually, including compensation, benefits and equipment. That figure is roughly equivalent to the approximately $218,000 in municipal revenue generated by a one-per-cent property-tax increase. However, city officials have not yet determined the exact number of additional firefighters or the total cost that would be required to guarantee four firefighters on duty during every shift. The staffing debate comes after property-tax increases of 7.64 per cent in 2025 and 4.8 per cent in 2026, with further budget pressures expected in 2027. Nearly $6 million in property exposed to fire The department's first-half figures also show the financial stakes involved in fire response. Between January and June, Terrace firefighters responded to residential and commercial structure fires involving an estimated $5.9 million in assessed property value. Approximately $3.9 million of that property value was preserved, while roughly $2 million was destroyed. That means firefighters preserved approximately 66 per cent of the assessed property value exposed to fire, while approximately 34 per cent was lost. The figures highlight the importance of rapid response, particularly when crews are already dealing with another emergency. City reviewing staffing and operational capacity The staffing question is now the subject of a formal operational review. Chief Brousson announced the review during his presentation to Terrace City Council on July 27. The review is examining staffing levels, deployment practices, shift scheduling and the department's overall operational capacity, with the goal of determining how the department can meet response objectives as call volumes and overlapping emergencies increase. Brousson indicated that the completed review is expected to be presented to council by the end of 2026. Until then, Terrace will continue relying on its existing career crews, off-duty call-backs and regional mutual-aid agreements when emergencies overwhelm available resources. The Thornhill Volunteer Fire Department has already played an important role in major incidents, including the Bowling Alley fire. Terrace firefighters have also provided assistance outside the city when requested, demonstrating the reciprocal nature of the region's emergency-response arrangements. For Terrace, the numbers point to a growing public-safety challenge: more emergency calls, substantially more simultaneous incidents and a series of suspicious fires are placing additional demands on a department operating with a relatively small career workforce. The results of Brousson's operational review, along with the city's eventual decision on staffing, could determine whether Terrace's current model is sufficient for the level of emergency demand the community is now experiencing. Read the full article