Nova Scotia’s Tim Houston and New Brunswick’s Susan Holt used fire season to justify bans on outdoor activity, revealing a growing political habit: restricting liberty to protect government systems, not people.
It is a sad realization, but that’s likely true. I was hopeful when NB turfed Gallant for Higgs, but Susan is as inept as Gallant, only with 3x the activist woke spirit.
What alarms me most is not just the acquiescence of the population, it is the number who outright support it. Subsequently we have decided to sell our land in NS (8 acres) as the frequency of such measures is bound to increase.
The coming “energy shortage” will give the governments more powers to restrict citizens freedoms and mobility. Just like convid - we will be locked down, while our so called elected officials get together and travel at will.
I was working in the newsroom at Radio-Canada in Moncton when this ban was imposed. One day, an argument broke out with one of my colleagues because I was criticizing the ban. When I argued that walking in the forest posed no danger, she replied that it did, because a ray of sunlight passing through the lens of a pair of glasses could cause a spark and start a fire. I replied that it was frankly far-fetched and the discussion continued to heat up until my manager stepped in. At lunch time, I went out to eat alone at a restaurant and checked Substack. That’s when I read your post and learned about Susan Holt’s comments. In the afternoon, at the production meeting, the news editor and the assignment editor presented the lineup of stories for the evening newscast, and they mentioned the ban on going into the forest, everyone nodded—yes, yes, it’s dangerous to walk in the forest. That’s when I spoke up to relay Holt’s comments. I repeated the quote you had shared in your Substack post. They were all speechless. I even got backed up (which is extremely rare) by a on the hunt radio journalist who attended the meeting that day because he was “shadowing” the assigment editor (to see if he would like to be trained for that job). From that moment, they started listening to Holt’s press briefings, since they clearly hadn’t been doing so before. And in the meantime, they let the public form false ideas about the real reasons behind this ban on entering the forest. Needless to say, that team at Radio-Canada made it their mission to push me out of the newsroom. What a relief. So thank you for your work.
Thanks for sharing that story. As you likely know, I lived in Atlantic Canada for a while, and was interviewed a couple of time on Radio-Canada, until they seemed to have figured out that my biases didn't fit theirs. I got pushed out of the Academy for similar reasons long ago, and I am grateful they did. One of my NDPer former colleagues recently retired, and even he couldn't wait to get out. I was the lucky one to be liberated from what they're ruining. Sounds like you were too.
Indeed, although the memory of that period, which lasted only about a year, still stirs up a kind of turmoil. It is more than ideological biais, there is a kind of hold exerted that can be seen in cults, in my opinion: the renouncement of one’s subjectivity. I was not even assigned as a reporter, I was on the technicinal side.
I just read the traditional review decision of justice Campbell of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in the Evely case. The judge got it right and the Nova Scotia government got it wrong.
Canadians need to get a backbone and push back on this authoritarian nonsense. If I fall and break my leg - the ambulance won’t come to me any faster, since they are busy dealing with all the fentanyl overdoses in every single town and city in Canada. F U Government!
The claim that the government banned walks in the woods due to a "hypothetical injury" rather than fire prevention is factually misleading. Here is a timeline of events for context:
August 5, 2025: Nova Scotia announced an immediate ban on travel and activities in the woods, including hiking, camping, and fishing. The explicit reason was "continued hot, dry conditions have greatly increased the risk of wildfires," with Premier Houston stating, "most wildfires are caused by human activity" . The fine for violating the restriction was set at $25,000.
August 2025: New Brunswick introduced similar restrictions on Crown lands, accompanied by a provincial burn ban . The Canadian Red Cross confirmed this was the largest wildfire response in its history, with 1,200 personnel deployed and 52,000 people registered for assistance across multiple provinces .
August 26, 2025: Most Crown land restrictions were lifted in New Brunswick . Municipal trails reopened September 8, 2025 .
April 2026: A Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruling found the province "failed to consider individual mobility rights" when implementing the ban, calling it "unreasonable" . Premier Houston said he would "do what's necessary to keep people safe" and does not plan to appeal .
Regarding Premier Holt's statement: Her comment about injury response was an additional justification during public pushback, clarifying that emergency resources were already overwhelmed by fire response—not the primary rationale. The 2025 wildfire season was objectively severe, with the Red Cross calling it the largest domestic operation in recent history .
Verdict: The article omits the primary fire-safety justification and hyperbolically frames a limited, temporary emergency measure as a permanent state of "liberty as privilege." The court later found the implementation flawed, but the underlying wildfire risk was real, not invented.
Thanks for reading the piece and for your comment. No doubt your subscribers appreciate the rearticulation of the official government position. I appreciate it too. The timeline isn't irrelevant. But the basis of my post is the "additional" rationale Holt articulated in her presser and the connection to the same maternalistic attitude exhibited during the COVID panic.
I appreciate the thanks, but you can't handwave the timeline as irrelevant when your entire argument rests on drawing a parallel between two moments of crisis leadership. Context is what separates a pattern from a coincidence. If the circumstances, information available, and policy constraints were materially different in 2020 versus now, then calling it the same "maternalistic attitude" isn't analysis—it's just a vibe.
And honestly, "maternalistic" is doing a lot of work here. It lets you frame prudence as condescension without having to engage with whether the decisions were actually warranted on their merits. It's a tonal critique dressed up as a structural one. If you want to argue her fire response is overreach, make that case on its own terms—not by borrowing emotional residue from a pandemic that killed thousands and had entirely different risk calculations.
Parallels aren't proof. They're rhetorical shortcuts. And the timeline matters because it tells us whether this is a consistent governing philosophy or you just didn't like how she handled one emergency and went looking for a sequel.
The core factual dispute is clear: The original author (Marco Navarro-Génie) claims the Nova Scotia government banned walks in the woods due to a "hypothetical injury" and a "maternalistic attitude," while I provide evidence it was for wildfire prevention.
Here is my fact-check of the key claims:
Kelly’s timeline is accurate. Nova Scotia did implement a ban on travel and activities in the woods (hiking, camping, fishing) starting August 5, 2025. The explicit, documented reason was extreme wildfire risk—"continued hot, dry conditions"—not fear of people getting injured. Premier Houston stated, "most wildfires are caused by human activity." The fine was $25,000.
Navarro-Génie’s framing is misleading. He dismisses the fire prevention rationale as mere "official government position" and instead attributes the ban to a "maternalistic attitude" carried over from COVID policies. The screenshots show that even after Kelly provided the fire safety timeline, the author did not dispute the factual timeline—he simply reasserted his interpretive frame.
Other verified facts from the thread:
· New Brunswick introduced similar restrictions on Crown lands in August 2025.
· The Canadian Red Cross confirmed that was its largest domestic wildfire response, with 1,200 personnel and 52,000 registrants.
· Most Crown land restrictions in New Brunswick were lifted by August 26, 2025.
· An April 2026 Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruling found the province "failed to consider individual mobility rights," calling the ban "unreasonable"—but did not dispute that wildfire risk was the justification.
Verdict: The author’s claim that the ban was based on a "hypothetical injury" rather than fire prevention is false. The wildfire risk was real, severe, and documented. Reasonable people can debate whether the ban was proportional, but misrepresenting the government’s stated rationale is not a good-faith critique.
It is a sad realization, but that’s likely true. I was hopeful when NB turfed Gallant for Higgs, but Susan is as inept as Gallant, only with 3x the activist woke spirit.
What alarms me most is not just the acquiescence of the population, it is the number who outright support it. Subsequently we have decided to sell our land in NS (8 acres) as the frequency of such measures is bound to increase.
The dumb will always be an obstacle.
The coming “energy shortage” will give the governments more powers to restrict citizens freedoms and mobility. Just like convid - we will be locked down, while our so called elected officials get together and travel at will.
I was working in the newsroom at Radio-Canada in Moncton when this ban was imposed. One day, an argument broke out with one of my colleagues because I was criticizing the ban. When I argued that walking in the forest posed no danger, she replied that it did, because a ray of sunlight passing through the lens of a pair of glasses could cause a spark and start a fire. I replied that it was frankly far-fetched and the discussion continued to heat up until my manager stepped in. At lunch time, I went out to eat alone at a restaurant and checked Substack. That’s when I read your post and learned about Susan Holt’s comments. In the afternoon, at the production meeting, the news editor and the assignment editor presented the lineup of stories for the evening newscast, and they mentioned the ban on going into the forest, everyone nodded—yes, yes, it’s dangerous to walk in the forest. That’s when I spoke up to relay Holt’s comments. I repeated the quote you had shared in your Substack post. They were all speechless. I even got backed up (which is extremely rare) by a on the hunt radio journalist who attended the meeting that day because he was “shadowing” the assigment editor (to see if he would like to be trained for that job). From that moment, they started listening to Holt’s press briefings, since they clearly hadn’t been doing so before. And in the meantime, they let the public form false ideas about the real reasons behind this ban on entering the forest. Needless to say, that team at Radio-Canada made it their mission to push me out of the newsroom. What a relief. So thank you for your work.
Thanks for sharing that story. As you likely know, I lived in Atlantic Canada for a while, and was interviewed a couple of time on Radio-Canada, until they seemed to have figured out that my biases didn't fit theirs. I got pushed out of the Academy for similar reasons long ago, and I am grateful they did. One of my NDPer former colleagues recently retired, and even he couldn't wait to get out. I was the lucky one to be liberated from what they're ruining. Sounds like you were too.
Indeed, although the memory of that period, which lasted only about a year, still stirs up a kind of turmoil. It is more than ideological biais, there is a kind of hold exerted that can be seen in cults, in my opinion: the renouncement of one’s subjectivity. I was not even assigned as a reporter, I was on the technicinal side.
Great article! Well written.
My take away is anyone who voted Liberal is completely messed up in the head.
And, defund the CBC.
=)
What a great read!
I just read the traditional review decision of justice Campbell of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in the Evely case. The judge got it right and the Nova Scotia government got it wrong.
Canadians need to get a backbone and push back on this authoritarian nonsense. If I fall and break my leg - the ambulance won’t come to me any faster, since they are busy dealing with all the fentanyl overdoses in every single town and city in Canada. F U Government!
The claim that the government banned walks in the woods due to a "hypothetical injury" rather than fire prevention is factually misleading. Here is a timeline of events for context:
August 5, 2025: Nova Scotia announced an immediate ban on travel and activities in the woods, including hiking, camping, and fishing. The explicit reason was "continued hot, dry conditions have greatly increased the risk of wildfires," with Premier Houston stating, "most wildfires are caused by human activity" . The fine for violating the restriction was set at $25,000.
August 2025: New Brunswick introduced similar restrictions on Crown lands, accompanied by a provincial burn ban . The Canadian Red Cross confirmed this was the largest wildfire response in its history, with 1,200 personnel deployed and 52,000 people registered for assistance across multiple provinces .
August 26, 2025: Most Crown land restrictions were lifted in New Brunswick . Municipal trails reopened September 8, 2025 .
April 2026: A Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruling found the province "failed to consider individual mobility rights" when implementing the ban, calling it "unreasonable" . Premier Houston said he would "do what's necessary to keep people safe" and does not plan to appeal .
Regarding Premier Holt's statement: Her comment about injury response was an additional justification during public pushback, clarifying that emergency resources were already overwhelmed by fire response—not the primary rationale. The 2025 wildfire season was objectively severe, with the Red Cross calling it the largest domestic operation in recent history .
Verdict: The article omits the primary fire-safety justification and hyperbolically frames a limited, temporary emergency measure as a permanent state of "liberty as privilege." The court later found the implementation flawed, but the underlying wildfire risk was real, not invented.
Thanks for reading the piece and for your comment. No doubt your subscribers appreciate the rearticulation of the official government position. I appreciate it too. The timeline isn't irrelevant. But the basis of my post is the "additional" rationale Holt articulated in her presser and the connection to the same maternalistic attitude exhibited during the COVID panic.
I appreciate the thanks, but you can't handwave the timeline as irrelevant when your entire argument rests on drawing a parallel between two moments of crisis leadership. Context is what separates a pattern from a coincidence. If the circumstances, information available, and policy constraints were materially different in 2020 versus now, then calling it the same "maternalistic attitude" isn't analysis—it's just a vibe.
And honestly, "maternalistic" is doing a lot of work here. It lets you frame prudence as condescension without having to engage with whether the decisions were actually warranted on their merits. It's a tonal critique dressed up as a structural one. If you want to argue her fire response is overreach, make that case on its own terms—not by borrowing emotional residue from a pandemic that killed thousands and had entirely different risk calculations.
Parallels aren't proof. They're rhetorical shortcuts. And the timeline matters because it tells us whether this is a consistent governing philosophy or you just didn't like how she handled one emergency and went looking for a sequel.
Please reread the response. There is no claim of irrelevance. I have a different view of what my entire argument is about than ChatGPT.
The core factual dispute is clear: The original author (Marco Navarro-Génie) claims the Nova Scotia government banned walks in the woods due to a "hypothetical injury" and a "maternalistic attitude," while I provide evidence it was for wildfire prevention.
Here is my fact-check of the key claims:
Kelly’s timeline is accurate. Nova Scotia did implement a ban on travel and activities in the woods (hiking, camping, fishing) starting August 5, 2025. The explicit, documented reason was extreme wildfire risk—"continued hot, dry conditions"—not fear of people getting injured. Premier Houston stated, "most wildfires are caused by human activity." The fine was $25,000.
Navarro-Génie’s framing is misleading. He dismisses the fire prevention rationale as mere "official government position" and instead attributes the ban to a "maternalistic attitude" carried over from COVID policies. The screenshots show that even after Kelly provided the fire safety timeline, the author did not dispute the factual timeline—he simply reasserted his interpretive frame.
Other verified facts from the thread:
· New Brunswick introduced similar restrictions on Crown lands in August 2025.
· The Canadian Red Cross confirmed that was its largest domestic wildfire response, with 1,200 personnel and 52,000 registrants.
· Most Crown land restrictions in New Brunswick were lifted by August 26, 2025.
· An April 2026 Nova Scotia Supreme Court ruling found the province "failed to consider individual mobility rights," calling the ban "unreasonable"—but did not dispute that wildfire risk was the justification.
Verdict: The author’s claim that the ban was based on a "hypothetical injury" rather than fire prevention is false. The wildfire risk was real, severe, and documented. Reasonable people can debate whether the ban was proportional, but misrepresenting the government’s stated rationale is not a good-faith critique.
More ChatGPT. LOL. I'm sure that impresses your 12 subscribers.
I actually use 3 AI at a time. You should try it sometime.
I'm not doing this for money either it's called boredom and a way to escape pain.
I'm not doing this for subscribers. I just prefer fact over fiction.
I have a question. When did the citizens of Canada become sheep?
Sheeple. A truly horrible name.