Too restrictive regulations? Or insincere insurance companies? The Jasper Local digs into one of the complex elements of rebuilding in a national park

Editor’s note (Aug 11 5:30 p.m.): This story has been updated to include comment from the Insurance Bureau of Canada

When compared to how quickly it was all destroyed, the pace of progress on Jasper’s rebuild feels agonizingly slow. 

And when it comes to contaminated properties which require multiple rounds of soil testing and site remediation, some leaseholders who want nothing more than to be back in a permanent home they can call their own are understandably exasperated. 

“There were days I was super frustrated,” said Mike Wesbrook, whose initial site samples, post-debris removal, came back as containing traces of lead and benzene. 

Wesbrook, whose lot is on Turret Street, wasn’t mad about the contamination—not much he could do about that. He was annoyed, however, that after learning about the test results, his insurance company (who he said has been for the most part, “excellent”) and the debris removal contractor he engaged (Ellis Don), were suddenly much more difficult to get in touch with. 

“It would have been nice to have clearer communications,” Wesbrook said. 

The reason his adjuster and his contractor were silent on the second round of debris removal, Wesbrook has since learned, was because between insurers, Parks Canada and Ellis Don, there was an increasingly urgent conversation about who was going to pay for it.

A second site clean up was worth $8,000; soil testing was going to cost $2,500. But according to his insurance company, his policy did not cover additional testing, remediation, hygienist fees or debris disposal, and it also excluded contaminated soil—since it’s not part of the home, they argued. 

“I wrote them a letter that said ‘that’s ridiculous, the contamination is from the burned house,’” Wesbrook said.

But the disagreement didn’t end on Turret Street. Because for the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Wesbrook’s situation—and many other similar spats in Jasper—represented a much bigger number, and a potentially precedent-setting resolution. IBC wanted to limit their exposure to the costs of multiple clean ups. And according to them, they were clear from the outset that by adhering to the standards that Parks Canada were imposing, there would be increased costs and complexities.

“This is outside a standard insurance contract and we’ve been quite vocal about that. We’ve been quite clear with JRCC officials that there are going to be pieces here not covered under standard policy,” said Aaron Sutherland, Vice-President of Pacific and Western with the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

According to the Jasper Recovery Coordination Centre, however, the goal posts haven’t moved. What’s changed, they say, is IBC’s stance.

“IBC has taken the position that testing should not be an insurance requirement…it is something that has come to the forefront in the last couple months,” said Jasper’s Director of Recovery, Michael Fark. 

What both parties agree on, is that Parks Canada sets the standards. The Council of Ministers of the Environment’s (CCME) sets the soil quality guidelines for residential use. Are those too restrictive? Some residents have argued they are.

“Parks Canada has demanded an onerous soil testing regimen that is … delaying the rebuilding process and causing a lot of angst and stress,” Jasperite Art Laurenson wrote to federal minister Steven Guilbeault recently.

Lobby power

The IBC had been writing to Ottawa too. In July, the IBC—a registered lobby group with hundreds of communications reports (records of lobbying activities) in 2025—put out a press release calling for a national discussion on how to better manage catastrophic events. In it, the IBC said Jasper National Park’s stringent guidelines when it comes to soil contamination were complicating the rebuild. 

“Federal soil remediation and recovery requirements were imposed following the fire,” the release says. “These additional steps have added time, complexity and overall cost to the rebuilding effort, costs which are not typically covered under standard property insurance policies.”

But it was the IBC which, a year ago, together with industry partners, agreed to adhere to the CCME guidelines that Parks Canada required. And it was the IBC and its prime contractor, Ellis Don, which agreed to rid burned-out properties of the dioxins, furans and other heavy metals that can accumulate when plastics and metals and creosote-soaked wood foundations burn.

IBC says it’s less of an agreement, and more of a one-way street.

“Parks Canada establishes the guidelines, full stop,” Sutherland said. “The challenge is that standard home insurance policy is not designed to be environmental liability policy for land remediation.”

Operating with the intent to remove the insured debris, contractors, in general removed 100 mm of top soil from the damaged lots. There was no regulatory depth set for scraping soil, according to the JRCC, but the calculation would have been guided by the CCME standard, and influenced by the cost of transporting the soil 100 kms or so east to a landfill site in Hinton, plus the subsequent tipping fees.

Wesbrook figures that calculation may have been too conservative. 

“In most communities, transportation of debris isn’t that far. I think there was an agreement to take the minimum depth in order to save expenses for everyone.

“That was not enough in a lot of cases and now we have to pay for deeper scraping,” he said.

Local contractor Dana Ruddy, who is the project leader on half a dozen rebuilds for Jasperites, couldn’t say if the depth was sufficient or not. What he could say was that close to 100 percent of his clients had to re-test their sites. That represents not just money lost, but time. And in Jasper, construction season is short.

“Every time you get one of those dings it’s a two month-plus turn around,” Ruddy said. 

Band-aid solution

Because insurers took the position they weren’t responsible, the thousands of dollars to re-scrape and re-test put many Jasperites’ rebuild in limbo. So when on July 17, 2025, Parks Canada and the Canadian Red Cross announced up to $5 million to cover uninsured costs related to soil remediation and testing, Jasperites like Wesbrook breathed a massive sigh of relief. 

“This is wonderful news, and a major stress reliever for us and many others in Jasper,” Louise Coleman-Bradford, Wesbrook’s next door neighbour, said at the time.

The support is no doubt critical for many people who are trying to sort out the the highly complex, stressful details on a rebuild journey they never asked for. In his JRCC update to council on August 5, Fark called the process something which “the vast majority of people would never voluntarily choose to take on in their lifetime.” 

Wesbrook acknowledges his rebuild situation is much simpler than many other Jasperites’ (he has full coverage; he has a comfortable place to live; he doesn’t have school-aged kids). He is thankful that Parks Canada has stepped in. But at the same time, he is concerned that one-time relief funding isn’t a long-term fix. And he’s hoping there will be a serious conversation around the push and pull between meeting community health standards and the exorbitant costs of long distance soil disposal.  

“I don’t think that’s a solution, especially for remote communities,” Wesbrook said.

Ruddy, too, is hoping Jasper’s tough lessons will be applied to future rebuilds. He has been critical of the JRCC’s parroting the IBC’s recommendation to engage Ellis Don for debris removal early in the incident. He thinks the decision stifled competition and restricted local solutions.

“That was sold to us and it was a bad call,” he said.

Learning process

With that decision in the rearview, Ruddy said in the future, standards on debris removal must be established—so insurance companies and contractors can’t cut bait when it turns out that what they agreed to isn’t adequate.

“It’s important to tell that story because other communities are going to burn,” he said.

The IBC says Jasper has been unique in its remediation requirements. Sutherland said the standards set by Parks Canada suggest that other communities which have rebuilt using less stringent requirements did so inappropriately.

“I get the desire to keep this park pristine…but at some point you’ve got to have some balance”

“What are the needs of the residents and making sure we’re coming up with a process that gets them back in their homes in a reasonable amount of time?”

Fark, whose team is conducting an “entire lessons learned”-style study with Canada’s foremost independent applied research organization, the Conference Board of Canada, said one of the gaps that has already been identified from the incident is around establishing clear remediation regulations and testing requirements—and who should bear the cost.

“We will advocate for higher orders of government to learn that lesson and take the steps necessary to address it,” Fark said.

Acting Integrated Land Use Policy and Planning Manager for Parks Canada Chris Watson, who has been on the leading edge in Jasper as far as discovering which incinerated materials cause what kinds of contamination, said he would also like to see a fulsome conversation about obligations to community health. Otherwise the disagreements about who is responsible for site clean up will continue.

“It’s something that we’re unfortunately likely to see in other communities,” Watson said.

He added that for Jasperites still enmeshed in paperwork and confused by permitting requirements, his door is open. He and his team have helped unstick several stressful roadblocks for residents, including how their site contamination is documented on the leasehold, and how that record affects their relationship with banks and insurance providers. 

As some Jasperites have experienced, the multiple rounds of site testing was causing insurance companies to withhold payments. Banks, too, were reluctant to sign off on mortgages for leaseholds that weren’t yet free of contamination.

“When the rubber hit the road, there were some financial obligations that lenders were not going to consider,” Watson said. “So we had other options proposed.”

Streamlined processes

Even though some Jasperites would take issue with the word streamlined when it comes to this rebuild, Watson said Parks Canada has increased their capacity, simplified permit applications and adjusted land-use policies in the name of expediting approvals. And as far as site contamination, Watson says Parks Canada was exploring options—separate from the Parks Canada/Red Cross recovery funding—to help Jasperites close out their demolition permits (those options are largely moot now that the recovery funding has materialized).

“Everyone’s insurance, financial planning and restraints, the relationship with their builder and contractors is all different,” Watson said. “That’s why we’re trying to take a more personalized approach.”

Wesbrook, who on August 7 finally received word that his property met the conditions to close out his demolition permit, said although he knows personally several Jasperites who are still mired in the difficult debris removal details, his personal frustration has subsided.

“I wish communication had been more clear, but it’s also understandable things were in process,” he said. “It’ll all move forward and in 10 years I’ll have forgotten about it.”

Leaseholders can call 780-852-6220 or email jasperdevelopment@pc.gc.ca to access permit services and application troubleshooting.

This story has been updated to include the IBC’s response.

Bob Covey // bob@thejasperlocal.com