THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 2, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the growing issue of wildfires in Canada and the consequential effects that wildfires have on forestry and agriculture industries, as well as rural and Indigenous communities, throughout the country.
Senator Robert Black (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. Thanks for being here at this revised hour; it’s great to have you here. Welcome members of the committee, our witness, as well as those watching this meeting on the web. My name is Rob Black. I’m a senator from Ontario and the chair of this committee.
Before we get to our witness, I want to remind steering committee members that we will have a short meeting after the main meeting is over. It will be short.
I would like to acknowledge that the land on which we gather is on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witness for today, I would like to ask the senators around the table to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator McNair: Good morning. I’m John McNair from the province of New Brunswick.
Senator Burey: Good morning. Sharon Burey, senator for Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Varone: Toni Varone, Ontario.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 Territory, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Thank you all.
Today, the committee is continuing its study on the top of the growing issue of wildfires in Canada and the consequential effects they have on forestry and the agriculture industries. We have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Matt Gemmel, the Executive Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, also known as FCM. Mr. Gemmel, you have five minutes for your opening remarks. I’ll signal when your time is running out. The floor is yours.
Matt Gemmel, Executive Director, Policy and Public Affairs, Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Thank you, Senator Black, and good morning, senators. It’s a pleasure to be with you. Thank you for inviting the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to contribute to this important study on this important topic.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is the national voice of Canada’s local governments.
[Translation]
Together, we represent over 92% of the Canadian population.
[English]
Our members include municipalities of all sizes, in all regions of the country, in every province and territory. The 20 provincial and territorial municipal associations are also members of FCM.
I want to make two points in my opening remarks. The first is that we need to increase coordination between all orders of government — federal, provincial, territorial, Indigenous, and municipal — when it comes to preventing, responding to and recovering from wildfires. The second point is that municipalities, in part through efforts led by FCM, are improving their understanding of local and regional climate risks. However, we need long-term federal infrastructure investments to reduce those risks to communities over time.
As you all know, the 2025 wildfire season is already the second worst on record after 2023, with a total of over 8.8 million hectares of forests burned as of September. Thousands of Canadians have been evacuated or displaced. It’s the third record-breaking season in a row, made worse by extreme heat records in Canada and rising global temperatures, with devastating impacts. Municipal leaders are very concerned that this is the new normal for Canada and that the current emergency management framework we have in place is no longer sufficient to address this new normal.
In Canada, wildfire management is a provincial or territorial responsibility, while municipalities typically deal with fire emergencies within their jurisdictions. However, given the increasing number of homes and businesses near forested areas, local firefighters are often being called upon to address wildfires in the regions that threaten their communities. Rural firefighters are often volunteers, and many communities do not have the resources to provide adequate firefighting services or equipment. Municipal water facilities, where they exist in rural areas, were built to provide drinking water and remove waste water, and were never designed to battle the size and intensity of wildfires we are seeing today.
When a major wildfire threatens a community, local officials, police and RCMP are the ones on the ground, coordinating evacuation and supporting provincial resources that are stretched thin by the increasing number and scale of fires occurring, often at the same time in the same province or even the same region.
[Translation]
Municipalities welcoming evacuees have great difficulty providing the housing and services they need.
[English]
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is encouraging the Government of Canada to explore the development of national coordination measures, including, but not limited to, a national emergency management agency or a national fire administration. For example, as a first step, the federal government could consider acquiring a sufficient national fleet of Canadian-made water bombers, with home bases strategically located to serve and respond best to the needs of rural communities. All orders of government need to ensure that local first responders have the training, equipment and support needed to respond quickly and effectively in all parts of the country.
In partnership with the federal government, FCM’s Green Municipal Fund has been investing in a new $530-million program called Local Leadership for Climate Adaptation. It was created through the National Adaptation Strategy. Through this program, FCM is helping communities identify climate risks, including wildfires, and develop strategies to defend their communities.
[Translation]
However, demand is very high and many municipalities need help.
We know that every dollar invested in climate change adaptation saves up to $15.
[English]
Therefore, municipalities are looking to the federal government to help them scale up these efforts and keep residents safe. The Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, currently delivered by federal government — but fully subscribed — is one example of a federal program that has been serving small, rural and remote communities to adapt local infrastructure against natural hazards, like wildfires. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is looking for that program to be expanded this year.
Finally, FCM is also calling for funding to close remaining gaps in cell service and broadband connectivity on all highways across the country as well as transportation infrastructure so that rural and Northern communities can ensure the safety of residents during disaster events, such as wildfires. It is in all of our interests to make these investments up front rather than after wildfire events that risk lives and destroy towns. All orders of governments have a role to play in adapting our communities, and preventing and preparing for wildfires before they occur.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thanks for your opening statement. We will now proceed to questions from senators. Senators, as a reminder, you have five minutes for question or questions, and that includes the answers as well. We will go into multiple round if we need to. I will start with the deputy chair.
Senator McNair: Thank you, Mr. Gemmel, for being here today and addressing this committee.
Your comment that every dollar invested in climate adaptation is estimated to save $15 in future costs related to disaster recovery and infrastructure damage. Can you expand upon that? You got me when you had that, and I think the federal government is listening or at least hearing what you’re saying.
The other thing that you mentioned in your opening remarks was the need for national coordination measures. Maybe you could expand upon that, specifically in terms of what you were talking about.
Mr. Gemmel: I’m happy to expand upon both those points. Thanks for the questions.
One of the most compelling arguments for investing in climate adaptation is the avoided costs and the return on investment that all governments, the public and businesses will realize. I am sure the committee is aware of the excellent work by the Canadian Climate Institute. I encourage you to look closely at their recent research on this topic.
The exact cost savings, of course, varies depending on the nature of the investment. Investments in wildfire prevention are one of the best returns on investment or regarding avoided costs, as far as I’m aware. Forest management is not cheap, but it’s not as expensive as, say, dykes and physical infrastructure to prevent flooding, which also have strong benefits in terms of avoided costs, but it’s more costly up front. So, the case is very compelling.
The most costly climate disasters in Canada in terms of insurance claims are from fires. They top the list. It’s a not a great competition between floods and fires, but fire events top the list. There is a lot we can do up front through forest management and fire breaks that can reduce those costs.
In terms of coordination, I think there is a lot that could be said. There is clearly an ongoing, critical role for the provinces here. That’s not to say that the federal government should step in and take over responsibility, but I think on one example with the equipment, what we have heard from our members and what we have seen is that there isn’t sufficient equipment now that we’re having many fires all burning at the same time, sometimes in the same region, but sometimes in different regions. Atlantic Canada, northern B.C. and northern Quebec are having the same season as we had a couple of years ago, in 2023. The need for the federal government to invest in that equipment and coordinate its disbursement a little more strongly than we have right now would be a good start.
Senator McNair: I have another quick question from something you said. We discussed the idea or concept of a national fleet of water bombers with officials that were here last year. Do you find there is a lot of uptake and support for that initiative among your membership?
Mr. Gemmel: Yes, we would support that. I think there is evidence that we don’t have enough, and we are drawing on international resources. Those international resources, peer countries — whether it’s Australia or the United States, European countries — are also stretched because their fire seasons are getting longer and hotter, and they have more demand on their equipment. I think there is a clear need for more equipment and to be stationed in different regions of the country to be ready to go on short notice.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you for being here. Of course, municipalities are at the heart of many things, including climate-resilient communities.
During his testimony in October 2024, Andrew Campbell, Senior Vice-President of Operations at Parks Canada, told the committee that Jasper was one of, if not the top, fire-smart towns. It was a model of fire-smarting. I think that was shown by them saving 70% of that town when it was in very grave danger.
I’m aware that in the last year, FCM held a webinar exploring case studies of wildfire resilience projects led by municipalities to help residents better protect themselves. I would be curious if you can recall maybe expanding on some of those conversations that took place during the webinar, the feedback from other municipalities. Was there anything surprising?
Also, living in a national park, in a municipality, I understand the strength of having Parks Canada at your back. Most municipalities would not have that — well, there are no other two municipalities that would have that opportunity. Is Jasper being looked at in that way? Are people looking at what that model was in order to fire-smart that community as they did?
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you for the question. Great to hear a question from a former mayor. Thank you.
A few points. I’ve also heard the same comments you have around the preparedness that Jasper had. I have heard Mayor Ireland talk about many years of preparation and also his feeling that they had done a lot to prepare and that the community was one of the more fire-smart communities in the country, yet it was significantly affected. I think that speaks to the scale and intensity of fires that we’re seeing as a result of climate change. I think the very local level fire-smart type initiatives are what I would describe as a necessary but insufficient approach. We need to do it, but it’s not enough.
I was in the Bow Valley recently, two weeks ago, and saw the massive fire break that Parks Canada and other partners are building around Banff and Canmore. It’s a huge project, but they are learning from Jasper. They are seeing the scale of intervention that is needed.
On that trip, I was meeting with the Municipal District of Bighorn, which is on the border of Banff National Park. It’s a large rural municipality that sort of stretches north to south along the boundary of the park. Jasper was really a wake-up call for them. They said that any kind of question about the cost or maybe even describe it as nimbyism around losing some forest because of forest management practices is gone since then, so they are very much investing.
I’m happy to follow up with the committee with some of the resources that we have developed through our Local Leadership for Climate Adaptation program. I wasn’t on that webinar that you mentioned, but the thesis or the raison d’etre of that program is to support municipalities to assess their local climate risks — it could be fire, sea-level rise, hurricanes, extreme heat or urban heat island effect, the full range — then prioritize where they need to make investments, especially — and I think this is the unique model of that program — to integrate those climate risks into their asset management planning. Where is municipal infrastructure most vulnerable? Where does it need to be strengthened?
Senator Sorensen: I appreciate that. Nobody does asset management better than municipalities.
On the funding side, is the best path for municipalities who struggle with resources to use the FCM opportunities? Is there a way for a municipality to go directly to the federal government for funding on resilience, or is the path forward through your organization?
Mr. Gemmel: I think there is certainly an immediate path to FCM right now. That program launched last year, and there is funding available. It’s $530 million, and the needs are great. It’s a mixture of funding for plans and studies but also capital projects. You can imagine that the need on the capital side far exceeds that. I can say with certainty that that program will be oversubscribed, but funding is available now, and we’re certainly encouraging municipalities to apply.
The main source of funding on the capital side, including projects like major fire breaks on a regional basis, is the Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund, or DMAF. Unfortunately, it’s oversubscribed. For us, a big part of Budget 2025 and Budget 2026 is to see that increased.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you.
Senator McBean: My question was coming right at that Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund. So it’s oversubscribed. Is it working, though? Is it meeting municipal needs on wildfire resilience, or are there changes that you would recommend to it?
Mr. Gemmel: Thanks for the question, senator. It’s an important program because it’s dedicated funding for climate adaptation, and it’s direct to municipalities. Municipalities can apply.
The application process is fairly complex. We have definitely heard input from members, especially smaller rural communities, that it’s a lot of effort to hire consultants just to apply to the program. I think from the federal government’s perspective, it’s because there is a limited amount of money, and they want to have a clear sense of the risk and how it’s being mitigated and to allocate money effectively, which we understand, but it does create a high barrier to entry for rural communities. That’s one thing we would like to see changed, a more streamlined application process for small rural communities.
On the wildfire side, I would say it’s a program that applies to all climate risks. Our experience has been that there haven’t been a lot of projects related to fire risk that have been approved. There was one on a regional basis in the Northwest Territories and one on a regional basis in northern Saskatchewan, but the bulk of the funding has been to flood risk. That’s critically important. We need it address that, no doubt. We do think there could be other ways to fund fire mitigation and prevention other than the DMAF. It has its strengths. We would like to see it increased, but there is room for other sources of funding to the provinces or to municipalities for forest management and fire breaks on a more comprehensive scale, perhaps a dedicated program.
Senator McBean: I was struck by you saying that the local level of fire-smart programs is necessary but inefficient.
I’m hearing you say that the municipalities are finding applying for this onerous. Is this where it would be helpful to have a larger view? Instead of a municipality, having provincial or federal support coming to look at a region?
Mr. Gemmel: Yes could be. Certainly, we welcome more federal leadership. The fire-smart program is a good model. What I meant to say is it is necessary but insufficient. The fires are so big that moving fuel away from your house and clearing the eaves troughs are not enough.
To your point, we do need that bigger regional coordination and it needs to be interprovincial — fires don’t know borders or boundaries — both in terms of forest management, not isolated on a provincial basis but being interprovincial is important. There’s a role for the federal government to play to reduce the fire risk and the load through forest management.
In terms of the coordination of the response, it also needs to be interprovincial. You can’t have a fire that’s moving from Saskatchewan to Manitoba, and Manitoba is not dealing with it until it’s too late. We saw some of that with the fires on the border around Flin Flon, Lynn Lake and The Pas this summer. Definitely support is a more regional approach.
Senator McBean: Okay. Perfect.
Given the health impacts of wildfire smoke, how can federal programs better support municipalities in protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring coordination across governments during wildfire emergencies?
Mr. Gemmel: That’s a great question. That’s something that so many communities across the country are dealing with because smoke travels such a great distance.
That’s one of the things that I’m hearing from our members is that, surprisingly, their parks and recreation staff are thinking about this because people have respiratory issues or need a break and they are going to community centres, or libraries — they’re getting indoors. Maybe they don’t have air conditioning at home, it’s hot and smoky, so they’re taking respite.
Municipalities are taking steps to create cooling stations because of extreme heat. It’s a similar set of conditions around air quality because of smoke. Investment in community culture and recreation facilities, and in better HVAC systems for those facilities would be welcome.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you so much for being here today. One of my questions is around water bombers in Saskatchewan. You may have heard this summer we had a water bomber but we had no trained pilot.
Have you talked at all, at a municipal level, around how to build a better force in terms of pilots, and all the other itinerant staff that are required to make that possible?
Mr. Gemmel: Thanks for the question, senator. What I have heard from members is that they’ve been interested, for lack of a better word, to engage with international firefighter forces that are here from around the world. They absolutely appreciate the commitment of those firefighters and those countries for sending those resources, but they don’t know the area and they don’t know the region.
One comment I heard from a councillor from northern Manitoba this year was that there was a lack of knowledge around the depth of lakes and which lakes they could scoop water from. Northern Manitoba is in a prolonged drought so the lake levels are lower than usual — also related to climate change — and it really slowed down the response times to fires.
That was an example of where there could be better coordination with the provincial government so that maps were available. It speaks to the fact that the forces weren’t from the region so there is an opportunity to train a local force.
We don’t have particular recommendations on how to do that, the training or the recruitment or retention of pilots, but I think there’s a clear need and there’s a value in having locally trained pilots and firefighters in general.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. When there’s a fire in one municipality, other municipalities are often impacted in terms of receiving evacuees. I’m wondering if there’s been dialogue across your stakeholders around evacuee support.
I know from experience, as a former health care administrator, that when evacuees come there are issues of elderly people who suddenly need home care-style help or long-term care help, there are people with substance use and mental health challenges who need additional support, et cetera. Are municipalities talking about the experience of being an evacuee receiving centre?
Mr. Gemmel: Absolutely. Thank you for the question. That’s something we will be hearing more and more about. It’s something that the former mayor of Yellowknife, now Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Rebecca Alty, has spoken about on many occasions. From her experience, when Yellowknife was evacuated the challenges of those residents, especially if they had health issues or mobility issues, or any kind of challenges.
I’ve heard from mayors and councillors from host communities, whether it was Edmonton, or other smaller communities, that they reach capacity very quickly. They want to help but the unfortunate reality is that these fires are going to be continuing. We need to plan in advance and have purpose-built facilities. Hotels, gym floors and community centres are not ideal, and they really impact the whole community and reach capacity pretty quickly.
What we’re hearing from municipal leaders is that longer-term planning and support from the provincial, territorial and federal governments around purpose-built centres and planning to receive evacuees is needed. If a community is evacuated where would they go? What would that pathway look like?
And to your point, ensuring continuity of health care services through that journey for evacuees so you don’t exasperate health and social issues.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator Burey: Thank you, Mr. Gemmel. Thank you for being here and lending your expertise.
I think you have eloquently been talking about the need for physical infrastructure across various areas.
I wanted to focus on the human resource infrastructure, which is essential and some of us have talked about it.
We heard from the chief firefighter about the need for a national coordinating agency. We have all been talking about the coordination for municipal firefighters who are now interfacing with wildfire firefighters and the lack of training. I would like your take on that and what the municipalities have been thinking?
Following on what Senator Muggli talked about, the support for long-term care, mental health, texting, using those supports that are available from mental health experts and scientists, but there’s no coordination so people are all over the place. I hope you got some sense of what I just said and you can answer that.
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you very much, senator.
I’ll start by speaking about volunteer firefighter forces in rural municipalities. We often think of the paid professional firefighter in an urban context, but most of the firefighters in Canada are volunteer firefighters. There are some important things that the federal government does to support them. In 2024, the federal government, in response to calls from FCM and other groups, increased the volunteer firefighter tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000 to help recruit and retain firefighters.
One of the things we’ve heard from members is that volunteer firefighters have an aging workforce. For different societal and economic reasons the next generation is not getting as involved, and partly it’s financial, so that tax credit is key. We were very pleased to see it increased. Our recommendation was to increase it to $10,000, so we would like to see it increased further.
We need volunteer firefighter forces to have full complements, not have vacancies, and to have a more uniform age classification and excellent training. That’s one of the advantages of being a volunteer firefighter, the training you receive. We want to see the highest quality training.
The third thing is the equipment. The equipment is very costly. There have been federal programs over the years to support the capital cost side with the purchase of protective equipment and vehicles. We welcome a return to that.
Emergency services, on the whole, are the largest budget line in any municipality budget. Certainly for the big cities, it’s police and fire. In rural municipalities, protective services are an important cost as well, so we would welcome support there.
The third point I would make is that, outside of Quebec and Ontario, in rural Canada, it’s the RCMP who police, and municipalities share that cost with the federal government on a contracts basis. We are concerned about staffing levels in rural RCMP detachments, as well as response times. Even if they’re not directly fighting a fire, they’re critically important in evacuations and responding to an emergency like a wildfire. So we would like to ensure higher RCMP staffing levels as well.
Senator Varone: Thank you, Mr. Gemmel, for being here. I find this very enlightening.
Climate resilience is an all-hands-on-deck issue. I’m curious to know if FCM has developed a governance model for best practices. You talked about the infrastructure investments required to reduce the risks of wildfires, but then you went through a list of items that I tend to think are municipal responsibility, some are federal and some are provincial. Is there a framework you can point to? I look at water resources being the domain of provincial governments and water bombers the domain of federal governments. Is there a model that you can point to that allows all provinces to participate in that governance and do the things they can do best without overlapping with other levels of government?
Mr. Gemmel: Yes, thank you for the question. A lot of this is, indeed, about governance.
I recall presenting to a Senate committee three or four years ago. At that time, we were calling for the development of a national adaptation strategy. Canada didn’t have that at the time, and I think we were the only G7 country that didn’t. However, we have one now, and all credit to the federal government for taking the time and working for the provinces and territories to develop that. It’s an important first step.
In terms of the breadth of climate risks and identifying which orders of government are responsible for responding, that strategy does a good job of that. It has an importance governance theme to it, but it’s not specific to wildfires. Also, it is really about prevention. It is about adapting to climate change and not about emergency response.
So we’re lacking the kind of plan that you’re talking about that clearly identifies which order of government has responsibility in terms of emergency response and recovery, as well as how they work together. I think there are elements of that. There is a coordination response centre in Winnipeg, I understand, for coordinating water bombers. There is more work to be done, and FCM would welcome federal leadership there to establish that plan.
Senator Varone: Are you able to send us the work that has been done?
Mr. Gemmel: Absolutely, yes.
The Chair: I have a few questions. You talked about the differences between rural and urban preparedness, but what about the differences between response and recovery times, et cetera? Can you elaborate on that from your and FCM’s perspective?
Mr. Gemmel: Yes, absolutely. Thank you, senator, for the question.
We have a lot of work to do on recovery. The evacuation and devastation in the town of Lytton, B.C., is something we’re all aware of and can recall. The entire town was razed. Residents of Lytton are just moving back now. It shouldn’t take five or six years to move back into your community. So we have work to do on the recovery side.
There are some important principles that FCM supports. One would be “building back better,” and we’ve been advocating for some changes to the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, a cost-shared federal-provincial-territorial program. The federal government has made changes to the eligible costs under that to allow you to build back better; you don’t just replace things with the same. That is an important step in the right direction, but it’s still taking far too long, between private insurance and that program, which is effectively public insurance, for that money to flow.
The federal government and the provinces need to act with an increased sense of urgency and coordination to ensure that money is getting to residents to be able to rebuild quicker and to build back better.
The Chair: Does FCM have any insights on how farmers, ranchers and producers, specifically, across the country in ag municipalities are they being uniquely affected? You can say that you don’t, but I’m just asking.
Mr. Gemmel: Not off the top of my head, no, I’m sorry, but that is something we can check on. There are a few specific rural municipal associations in the country, and we can certainly check with our colleagues and see if they’re aware of any advice there.
Senator Greenwood: I’m curious how orders of government are working with Indigenous communities. I come from northern British Columbia, so I’ve lived through a few of these. I know there has been some hesitancy in the past around folks working together. In your work, what are you thinking about Indigenous communities, and how should that work together?
The second question I have is around recovery. I’ve always wondered this, because I worked in a health authority when everybody was evacuated into Prince George; it was 10,000 people overnight. One of the greatest fears people had was around where their pets were and what was happening to the animals. It was not just agricultural animals but all of the animals, because that is really important; the land is really important and so are the beings. I wonder if you could talk about that.
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you, senator. Those questions hadn’t been asked, and they are great additions.
Municipalities are certainly working with Indigenous communities, both on the planning and prevention but also in responses to wildfires and supporting evacuees as well.
On prevention, I mentioned that FCM is delivering a program called Local Leadership for Climate Adaptation, funded by the federal government. We’ve developed a guide book for municipalities on how to work with Indigenous communities and to incorporate Indigenous traditional knowledge into assessing and prioritizing climate risks, as well as applying an equity lens to look at how different segments of the community are impacted differently. Climate change doesn’t impact all Canadians equally. If you can move your house to higher ground, to use an oversimplistic example, you’re less impacted by climate change, and if you can’t afford to move, you’re more impacted.
So we’re helping municipalities to apply that equity lens, and we’re supporting them to work with Indigenous communities and governments in their region. I can share that resource with the committee.
We spoke a little bit about evacuation. I was saying that municipalities are starting to think more and more about their role as host communities, recognizing that these aren’t one-off events and that it won’t be 25 years until the next event. If you’re in Prince George, you’re probably going to be welcoming fire evacuees next year, the year after and the year after.
One of our vice-presidents at FCM is a councillor from Thompson, Manitoba. They had a lot of evacuees this year from Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities all across northern Manitoba. They’re now thinking about what that means for them as a municipality to be a host community and what they need from the province and the federal government to support those evacuees — and their pets — for longer periods of time, as well as supporting their health, well-being and safety during that really difficult time.
Municipalities can’t do it alone. Municipalities are a partner by default, but they want to be better partners, and provide space and coordination. However, they are not equipped to provide health and social services to, as well as feeding and sheltering, communities for weeks or even months at a time. It needs to be a coordinated effort.
Senator McNair: Mr. Gemmel, this is going to seem like a strange question. We tried to have witnesses from the maritime provinces and from Manitoba, and there seems to be a reluctance or an inability for them to be here just because the people who should be before this panel are busy dealing with continuing wildfires.
I wanted to try to get a sense from you, through your members, what you’re hearing on how bad it was at the peak. You talked about The Pas and Flin Flon. Manitoba, especially, was in an emergency state longer than anywhere else. The news story today is that Nova Scotia has extended their fire season to the end of the month and is fighting fires, as are New Brunswick and Newfoundland.
I’m curious what you hear from your members regarding how bad this season has been on them.
Mr. Gemmel: I will start, senator, by validating what you’re saying. What we’ve seen over the last few years is that the fire season starts earlier, it’s more intense, the fires are bigger, they’re more numerous and the season is lasting longer. That’s putting a lot of strain on first responders. In addition to it taxing the available equipment and human resources, the fatigue and mental health impacts on first responders are real concerns as well.
My understanding is that, in decades past, we would have agreements. For instance, Quebec and California have an agreement of sharing resources because the fire seasons are complementary or offset, so to speak. Now, our fire season is going longer, so it’s not necessarily the case that we can spare resources in the late summer and early fall when California is typically having fires.
It’s fundamentally changing, and that’s why we need a different approach and more federal leadership.
I did hear a lot about the situation in Manitoba this year from our second vice-president Kathy Valentino, who I mentioned is a councillor in Thompson. Frankly, she, her council colleagues and the administration of the City of Thompson are exhausted. It was a spring and summer from hell for them. They were hosting evacuees and planning a wholesale evacuation of the city seven hours south to Winnipeg. They temporarily moved all of their core city services — their payroll, finance, IT. This is specific to the municipal order of government, but this idea of busy continuity planning for the public sector during these types of emergencies is something that is increasingly top of mind for us, and FCM is looking at how we can support our members regarding that. You still need to pay employees and deliver basic services. Some of those services are being relied upon more than ever at that time, but if you’re physically evacuating, where are those employees working, where is the IT equipment and how are you setting up? The City of Thompson was temporarily setting up at offices in which they were squatting in Winnipeg. It was ad hoc.
To the point that this is a new normal, they will have to plan around where to set up these services and deliver them when they evacuate.
I think the length and the extent of the fire season in Manitoba this year has really exhausted local officials and first responders. Manitoba is still in a prolonged drought, and they’re worried about next year. I’ve heard similar comments from other regions of the country. I know B.C. had that terrible year a few years ago where it was fires all spring and then floods in the fall. Municipalities had their emergency response centre open for almost 365 days that year. It was just non-stop. That really drains local officials.
Senator Richards: I apologize for being late. I wanted to be here at quarter to 9:00; I got here at about 20 after. I’m sorry about that.
Do you know how many water bombers are available in the different regions of the country at any one time? The Oldfield Road fire in New Brunswick, which burned about four miles from our summer home — there were two water bombers. They worked heroically. You could see them flying right over our house to the Miramichi River to pick up water, hour after hour, but then they had to leave; they simply had to go because of other fires. One was in Moncton.
So in the middle of fighting the fires, the water bombers were no longer there, which isn’t conducive to helping the people on the ground fighting the fires. It’s not their fault, but they just have too much to do.
I’m wondering if there is any way to know and to coordinate how many water bombers might be in any one region. Some are private, of course, belonging to different companies. I think the government should try to get a better handle on that. How do you feel about that?
Mr. Gemmel: I don’t have a number for you in terms of the fleet currently or the surplus capacity, but I certainly agree that we need more; we’ve heard that loud and clear from our members. It is largely due to the point you mentioned, which is that there are more fires burning in more regions. The resources are stretched and tough calls have to be made: Do we respond here or there? So it’s clear that we need to increase the water bomber capacity. That’s something that FCM supports and would like to see. We would like to see the federal government lead on that.
There is also an economic development angle. We make water bombers in Canada, and we can procure Canadian-made water bombers and hopefully get those into service quickly, because we’re going to need them.
Senator Muggli: My question is around forecasting and predictive modelling. I’m curious if municipalities have the capacity or systems to contribute data to provincial or the federal government departments or agencies. Do they have the capacity to even do that? Is there is an existing system for data contribution?
Mr. Gemmel: Yes, thank you for the question.
I’m not aware of what municipalities are using currently in terms of predictive technologies for fire. Environment and Climate Change Canada has really improved the availability of climate data and future-oriented climate models that municipalities are using. There are things like increased frequency of freeze-thaw cycles and what that means for your pipes — that kind of data. It is very helpful, and municipalities are using that climate modelling. However, in terms of predicting the likelihood of a fire in a certain area, I’m not sure what municipalities are relying upon. We’ll have to look into that.
Senator Muggli: And they’re not necessarily contributing data after a fire, for example, which might help with predictive modelling or forecasting?
Mr. Gemmel: Yes, it is possible they are, but I’m not aware of that; I haven’t heard of that.
Senator Muggli: That’s all. Thank you.
Senator McBean: In your opening comments, I appreciated how you got right to some of the things that you need or you would expect, including a national emergency management company. We hear that having a national bank of water bombers and equipment would be really handy, but then we also hear from the firefighters on the ground that when a national response group shows up, it can get in the way of the local and Indigenous knowledge.
If you’re sitting around a water cooler with your colleagues and you’re talking about how a national emergency management company would work, how would it actually work in practice?
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you for the question.
Our advice would be to not take three years to build an agency from the ground up. There are things in place. There is the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre that is based out of Winnipeg that the provinces, territories and the federal government contribute to. There are steps that could be taken to improve and strengthen what’s already there. The federal government could bring resources to bear. That’s part of why one of our suggestions is to start by increasing the fleet of water bombers. There is already a way to share resources across provinces. The federal government could come in and procure a massive order of new water bombers and increase that fleet. That is a practical, tangible step that would make a difference in the near term.
There are numerous ways that coordination can be improved, whether it’s through forest management across provincial boundaries on a regional basis to reduce fire loads such as looking regionally at fire breaks and assessing risks, community by community, region by region, in undertaking fire breaks. It could be coordinating on the emergency response services and things like evacuees. It’s all the way through the continuum, from prevention, to response, to recovery.
I think it would be a mistake to set up an agency from the ground up to do all of those things, but the federal government can play a leadership role and bring resources to each of those elements. That would be my advice at this point.
Senator McBean: Thank you. A little separately, how do you find the municipalities are including Indigenous voices and practices in a meaningful and consistent way?
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you for that question. The most tangible example I have is the guidebook that FCM has developed for municipalities on working with local Indigenous governments and communities in assessing risk, identifying where to respond to risk and looking at how communities are impacted differently by climate change and applying an equity lens. That’s the most tangible example I have, and I’ll share that guidebook with the committee for your reference.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: A bit of information as well. Actually, Senator Greenwood’s question prompted this, and it is a good lead from yours, Senator McBean.
I wonder if you are familiar with the First Nations’ Emergency Services Society, which is a B.C. model. They did a reception here last week, and I was so impressed. Unfortunately, at least when I was there, it was not very well attended. But, basically, they work with Indigenous communities and all levels of government — municipalities and provinces. The way they describe it is as a liaison because there is a lot of really bad communication between Indigenous communities and other levels of government during an emergency. We talk about trying to coordinate efforts, but Indigenous communities are a whole other conversation.
The executive director is Francyne Joe, who used to be the President of the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC. I was so impressed with their model. I was wondering why we don’t have this in every province and territory if this is effective. I’m curious to know if you’re familiar with their work. I have put them forward as a witness, and I hope we see them here.
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you, Senator Sorensen. I’m not familiar with them, so I appreciate you suggesting we connect with them and find out more about them. I expect my counterparts at the Union of BC Municipalities are familiar with them and would work with them.
One thing I’ll say is that FCM has been, for nearly 25 years now, working to support municipalities to build relationships with First Nations in their area. We have a program that we run jointly with an Indigenous-led organization called Cando. It’s called the First Nation-Municipal Community Economic Development Initiative. At its core, it’s about relationship building. You mentioned the sometimes poor communication. It’s hard to start that communication and that relationship in a crisis. You need to know who your counterparts are — First Nations chief and council, municipal mayor and council — and it takes time to build that relationship and to confront, address, and deal with past wrongs.
That study program that FCM delivers is, at its core, about relationship building. Then we look at a range of different things that municipalities can work on together, whether it’s shared services for water or garbage collection or joint community economic development around tourism, but also, opportunities for shared land use planning and emergency management planning. It hasn’t gone into emergency joint response, but that is a possibility in the future. I think relationship building is key and certainly something that FCM and municipalities are committed to moving forward with.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. Yes, this group doesn’t just deal with fire, but fire is top of mind these days.
Senator Greenwood: Just a quick comment. Thanks, Senator Sorensen, for bringing that up. I was just thinking about that.
Besides a guidebook to show people how to interact, a lot of what you’re saying is relationship building, and people just have to get on the ground and talk to one another. We can play a leadership role, but it’s not us who are going to make the relationships, and I think that’s really important.
In the midst of tragedy, there are also some shining lights with the way people have interacted. We saw this in the North with the fires, we saw this with the flooding and we saw it during COVID, where people came together, and that’s what we’re talking about, getting people to work together. There are some very powerful examples of where that works. I would be looking to what those examples are so that you could share them if we’re taking a leadership role that those examples of working together are shared. Sometimes people don’t know what that looks like or how to do it, but if they have examples, that would be very useful.
Mr. Gemmel: Thank you for that. I’ll take that away. I think that’s a nice note to end on.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Gemmel, I wanted to thank you for your participation today. Your testimony and insights have certainly been insightful and very much appreciated. I know you’ve agreed to provide some resources and additional information, and our clerk will look forward to seeing that from you.
I also want to thank the committee members around the table for your active participation and thoughtful questions.
As always, I would like to have us thank the folks who support us in the work that we do with this committee, the folks in our offices, the interpreters, the Debates team transcribing this meeting, the committee room attendant, the multimedia services technician, the Broadcasting team, the Recording Centre, ISD and obviously our page, Ms. Honora Murphy. Folks, let’s give them a big hand.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
The Chair: Thanks very much to all of them. If there is no other business, honourable senators, this meeting stands adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)