The current wildfire season with its apocalyptic scenes from northern Ontario communities and the spread of smoke throughout the province has sparked debate about the adequacy of both the Ontario and federal government response. The federal government has apparently finally been asked by the Ontario government for assistance with evacuations of affected communities. While it seems odd that the federal government must be asked, apparently natural resources are a provincial responsibility though one might venture that the environmental impact on air quality can easily justify federal participation given that the environment is seen as a shared responsibility. They have intervened in provincial jurisdictions such as health and social welfare (for example child care, dental, and pharmacare plans) where the provincial prerogative is stronger.
As well, the constitution also maintains a role for the federal government in maintaining peace, order and good government and one might think wildfires would qualify. And then there is the federal role with respect to Indigenous peoples which should also be a reason for federal intervention in remote communities. One wonders if earlier federal intervention might have been of assistance in the harrowing escape of the Namaygoosisagagun First Nation which was essentially left on its own.
However, given that the provinces are expected to take the lead in such matters, the question arises as to whether in Ontario the resources allocated to natural resources and forest fire/wildfire suppression in general are sufficient. One would expect that the Ontario government makes decisions about how much to plan on spending based on evidence available, though naturally if the fire season worsens, it would “upscale” the expenditures and response. The evidence available consists of past forest fire seasons and Figure 1 uses data from Canada’s National Forestry Data Base and Natural Resources Canada and recent media releases to plot Ontario’s total number of forest fires from all causes as well as the area burned in hectares for the 2018 to 2026 (as of July 16th) period.
The results show that both the number of fires and the hectares burned fluctuate substantially from year to year. A peak year was 2021 which saw 1,206 fires from all causes and 784,564 hectares consumed. However, what is quite interesting is that when linear trends are fitted to the data, the number of actual fires has been declining on average. Yet, the number of hectares burned has been trending upwards. What this seems to suggest is that since 2018, on average, the number of incidents that the provincial emergency fire response needs to respond to has been declining which one suspects means that one can be more conservative in terms of the dollar amounts budgeted. However, the severity and intensity of the fires have been increasing quite dramatically which would indicate a need for more resources.
Figure 2 uses data from Ontario Budgets to plot two series. First, the total allocation for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry since 2018 as well as the allocation divided by population to obtain the amount per capita. As well, both series are in real dollars deflated using the Consumer Price Index for Ontario (Statistics Canada) with 2026 set as the base year. Again, the allocations fluctuate from year to year but in real dollars, the total allocation has been trending upwards – more resources for the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. However, when adjusted for both inflation and population, the real per capita allocation has been flat. In other words, spending growth on the ministry has on average not exceeded the combination of both population growth and inflation.
Of greater interest is the subset of spending on emergency firefighting and that is provided in Figure 3 both in total as well as per capita, and again in 2026 dollars. Both series fluctuate substantially as they reflect the severity of that year’s fire season. As well, keep in mind that the 2026-27 numbers are budget estimates presented before the onset of this year’s fire season and are likely to be revised upwards substantially. Nevertheless, real total emergency firefighting based on the numbers available since 2018 has trended down slightly from just over $200 million (2026 dollars) to just below $200 million. Meanwhile, real per capita spending has trended down more noticeably from just under $15 dollars per Ontarian (in 2026 dollars) in 2018 to just over $11 dollars per person at present.
While the number of forest and wildfires has been trending downward – which might create an incentive to plan for spending less with upscaling when necessary – the severity of the fires in terms of the land area consumed has been growing substantially. Increased severity of the fire season in terms of impact necessitates a more robust upfront long-term allocation of resources. One should not wait for a northern Ontario tragedy like the 1909 Cobalt Fire (which destroyed half the town of 6,000 people and left half the population homeless) or the 1922 Temiskaming Fire (43 killed) or the Great Porcupine Fire of 1911 which killed 70 people or the 1916 Matheson/Iroquois Falls/Cochrane Fires (which killed an estimated 223 people). The Matheson Fire led to the establishment of Forest Protection Branch of the Department of Lands, Forests and Mines which evolved into the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. We should not wait for events of similar scale before deciding to overhaul the fire management system and how we deal with the growing intensity of wildfires.
