Thoughts from various…

Thoughts from various sessions both in person and virtual.
Submitted by private individual involved with Forest Industry
- Discussion Question- What is needed for MNR and other industry/business to improve coordination and sharing roles and resources?
o Insurance issue. Many insurance companies will not insure machines working on fires and it varies across insurance companies. Province needs to go to insurance companies to clarify what/why/when of machines working on fires to assist with companies getting coverage. Another option is that the Province provides insurance for machines working on fires.
o The standardization of rates and streamline the procurement process should be investigated. We need to remember that companies are helping with fires as a civic duty, it is not their job. They need to cover their operating costs. They don’t own machines to fight fires, they own them to build roads, harvest wood etc.
 The rental rates are not intended nor do they cover, machines and operators working outside their normal operating area. For example, a company that normally operates in the Thunder Bay area is not in a position to help on a fire in Red Lake. The rates put in AWS submissions are for a machine and operator, where the operator brings their lunch and goes home every night, not for putting operators up in hotels and supplying 3 meals a day, hundreds of kilometers from their home. Many times, the location of the fire is well removed from any hotels/restaurants, so they are traveling great distances each day, on top of long days on the fire line.
o Province should investigate other industries, highway contractors, mining contractors, etc to have a broader reach for equipment.
o Indemnification for people helping on fires should be looked at. Couple comments that I took note of during various meetings that I support. “Industry will not put their business at risk when they could be looked at as being at fault for trying to help” “Fire needs help- but you are on your own” “Industry needs to know they are covered on a fire should something go wrong”. This goes back to the point of sharing responsibility yet being charged or face cost recovery if something goes wrong. Is the government going to compensate for damages as a result of in effective response, or due to a decision to leave a fire to deal with a different fire?
o There was also a lot of discussion regarding keeping forest industry people in the bush, utilize them- trained, fire equipment etc.
 I have a little concern where this could go. There was discussion about forest industry taking a more involved role in fire suppression. We need to tread lightly to ensure we have properly trained, physically fit, with proper supervision (trained and experienced), and properly equipped to get into this business.
 Secondary to this, who will be responsible if something goes wrong. Who is working for who. Will this impact WSIB rates for contractors supplying fire fighters. Who is paying for proper PPE. Where is the line between fighting fires and harvesting wood?
 There was also discussion regarding shutting things down, which has a big impact on getting equipment if needed on a fire. We have run into issues getting people to run machines in the past due to this issue.
- Discussion question- Any thoughts on industries other then forestry.
o Key point is that we need to level the playing field. Forest industry is held to a much higher standard. If a back hoe is working on forest fuels, the risk is the same regardless of the industry it is working in. Training level, suppression equipment requirements, fuel groups etc, should all be the same, regardless of which industry it is working for.
- Discussion question- What types of information and tools would help industry with identifying and understanding wildland risk?
o Weather stations. We need more localized information. One weather station covering 40 km or more radius does not capture local conditions accurately. Couple this with the accuracy of the forecasting, we really don’t have good and accurate information with respect to the actual fire hazard on any particular site.
o Really need to start including the actual on site weather information into the decision process. We are often shutting down when there is low hazard (forecast for low RH and high winds, that do not materialize) and being allowed to work when the hazard is high (forecasted rain drops the MIOP codes).
o A MIOP app to help streamline and document the day to day application. I think this is a good idea that will help the entire process.
- There was discussion around the cost recovery. Some key points are:
o The consequence for starting a fire is the same, whether you follow the rules or not. In other words, you have two different contractors, one is following MIOP properly, has trained people, serviceable equipment etc, and you have one contractor that is not following MIOP, no fire equipment or trained people, they both will be faced with the same cost recovery. That is not right. Why should a contractor spend all the money, lost money due to shut downs etc if they are still going to pay for a fire. They are better off saving the cost of following the rules and pay the bill if they start a fire.
- I have one concern, or see a potential problem with the sharing of responsibility along with the cost of delivering fire prevention initiatives. How can there truly be a partnership, when one side has authority to charge and recover costs over the other party. I agree with sharing the responsibility and working more closely as partners, but if I run the risk of being charged, I will be guarded to protect my interests. This is something that truly needs to be addressed if there is going to be a true partnership relationship.

With respect to the Legislation
- I did go through the legislation and aside from a number of items that should really be in a regulation (disposal of refuse on land being cleared, smoking rules etc). Nothing else stood out to me. In the legislation for changes, aside for the comments above and below.

- Lots of items to comment on in the regulations, but they did mention that the regs will be looked at during stage 2.
- From the slide deck
o Improve awareness: there is mention about “providing authoritative information” I really think this need to be defined and/or clarified. I did mention this during the in-person session. My concern is that there are different meanings of authoritative. During one of the sessions, their definition of authority was one of being an expert, which is much different then one of “the power or right to give orders”. Who is going to interpret this 5 yrs from now when all the players are different?
o Enhance preparedness and response, they mention “standardizing the terms and conditions when privately owned equipment is used…” I think this is good, however I really hope we (industry) have some representation to help develop the standard terms and conditions. I really don’t think OMNRF have the knowledge or expertise to develop a workable set of terms and conditions.
o Strengthen rules and consequences and the point about enabling administrative monetary penalties. This really needs to get flushed out. Are the SFL’s going to be handed a monetary penalty because a contractor doesn’t have a 6A80BC fire extinguisher, or is the contractor going to get the penalty. It is about who is going to chase the final dollar down and who’s reputation is getting tarnished.