Foresty Ministry Transformation

February 6, 2002

The following is from a leaked Ministry of Forestry document. It is the government songsheet for explaining its gutting of the Ministry of Forests.

Protection

Key Messages:

Fire suppression and fire management will remain a core ministry business with partial recovery costs from clients.
There will be no reduction in the level of fire suppression and fire management services.
The ministry is introducing a new cost recovery mechanism to recover the costs of fighting fires on behalf of tenure holders, private landowners outside municipalities and utility agencies.
Currently, there is an arduous "after the fire" billing system in place that often results in litigation. Moving to an insurance-type payment system will streamline administrative costs and reduce expenses associated with litigation.
The government will retain the right to suppress any fires threatening public safety or Crown resources. Licensees are currently liable to the Crown for any expenses incurred by government in suppressing a fire caused by licensees. That will continue to be the case.
These changes will be incorporated in a Wildland Fire Act that will be drafted and in place by April 2004.
The protection program will continue to work to improve its fire-fighting relationship with municipalities.

Questions and Answers:

1. When will the cost recovery and new liabilities legislation take effect?
The cost recovery and liabilities legislation will be phased in starting April 1, 2003, and completed by April 2004, when the Wildland Fire Act is proclaimed. It is intended that these issues will be incorporated within the timeframe of the Results Based Code.

2. What impact will the emphasis on cost recovery have on organizational structure, and staffing levels?
Program efficiencies will continue to be sought, as was done in 1995. They make take the form of a number of options including but not limited to amalgamation or relocation of facilities, fire crew reconfigurations and industry/other agency partnerships. Many of these options are still being considered, and more information is expected soon.

3. What impact will these changes have on staff?
The Protection Branch will experience both a funding reduction and amalgamation of some administrative functions to achieve efficiency savings immediately. In 2003/04, government funding will be further reduced as funding partnerships are developed with industry and other client groups. At the same time further program efficiencies will be achieved through a broader sharing of fire fighting activities which will result in Protection Branch savings that will benefit this ministry. Health and safety of fire fighters and the general public will remain the highest priority of the Wildfire Protection Program.

4. Will staff training related to the new legislation be required?
Yes, but expect the new legislation to be clearer and less subject to varied interpretation than the existing Act and Regulation.

5. What plans are in place to communicate these changes to stakeholders and the public? Do you expect licensees and private landowners to be upset at the prospect of paying for services they have received for free in the past?
We will communicate these changes to industry through the consultation process for the Results-based code. We are also planning consultation with the public and other stakeholders, which will start later this spring.

6. With an increased emphasis on cost recovery, will there be a greater emphasis on financial administration and planning?
The current process to recover suppression costs is inefficient and very time consuming for all involved, often resulting in lengthy litigation. However, the current revenue recovery arrangements are relatively free from administrative hassles and paper work. We hope to mirror these arrangements. There will be continued emphasis on planning, because clear fire suppression and fire management decisions around wanted and unwanted wildfire are extremely important.

7. How do prescribed burns and fire ecology management plans fit into this structure? How does the shift in liability affect fire management?
The challenge is to establish financial liability limits without stifling the use of fire as an effective land management tool. Results Based Code requirements, licensee accountability and professional reliance will require that fire management planning, the application of fire on the land base and prevention policies and practices will be incorporated by the industry in their overall forest management objectives and strategies.

8. Does this create a need for new risk management procedures? What will they look like and how will they be put into place?
There are some risk management issues: in particular, response priorities and expectations. These will be addressed in the legislation and policy. A review of our compliance and enforcement practices, and most of the new Results Based Code, will also be necessary. Protection issues will be incorporated in the new compliance and enforcement structure.

9. Will this reduce the cost of providing forest protection to the province? By how much?
Although there will be some reduction in the cost to government, the cost of providing fire protection to the province will remain similar. It is expected that the level of service will improve through efficiencies and that periphery costs such as loss of production and legal fees will diminish.

10. How will costs be recovered from clients? Will they be billed directly, or will a tax of some kind be levied?
The actual cost recovery model has not yet been determined. Given what occurs in other jurisdictions it could be a combination of a number of options such as partnerships, insurance surcharges, agreements and stumpage offset.

Fire Protection for Private landowners outside municipalities. Currently fire suppression on private land is the responsibility of the landowner and any aid provided by government is a debt due, payable on demand.

The new model would provide a means to provide the service to the landowner that would be funded through a levy. The contribution from each landowner would be quite low and collectively, would provide a wildland fire suppression service at no additional cost to the landowner.

It would be not unlike the fire service provided by the municipalities where if you are unfortunate to have a house fire, the fire department responds and you are not billed additional costs.
Crown tenures. Through partnerships (as in Quebec), or some form of upfront funding (protection tax, stumpage, levy, based on historical fire activity), government would provide effective and efficient fire suppression services through economy of scale. In most cases industry is now responsible for suppressing fires.

The new scheme would relieve them from maintaining trained fire suppression crews and resources allowing them to continue business. It is not expected that there would be an added cost to industry at the same time reducing periphery cost such as production down time and litigation costs.
Improvements and facilities on leases. At this time considerable government moneys are spent protecting improvements such as microwave towers, transmission lines, etc at no cost to the owner. There would be an addition to the lease fees to cover off these added costs and in turn provide a level of certainty that the improvements would be protected from fire.
Federal and Treaty Settlement Lands. Provide service by fee for service arrangements.

11. What happens if a fire starts on private land, and quickly spreads to Crown land?
The Forest Service will continue to suppress fires threatening public safety or Crown resources. There will be no change in the way the ministry physically fights fires, the proposed changes are designed so the government can better recover the costs associated with fighting those fires.

12. How much money can be recovered from different clients?
In total, about $45 million on average could be recovered from clients each year. The distribution of fire occurrence is:

about 25 per cent on lands held by the forest industry;
16 per cent on private land outside organized areas;
5 per cent on Federal and Indian Reserve lands; and
3 per cent on railway and utilities occupied lands.

It is expected the recovery percentages from these sources would be somewhat similar.

13. Would there be any penalties involved in this system, against those in the forest who cause fires?
This cost recovery system will do away with the current procedures used to penalize those who cause forest fires. The current system, requiring the Crown to sue for damages in civil court, is inefficient. It leads to protracted litigation and appeals. The penalties and remedies for the careless use of fire will be contained in the new Wildland Fire Act and be applied in a simpler and more consistent manner.