This article is part of a series of posts led by CHASI Research Associate Len Garis, who has been a long-time partner of CHASI through his work with the National Indigenous Fire Safety Council. His guest blog posts explore a wide range of topics related to firefighting and firefighters in Canada. You can read all of his guest articles at this link.
CHASI’s collaborations with the NIFSC, and many of their other research works, can be found on our NIFSC Publications page. For questions about the NIFSC and their work, please visit their contact page.
Wildfire Risk in Indigenous Communities: What Canada’s Fire Service Needs to Know
By Len Garis & Mandy Desautels
Wildfire seasons in Canada are no longer defined by peaks and valleys—they are defined by escalation. The 2023 season burned more than 18 million hectares, the largest in recorded history, and 2024 and 2025 continued the trend. For fire service leaders, the operational reality is clear: extreme wildfire years are now the baseline. But within this national crisis lies a sharper, more urgent truth—Indigenous communities face wildfire risk at levels unmatched anywhere else in the country.
A new national analysis from the National Indigenous Fire Safety Council (NIFSC) provides the strongest evidence to date that wildfire risk in First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities is not simply higher—it is structurally and systemically elevated. As the report states, “Indigenous communities in Canada face disproportionately higher wildfire risk across every measured dimension—ignition exposure, fatality rates, suppression access, smoke duration, evacuation frequency, and recovery capacity.”
For fire service professionals, this is not an abstract policy issue. It is an operational imperative.
The Eight-to-One Risk Gap
One of the most striking findings in the NIFSC report is the sheer magnitude of the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. According to the linked National Fire Database (NFDB)–Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD) analysis, “18.9% of people living on Indigenous reserves reside in areas at higher fire risk, compared to only 2.4% of the non-reserve population.”
This is an eight‑to‑one ratio.
The implications for fire service planning are profound. High‑risk zones are not evenly distributed across Canada—they are concentrated in the boreal and sub‑boreal regions where many Indigenous communities were historically displaced. These landscapes burn more frequently, more intensely, and for longer durations. Lightning-caused fires dominate these regions, accounting for 83% of total area burned nationally, and they often ignite far from detection infrastructure.
For remote Indigenous communities, this means fires burn longer before suppression resources arrive, smoke exposure lasts days or weeks, and evacuation becomes a recurring event rather than an exception.
Evacuations: A Disproportionate Burden
The report highlights a statistic that should command national attention: “Indigenous communities account for approximately 42% of wildfire evacuations despite representing only 5% of Canada’s total population.”
This is not simply a matter of geography. It is a matter of infrastructure.
Many Indigenous communities have:
- single-access evacuation routes (one road, one airstrip, or seasonal access only)
- no local fire department or trained wildland personnel
- limited communications infrastructure
- inadequate water systems for suppression
The Collins First Nation event in July 2026 illustrates the stakes. As the report documents, “members self‑evacuated by personal boats as fire reached trees adjacent to homes; no coordinated emergency service support was available.”
For fire service leaders, this is a critical warning: standard emergency response frameworks do not fit the realities of remote Indigenous communities.
Housing Conditions: The Structural Fire Risk Multiplier
Wildfire risk is only part of the story. Structural fire vulnerability amplifies the danger.
The report notes that “Indigenous Peoples were approximately three times more likely to live in housing in need of major repair.”
This is not a cosmetic issue—it is a life-safety issue.
Housing deficits directly correlate with fatality rates. Research synthesized in the report shows Indigenous fatality rates are:
- 10× higher for heating equipment fires
- 9× higher for cooking equipment fires
- 5× higher for electrical fires
These are preventable ignition categories. They reflect aging heating systems, overcrowding, inadequate smoke alarm coverage, and limited access to certified installation or maintenance services.
For fire departments, this means prevention—not suppression—is the most effective intervention.
Ignition Patterns: A Dual Threat
The NFDB data reveals two distinct ignition profiles affecting Indigenous communities:
1. Lightning-Caused Fires (Remote North)
Lightning accounts for nearly half of all ignitions but 83% of area burned. These fires ignite in remote boreal regions where Indigenous communities are concentrated. Detection delays are common, and suppression resources may take days to arrive.
2. Human-Caused Fires (Southern WUI)
Human-caused ignitions cluster near roads, railways, recreation areas, and WUI zones—many of which intersect with southern First Nations reserves. The report notes that “incendiary wildland fires represent approximately 35% of incidents near Indigenous community boundaries (vs. 12% near non-Indigenous communities).”
This dual threat means Indigenous communities face both the largest fires and the most preventable fires.
Machine Learning Confirms the Pattern
The report’s machine-learning analysis adds a new dimension to the evidence. Using Random Forest and CatBoost models[1] (92–93% accuracy), deprivation quintile emerges as a top predictor of:
- wildfire exposure
- fire incident frequency
- fatality rate
- fire size and duration
The report states: “CIMD deprivation quintile is a top predictor of wildfire exposure and fatality when spatially joined with NFDB incident data.”
This means wildfire risk is not random—it is predictable, measurable, and structurally linked to socioeconomic conditions.
For fire service leaders, this is a powerful tool: risk can be mapped, forecasted, and targeted.
Operational Implications for Canada’s Fire Service
The NIFSC report identifies three operational imperatives that align directly with fire service responsibilities: mitigation, response, and recovery.
1. Targeted Mitigation
FireSmart programs must be adapted—not simply delivered—to Indigenous communities. Co-design is essential. The report recommends:
- Indigenous-led FireSmart liaison positions
- housing remediation targeted to CIMD Q4–Q5 areas[2]
- smoke alarm installation and maintenance programs
- integration of Indigenous Traditional Fire Knowledge
For fire departments, this means building long-term partnerships, not short-term projects.
2. Culturally Adapted Response
Remote Indigenous communities require response frameworks that differ from municipal models. Priorities include:
- pre-positioning suppression resources before peak season
- Indigenous-led wildfire response teams
- multi-modal evacuation plans (air, water, land)
- dedicated health support during evacuations
The Collins First Nation event demonstrates the consequences of not having these systems in place.
3. Sustained Recovery
Recovery in Indigenous communities is longer, more complex, and more culturally significant. The report highlights:
- traditional land disruption
- food system loss
- water contamination
- long-term mental health impacts
Fire departments play a role in recovery through community support, continuity of prevention programs, and collaboration with Indigenous leadership.
Why This Matters to Fire Service Leaders
The NIFSC report is not simply a research document—it is a call to action for Canada’s fire service.
Three realities stand out:
1. Wildfire risk is now a structural inequity.
The eight-to-one disparity is not acceptable in any other emergency management context.
2. Fire departments are central to the solution.
From prevention to evacuation to recovery, fire services are the frontline interface between risk and resilience.
3. Indigenous communities are rights-holders, not vulnerable populations.
Effective wildfire management must be designed in partnership with Indigenous Nations, not delivered to them.
As the report concludes, “The time for further study is past. The time for sustained, adequately resourced, and rights-respecting action is now.”
Conclusion: A New Mandate for Canada’s Fire Service
Canada’s fire service is entering a new era—one defined by climate-driven extremes, escalating wildfire seasons, and widening disparities in risk. Indigenous communities are at the centre of this challenge, and the evidence is unequivocal: they face the highest wildfire risk in the country, the greatest suppression gaps, and the longest recovery timelines.
For fire service leaders, the path forward is clear:
- Strengthen partnerships with Indigenous Nations.
- Adapt FireSmart and prevention programs to community realities.
- Support Indigenous-led wildfire response capacity.
- Advocate for equitable infrastructure and suppression resources.
Wildfire risk is not evenly distributed. Our response cannot be either.
Authors
Len Garis is director of research for the National Indigenous Fire Safety Council, Ret. Fire Chief for the city of Surrey, B.C., Research Associate – University of the Fraser Valley associate scientist emeritus with the B.C. Injury Research and Prevention Unit. Contact him at lwgaris@outlook.com.
Mandy Desautels is Chief Administrative Officer at the National Indigenous Fire Safety Council. Prior to joining NIFSC, she worked for BC Emergency Health Services and prominent NGOs. Contact her at mandy.desautels@indigenousfiresafety.ca.
[1] CatBoost is an open-source machine-learning algorithm that uses gradient-boosted decision trees. It is designed to work effectively with categorical variables—such as community type, region, or deprivation quintile—alongside numerical data, allowing the model to identify which factors are most strongly associated with the outcomes being predicted.
[2] The Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD) groups geographic areas into five deprivation quintiles, from Q1 to Q5. In this context, Q4 and Q5 identify areas with comparatively higher levels of deprivation across the index’s socioeconomic measures, with Q5 representing the highest-deprivation group.