What could have been done isn't really in the context of the time frame that's being discussed here. What can be done is what I've mentioned: investing in those ground-level, long-term, sustained roles in wildfire management that take into account local realities, that decentralize decision-making and that incorporate indigenous knowledge of the landscape and the factors that affect wildfires and how they behave on the landscape.

It's really about relationship building. It's about truth and reconciliation, and it's about understanding that, right now, these conversations live and die at liability. That's where the buck really stops when it comes to prevention. So many indigenous fire stewards, communities and wildfire practitioners are waiting, raring to go, to put fire on the land to prevent these disasters and prevent these tragedies, but it all stops with liability.

You have forest rangers who make virtually nothing. They have two-year diplomas. It's an old boys' club. They get a proposal for a burn that comes onto their desks, and they have to pick up the liability for that. They know darn well that this is a politicized event. If it goes over two hectares of the control lines, that's their pension. That's food on their table that they have to consider when they're signing off on these things.

If we step back and actually have an honest conversation, this is a natural phenomenon. It doesn't exist in a box. You can't put a little grid on a map and say that is exactly where the burn is going to start, stop and end. You're there monitoring the conditions—not saying that on July 10 you're going to burn. You're sitting there with the community and saying that, when the conditions are right, you're ready to go.

It's about empowering that level. That's what can be done. It's about removing that bureaucratic tape. It's about not putting people in positions where they have to take their career into their own hands by doing the right thing.