Environment Committee on June 3rd, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Is there any time to ask...?

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

I think there's time for a three-minute round, Mr. Fast, if you want to take that, and then we'll suspend the session and reset and get the next group going.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing here.

I noticed my colleague over here, Mr. Amos, tried to draw you into a political comment. I'm not going to do that. I think this is too important to politicize.

I'd like to talk a bit about the wetland restoration and expansion opportunities that we have to address some of our flooding challenges across Canada.

Mr. Amos already referenced some of the funding that is available federally for infrastructure development. Could you comment on the programs as you see them right now at the federal level that provide support for wetlands management and expansion, especially in the local communities, which is where I see a lot of it happening?

In my community of Abbotsford in British Columbia, there are a number of different urban wetlands that were preserved and that protected against urban sprawl, and today they're serving us very well in addressing flood challenges that occur from time to time.

I'd be interested in any of your comments, and I have one question for Ms. Lindsay.

[Bradley McNevin]

I can speak from my watershed perspective. While appreciating the fact that we get funding from the federal government for wetland protection and infrastructure, from our conservation authorities' perspective, we look at trying to protect the wetland before it gets destroyed. So, leave it intact. I'll say restrict development from impacting that development by keeping it outside of the boundaries, so it can function as it was meant to. My point of view would be that it would be better left intact and not to have to reinvent it after it's been impacted.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Ms. Lindsay, your organization, FPAC, represents the managed forest sector. Is that correct?

[Kate Lindsay]

Correct.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

In all of the research that your industry has done, when it comes to forest fires and forest fire mitigation, are there some actions you feel the federal government should take that would reduce the incidence of fires within managed forests?

[Kate Lindsay]

I think it would build on what I had mentioned earlier. The federal government has a lot of expertise in this area, considerable expertise across the Canadian Forest Service. A lot of the forest experts and fire experts are within many of those research stations across Canada, so I believe there is knowledge that can be shared.

I think a step in that approach is these vulnerability assessments, understanding what the specific vulnerabilities are in your region specific to fire, and then working collaboratively with multiple levels of government to advance those mitigation and adaptation measures, particularly around community safety and emergency preparedness.

There is a lot of great work happening on a small scale right now. Seeing where those opportunities are that could be further invested in and expanded is where I see the federal government taking a role.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank our three witnesses for being here today. We realize there is so much more time we could have spent on this, but as we are nearing the end of the session, we wanted to dedicate today to an issue that has been very important to Canadians—we're hearing a lot about it—and we'll have a bit of time on Wednesday on the same topic.

Thank you so much for bringing your thoughts to the table today. It's been fantastic, and this may be something the next Parliament will be able to pick up and really move forward on.

We're going to suspend now and switch out our witnesses, and then we'll get going again as soon as we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you to our next panel for being here for this discussion today.

From Calian Ltd., we Richard Moreau and Adrienne Ethier, and from FireRein, Quincy Emmons and William Stewart. We also have the Insurance Bureau of Canada, with Craig Stewart.

Welcome to all of you.

I believe that FireRein has a PowerPoint presentation, and we have the technology working right now, so I'm going to start with you for your 10-minute opening statement.

Then, we'll go to the other two and then into the questions and answers, as you just saw with the previous panel.

Welcome. I look forward to the conversation.

FireRein, if you would like to start, please proceed.

[Quincy Emmons, President, FireRein Inc.]

We would like to thank the chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee for allowing us to make our presentation.

I am Quincy Emmons, FireRein president and co-founder. Here today with me is FireRein's board chair, William Stewart, a distinguished leader within the Canadian fire service.

FireRein was founded by firefighters who discovered what was really in the firefighting chemicals we were using. FireRein's sustainable Eco-Gel formula is certified a 100% bio-based by the United States Department of Agriculture and by UL Environment, confirming that every ingredient comes from plants. In fact, the majority of our ingredients are grown by Canadian farmers.

Eco-Gel is used with traditional firefighting equipment to create a viscous coating that sticks and stays on horizontal, vertical and overhead surfaces to quickly extinguish fires. We basically make water stick. Eco-Gel can be applied as a fire prevention coating to protect adjacent structures from nearby fires or ahead of advancing wildfires to protect homes and businesses. Eco-Gel is made entirely of plant-based ingredients free of harmful chemicals.

Under pressure, Eco-Gel flows like water, but once that energy is removed, it will set in place within 10 to 15 seconds, allowing the firefighter to control their firewater runoff instead of that runoff flowing into waterways or leaching into the ground. FireRein Eco-Gel quickly cools and excludes oxygen from a fire, resulting in a rapid extinguishment.

Our climate is changing, and these mega-fires are becoming more common. Reports from the devastating Fort McMurray wildfire indicated that embers flying ahead of the fire ignited new fires to homes and businesses, which then required response resources to be pulled from other assignments. That created a snowball-like effect where the problem kept growing until available resources were overwhelmed.

Several reports indicate that carbon emissions from wildfires are significant, and are frequently not reported as they negatively skew statistics.

Currently, there are several long-term fire retardants approved for use in Canada for fighting wildfires; however, they are all owned by one company, just one. Warning labels on these products include comments such as “do not apply to green growing vegetation” and “do not spray in seasonal or year-round waterways.” Several reports, like the one you see there, show the harmful impact of the products currently being used.

The fire service has known for years the impacts of AFFF foams and their linkage to cancer. Firefighting foams are being banned all over the world because they contain cancer-causing chemicals. Firefighting foams are linked to drinking water contamination in hundreds of U.S. military bases, and even some Canadian towns like Mississippi Mills, Ontario.

During fire operations, large volumes of water containing these chemicals are applied. These chemicals bioaccumulate, meaning they just keep building up in humans, animals and ecosystems. They keep showing up many years after being applied. The environmental cleanup and health care cost, as well as potential legal implications, can be staggering, as you can see from some of the headlines.

FireRein is growing a safer and innovative firefighting solution right here in Canada. Eco-Gel is currently in use in multiple municipal fire departments and industrial facilities. FireRein has distributors across Canada eager to introduce it to new communities and new fields of use.

Eco-Gel is proven to be more effective than firefighting foams and gels. Eco-Gel knocks fires down in less time while using less water. Eco-Gel reduces the environmental impact of a fire by controlling firewater runoff and by not adding any harmful chemicals to an already dangerous situation. The ability to stick and stay where applied is key.

FireRein Eco-Gel is the first firefighting gel that is effective at fighting class B fuel fires as well as wildfires and class A structural fires. This gives fire departments a multi-use firefighting and fire prevention tool.

This Canadian report found firefighting gels to be more effective than long-term fire retardants. FireRein Eco-Gel could be used as a chemical-free coating on forests to create fire breaks and to assist fire crews with controlled burns without harming the trees. Controlled burns are needed for healthier forests.

FireRein Eco-Gel is certified safer, and reports show it's more effective.

We need the opportunity to prevent embers from growing fires into megafires, to apply Eco-Gel to land in order to protect property from fires and harmful chemicals, and to apply it directly to extinguish wildfires.

We need support: government support to increase awareness and share our story, government support to encourage agencies to be allowed to use Eco-Gel and government support to amend the rules that were changed in the 1970s and the 1980s to allow the use of chemicals on wildfires. We need help to amend these rules again to allow certified 100% plant-based product to be applied instead of harmful chemicals. Rules should be based on effectiveness and environmental impact.

Thank you again for this opportunity. We are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Excellent. That's very interesting, and we look forward to some good discussions on your product.

Let's go to Calian Ltd. next for their opening statements. I'll turn it over to you for 10 minutes.

[Richard Moreau, Director, Emergency Management Solutions, Calian Group Ltd.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for inviting us today to present our perspective on risk and natural disaster.

My name is Richard Moreau. I'm the director of emergency management solutions at Calian. My work in emergency management over the years has included risk assessment, developing plans, and developing exercise and training programs to assist our first responders in their ability to manage and respond to incidents and disasters, whether they be naturally based, man-based, or large security events. The angle that my colleague and I will be providing the committee with today is from the perspective of a science-based approach to emergency management and structures.

All natural disasters generate system-based challenges—in particular, with our response capacity, an ability to sustain it through the response and full recovery period. Our current structures and systems are not optimized or designed to sustain increasingly long response and recovery periods caused by more frequent and more severe extreme weather events.

One of the best ways to reverse the trend is to focus more resources into mitigation, adaptation and preparedness. The starting point for any appreciation of the natural disaster hazards caused to communities is an all-hazards risk assessment, also know as AHRA. The AHRA process is a systematic way of identifying the hazards that could exist and then defining the risks associated with those hazards. Unfortunately, since the vast majority of communities in Canada do not have an up-to-date all-hazards risk assessment, they don't clearly comprehend the impacts of the risks that are present in their communities.

In addition to the physical hazards, there are other systemic risks and impacts generated by our built environment. I'm talking here about the vulnerability of our infrastructure in the face of the increasing risk from the impacts of climate change. We are seeing an increase in the so-called 100-year events presenting challenges to our infrastructure, most of which was built based on older risk models that no longer reflect the current reality and future trends. Using new risk assessment models and approaches, up-to-date data and modelling tools will allow our emergency planners and decision-makers at all levels to better appreciate the risks and make better-informed decisions about investing in the right areas to better mitigate, prepare for and adapt to a changing environment.

For an example of such successful investment in mitigation, we can turn to the Winnipeg floodway. When it was built in the sixties, it cost about $60 million. It was then further improved with another investment of $600 million in the nineties. Current estimates show that as a result, up to $32 billion was saved in damages, response and recovery costs for that investment—a $44 return on investment. That's pretty good when we compare it with the norm in the industry, which is that for every dollar in mitigation and preparedness, we save $6 in response and recovery.

In addition to physical mitigation efforts, there are also organizational preparedness measures, the means of preparing those who will eventually be called upon to respond. Depending on the scale of the disaster, the response might include resources from all levels of government and also a wide range of external partners. Improving preparedness by all stakeholders requires them to plan and invest time in advance to practice their response. This will allow the time to focus on the problem quickly upon activation. At the end of the day, preparedness is about taking uncertainty from the onset of the event and allowing people to quickly transit into dealing with the situation they're faced with. This is part of a broader need to better prepare Canadian communities to face disasters. To do so, we need to shift our emphasis, currently placed on response and recovery, towards mitigation, capacity, preparedness and adaptation while maintaining a strong response capability.

Investment in mitigation and preparedness will deliver two benefits to improve community resilience. First, it will reduce the impact of disasters. Second, it will reduce the time required for recovery.

As we see an increased frequency in severity of natural disasters, we see some communities that have not fully recovered before the next disaster strikes. Down the Ottawa River this spring, we're seeing all kinds of examples of communities that were barely recovering from the 2017 flood before being hit again by the 2019 flood. This is not a sustainable model.

Emergency management truly requires a whole-of-society approach, meaning that all levels of government, industry, academia, local volunteer organizations and affected residents must be involved in disaster planning, mitigation and preparedness. Building more resilient communities will require a shift from a focus on response and recovery towards one on investment in mitigation, preparedness and adaptation.

I will now turn over the remainder of my time to my colleague, Dr. Adrienne Ethier, who is an accomplished expert in science-based risk modelling, and who will quickly summarize how available models and maps can be integrated to improve our capacity to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events, helping us to make better decisions and to build better for the future.

[Dr. Adrienne Ethier, Senior Scientist, Emergency Preparedness, Calian Group Ltd.]

I would like to start by thanking the committee for inviting us to attend today.

The visual aids that we shared with the committee weren't available in time, but they'll be available to you later and are intended to provide a sampling of existing data integration and risk communication tools based on validated data collection and/or predictive risk models that can be used to improve public risk communication. My remarks today will focus on how a science-based approach to risk planning adds valuable insights to mitigation and preparedness, and can inform better response plans.

Building on the existing knowledge base, we can improve how disaster is measured, visualized, communicated and understood before the disaster even strikes. To model future risks, environmental scientists and emergency planners should integrate existing science-based predictive models with GIS-based operational environmental maps that include water quality, land use, financial liability, economic risk, watershed characteristics, dams, hydrometric data, snow survey sites, and climate change in order to forecast the risk of floods, fires, and ice storms, and to complement or add to that knowledge with spatial analysis and/or data trends obtained from past disasters and regional traditional knowledge.

The results would be an integrated GIS-based predictive map that would use available data and knowledge on terrain and weather to simulate a range of possible outcomes based on a series of inputs. The current risk assessments generated are generally well understood by emergency planners and environmental scientists. However, the specifics of what that means to homeowners and the public are not well understood. Specifically, there's a gap in translating that risk assessment into information the public can understand. The outputs of science-based risk models should be presented to the public in a way that allows people to better understand the risks. This means using integrated predictive maps that clearly show high-risk areas and how the risk will manifest. This could include showing how high the water will rise in a flood, where the fire could burn, and how long the power could be knocked out based on the distance from the main power lines. The outcome of the natural disaster should be made clear to the public to emphasize exactly how they will be affected.

Any risk communication to the public is not a one-time activity. Therefore, accumulated GIS-based data on things such as snowpack, land-use activity, forest cover and expected water levels should be integrated into predictive models to clearly forecast and show the public the pending or immediate risk.

Once the extreme weather event has passed, the data required should then be used to update the model and risk profile to ensure that the model is and continues to be credible. For emergency managers and emergency planners, scenario-based experimentation is essential to planning for a range of possible outcomes. By manipulating the variables like expected rainfalls, warmer weather—

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Our translators are having an issue with keeping up, so could you slow down just a little bit? We want to make sure everybody gets the full benefit of what you're saying in both languages.

Back to you.

[Dr. Adrienne Ethier]

All right.

By manipulating the variables—like rainfall, warmer weather, melting snowpack—faster than expected, emergency planners can visualize a range of scenarios and optimize their planning. This could include prepositioning breakwaters and sandbags, doing rehearsals and preparation, or starting mobilization of volunteer networks in anticipation of the flooding.

Manipulating variables and risk models does not guarantee perfect forecasting of the magnitude of the risk. Nothing does. However, it does allow for a range of plausible outcomes to be presented to planners and decision-makers before a crisis, based on the best science we have available.

There is a cost to developing and working with the models. Data models need to be built and constantly revalidated. Data from mobile sources needs to be collected. Visual analytic products need to be developed. Decision-makers and planners need to be briefed on the range of possible outcomes. However, much of this data is already available for these models, collected by federal, provincial or municipal agencies. It is a question of integration to facilitate robust risk assessments and forecasts. The cost of integrating the risk models will inevitably be lower than the cost of response and recovery.

As we know from Dunrobin, just west of Ottawa, the cleanup of the flood of 2019 will also include cleanup of the last of the 2018 tornado debris. Fort McMurray is forever changed by the wildfire of 2016. Homes destroyed by fires and floods will have displaced entire communities and changed their attitudes and fabric forever. The question surrounding the social damage and social costs cannot be ignored, and neither can they be measured in the same way as money. This must be considered when developing risk assessment tools to improve our collective capacity for emergency management and public risk communication. Houses can be rebuilt. Communities can never be rebuilt the same way.

In conclusion, using integrated science-based predictive risk models and visual GIS-based maps will permit decision-makers and planners to better appreciate the potential risk to communities and individuals situated within their shared watershed. When these results are communicated to the public, they will provide a better appreciation of the complexity and magnitude of these collective risks. The maps and models needed to accomplish this for the most part already exist and need to be used more effectively, especially for public communication. The costs of doing so are marginal compared to the benefits this will provide in our capacity to forecast and plan for disasters.

Based on extreme weather trends that have been observed in the past few years and decades, it is crucial that we adopt a proactive and predictive approach to planning and preparedness and move away from the reactive approach that has been taken in the past.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Great. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Stewart, we will go over to you for your 10-minute opening statement from the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Thank you.

[Craig Stewart, Vice-President, Federal Affairs, Insurance Bureau of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation and opportunity to speak to you at the standing committee today on the subject of disaster mitigation and insurance.

I'm Craig Stewart, vice-president of federal affairs at the Insurance Bureau of Canada, or IBC. We are the national trade association representing Canada's private home, car and business insurers.

Eighteen months ago, after the 2017 floods across eastern Canada, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, appointed a national advisory council on flooding, largely embodied by two working groups: one dealing with the financial risk of residential flood, which I co-chair, and another dealing with flood mapping.

Our working group comprises representatives from four provinces, four federal departments, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, water utilities, several university think tanks, the Canadian Real Estate Association and a number of others. We presented the results of our work to ministers responsible for emergency management last May, and again in January 2019. We have been asked by these FPT ministers to design and cost alternatives to the present ad hoc Canadian system of bailing out those in harm's way with taxpayer dollars. Our report will be released publicly within days.

For context today, I would like to point out several facts. First, Canada has a climate adaptation plan as one of four pillars of the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change. Although we requested in 2016 that this plan deal comprehensively with flooding and made a thorough multi-partner submission to this effect, it does not do so.

Second, Canada has a new all-hazard national emergency management plan as a result of extensive ministerial and senior official discussions over the past three years. This spring we have already witnessed a much more effective response to the 2019 floods than 2017. The IBC congratulates the ministers responsible for emergency management who collaborated across political lines to make this plan a reality, and Canadians are already benefiting from it.

Third, my industry was founded on addressing the financial risk of fire to both individuals and communities. After 350 years we manage it reasonably well. Almost every single person who was affected in the Fort McMurray fire had insurance and was quickly reimbursed for their loss. Flooding is another story.

Fourth, flooding imperils far more Canadians than wildfire, wind or hail. Here are some numbers. In 2013, 3,000 buildings were flooded across Calgary, Alberta. In 2016, about 2,500 buildings were destroyed by the Fort Mac wildfire. In 2017, 5,300 homes were flooded in eastern Canada, particularly in New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. In 2018, the B.C. wildfires that raged all summer damaged 300 homes. In the spring of 2019, this year, 17,500 homes have been flooded across eastern and central Canada. These numbers do not account for the number of people flooded every year, in every province, from extreme rainfall events.

Yes, we do need to improve our response to wildfire. There are health issues from smoke inhalation that extend far beyond the fire zone itself. Wildfire is a growing hazard and IBC fully supports the implementation of the Canadian wildland fire strategy and, specifically, the widespread implementation of FireSmart programming.

Relatively speaking, flooding affects far more Canadians than any other natural peril and we are much further behind in our ability to help Canadians recover. Almost every single individual who suffers direct financial loss from wildfire is covered by insurance. They are not left in financial ruin. Flooding affects more people and, frankly, we do not have a coherent game plan for it.

Some provinces want to stop using taxpayer dollars to repair flooded residences. Others don't. Some provinces want to move people out of harm's way through home buyouts. Others don't. Some provinces still allow for building on flood plains. We have an ad hoc, non-prioritized system of funding flood infrastructure. Beyond improvements to emergency management, our approach to floods is uncoordinated.

Contrast this with the United States, where FEMA runs a sophisticated national high-risk flood insurance scheme run by the federal government; or with Great Britain, where a similar national scheme is run by private insurers. In both cases, funding for infrastructure deployment, strategic retreat options and citizen awareness initiatives are all coordinated with the insurance program. In fact, Canada is the only G7 country without a national coordinated approach to flooding.

Such an approach can only come through federal leadership. We have come a long way in the past two years, thanks to Minister Goodale's leadership, but that leadership must be sustained. This is a complex file.

This is why, as we head into a federal election, IBC is calling for a national action plan on flooding, built on the lessons learned from the work of our National Advisory Council on Flood Risk.

There are approximately one million homes, or 10% of all residences across the country, at high risk. In late 2015 property and casualty insurers brought overland flood insurance to the market and we now estimate that 80% of Canadians do have access to overland flood insurance. However, there are certain areas in Canada where, in many of them, the risks are simply too high for the insurance market to normally support.

IBC believes that a national action plan on flooding should focus on three key pillars: educate, protect and change.

First, on education, governments and the private sector should use flood maps to educate and empower consumers to reduce their own risks. The federal government should make an immediate surge investment through Natural Resources Canada to improve the quality of terrain data, which is the foundation of all flood mapping in the public and private sector, whether you're a municipality or a private insurer.

Our base terrain maps must be improved from 30 metres in resolution to at least five metres. For two straight years the Canadian Centre for Mapping has sought funds for this purpose, but has unfortunately been declined.

Then the federal government should create an authoritative online portal where consumers, businesses, realtors, mortgage lenders and others can access flood maps and convey both the personal level of risk and what can be done to address it. International research shows that if consumers and businesses do not know their level of risk, they're not likely to do anything about it. This past January federal, provincial and territorial ministers of emergency management underscored the urgent need for such a portal.

The second pillar is protection. In short, we should move a few, then insure and protect the rest. Homes at the highest risk of repeated flooding should be relocated or elevated. If they repeatedly flood, they simply cannot be insured. We cannot move one million homes, though, which is why strategic retreat must fit hand in glove with coordinated infrastructure upgrades, such as flood defences and a national high-risk insurance scheme similar to what is offered in Great Britain.

Allow me to spend a minute on this. Insurance, simply put, is a mechanism for risk transfer. If you are at risk of flooding or wildfire, you pay an insurer to take that risk for you, in full or in part. The insurer will then reward you or your community for lowering that risk. If your community builds a fire station or if you install smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, you are limiting the risk to the insurer and the insurer lowers your premiums as a reward.

Insurance is built on a system of incentives firmly rooted in behavioural economics. However, if you rely on taxpayer-funded bailouts there are no incentives to lower your own risk. This is why ministers of emergency management have asked the national advisory council to cost and design a high-risk insurance pool among other possible options for protecting Canadians.

In such a pool property owners would pay premiums that are as risk-based as possible, but to ensure affordability and take-up, these premiums would be capped and subsidized through a range of possible mechanisms. The pool would reward community and individual-level investments in flood defences, and these defences should include consideration of the role that natural infrastructure plays and the means needed to financially incent the restoration or conservation of those wetlands, riparian forests and coastal dune systems where they play a role in protecting us.

You've heard quite a bit about the merits of natural infrastructure, so let me illustrate with an example. Ninety-five per cent of southwestern Ontario has been cleared for agricultural purposes. The highest per capita loss area in the entire country, according to our flood modelling, is Windsor, Ontario. This is not a coincidence.

Financially, we need to develop the explicit mechanisms where natural infrastructure is factored into insurance schemes and communities are rewarded for restoring or conserving the forests and wetlands that protect them, such as how generations ago we incented communities to build fire stations.

Finally, a national action plan on flooding should focus on changing our land use and permitting practices. We should look at the model practice of conservation authorities in Ontario or the Fraser Basin Council in B.C. and determine how to strengthen them and leverage such approaches in other jurisdictions.

We should implement the new climate change considerations being developed for the national model building code in all jurisdictions as soon as possible.

In concluding, thank you once again, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to present to you today. As we contemplate our approaches to climate change over the next few months, Canada's property and casualty insurers have a clear message. If adapting to flood is not an explicit part of your climate plan, your plan is not relevant to the single greatest climate threat facing this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John Aldag]

Thank you. We really appreciate those opening comments.

I should mention that we're using the same card system as before: the first card will show there is one minute left and that you should wrap it up without cutting off in mid-sentence.

For the first six-minute round, I have Mr. Bossio.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for being here today. It was great testimony and valuable information for this important study that we're doing, especially at this time of year with the flooding and the wildfires happening at the same time.

Actually, I think it's appropriate that Quincy is between the two of you, because his product can help. Once you guys have identified the risk, his product can help to mitigate that risk; and on the insurance side, he can help to minimize the impact of these wildfires. Sorry, I know it's not a joking matter, but I am so proud to know that there is a company in my riding like FireRein that has created such an innovative and very valuable product, especially given what we're dealing with in climate change.

Quincy, I'm also really happy about the fact that our government helped to provide you and your company with some valuable funds to allow you to continue to develop that product and grow your team, so that we now have this product available today.

Can you give us some understanding of some of the barriers that exist now for innovative companies like yours to be able to get this product to market, and to market quickly?

[Quincy Emmons]

Our biggest problem to date is that our product is not a firefighting foam, so there's the box. The tests have to be done for foam and ours is a gel. There isn't a gel test per se. We're in the process of building our own gel test with UL. Unfortunately it has to be done in the U.S. There are no testing bodies in Canada for our product or other firefighting products. Everything goes down to the U.S.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's what's interesting, because CSA isn't good enough as far as standardization is concerned. You have to get UL, which then forces you down to the U.S.

[Quincy Emmons]

Yes.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

It delays; and of course the companies you're competing against are American companies, so they don't have as much incentive to get you that UL accreditation as quickly.

Here we have hazardous-based toxic products that are being used, as you know, being a firefighter yourself, and Zachery, your partner in crime, both being firefighters. That's what drove you to create this product. You've seen the impacts of these toxic products first hand.