THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 30, 2025
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met with videoconference this day at 8:03 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on the growing issue of wildfires in Canada and the consequential effects that wildfires have on forestry and agriculture industries, as well as rural and Indigenous communities, throughout the country.
Senator John M. McNair (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, everyone. My name is John McNair, and I am the deputy chair of the committee. Welcome to the members of the committee, our witnesses and everyone watching this meeting on the web.
I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which we gather is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
Before we hear from our witnesses for today, I would like to start by asking the senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Martin: Good morning. Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Varone: Toni Varone from Ontario.
Senator Robinson: Mary Robinson from Prince Edward Island.
Senator McBean: Marnie McBean, Ontario.
Senator Sorensen: Karen Sorensen, Alberta.
Senator Muggli: Tracy Muggli, Treaty 6 territory, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all.
I wish to ask all senators to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. Do not touch the microphone; it will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while your microphone is on. You may either keep it on your ear or place it on the designated sticker.
Today, the committee is continuing its study on the topic of the growing issue of wildfires in Canada and the consequential effects that wildfires have on forestry and agriculture industries.
For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming the following witnesses: Nicola Cherry, Professor Emeritus at the University of Alberta; and Claire M. Belcher, Professor of Wildland Fire and Director of the wildFIRE Lab at the University of Exeter in the U.K. From the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, we welcome Jill Verwey, First Vice-President; and Maria Alkayed, Manager of Environmental Policy and Regulatory Affairs. Thank you all for agreeing to appear before our committee.
Each of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators.
Dr. Cherry, the floor is yours, so I will turn it over to you for your remarks.
Nicola Cherry, Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, as an individual: Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here and to know that Canada is taking seriously the effects of wildfire, particularly on my area of concern: the firefighters who go into the field and try to manage the wildfires.
I am sure you are all aware, but let me note that the firefighters who fight wildland fires are very different from the firefighters who fight urban fires that you are likely most familiar with. They are different in important ways, not least that they are, on the whole, seasonal workers who work only during the fire season. They might work over many fire seasons, but they are only employed from April or May to October. They live in wildfire smoke much of the time. They do not simply rush in, put out the fire and then disappear. They are breathing wildfire smoke for days on end, particularly if they are sleeping in camps.
Most of the information we have about the effects of firefighting on firefighters’ health is based on studies that have been done on urban firefighters. They are exposed to different sorts of hazards than the wildland firefighters. Until recently, we’ve had very little information about the effects of wildfire smoke on the firefighters themselves.
Even though they are often working for many hours or days at a time, an important difference between wildland and structural firefighters is that, traditionally, wildland firefighters wear no respiratory protection. Over the last few years, at the University of Alberta, we have been looking at two related questions: First, what evidence do we have that repeated exposures to wildfire smoke are affecting the health of wildland firefighters? I will talk about that question briefly. Second, does wearing respiratory protection have a role in diminishing or mitigating the risks to the wildland firefighters in the field?
Regarding how good the evidence is that exposure affects the health of firefighters, whether it’s massive concentrations of smoke, such as we had in the Fort McMurray fire in the north of Alberta — intense exposures over a relatively short period — or repeated exposures over a longer period, from what we have been doing, the answer to both of those questions is, yes, either massive exposures or repeated lower exposures cause chronic respiratory ill health in wildland firefighters.
That was the first issue we wanted to resolve for ourselves and for the firefighting community. There is little question that long‑term harm to the respiratory system does result from fighting these sorts of fires.
The second question was: Can we mitigate that risk by wearing masks? The important thing here is, traditionally, wildland firefighters do not wear any sort of respiratory protection.
From the studies we have done over three fire seasons in Alberta and British Columbia, we have good evidence that wearing a mask can reduce the amount of toxic substances absorbed from particulates. Again, there is very little difference. There is probably no contention that wearing a mask would not be a good idea for wildland firefighters. On the whole, they don’t for a number of reasons. We need not go into all of them here, but they don’t largely because much of the time in the field, exposures are low. Wearing a mask is uncomfortable. You can’t legislate they should be wearing masks the whole time. It would be unreasonable to do that. They would not be able to do their job properly if they did.
The question is: Given we know that repeated exposures to the smoke damage their health and that masks can reduce the effect on their health, how do we introduce the necessity to wear a mask under bad conditions? We believe, from the work we have been doing, that the best way to do that is to educate the firefighters so that they can — themselves — make the decision about when it is important to do so. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Cherry. We appreciate your opening statement.
Ms. Belcher, the floor is yours for your opening remarks.
Claire M. Belcher, Professor of Wildland Fire, wildFIRE Lab, University of Exeter, as an individual: Thank you for your interest in U.K. wildfires. We are pleased to hear that you wish to hear from us.
The last few years have seen a major shift in the U.K.’s wildfire activity. This year, the U.K. experienced its first ever megafire and saw the greatest ever total area burned with close to 50,000 hectares burned, which is nearly double the previous high. Over recent years, there have been out-of-the-ordinary heat waves, and the July heat wave of 2022 saw the first major loss of homes in the U.K., where 16 homes were destroyed by wildfire in Greater London.
This heat wave led to a 21% increase in fires on farmlands, and annual agricultural losses due to fires have been as high as £110 million in recent years. Forestry losses due to wildfires in the U.K. have currently been minimal, although significant events have occurred over the last decade. The U.K.’s large-scale fires typically occur in moorlands underlain by peat and have major ecological consequences and implications for long-term carbon stores, as well as impacting rural communities via loss of grazing and negative consequences for the tourism industry.
However, the high number of small fires that burn at the U.K.’s peri-urban interface puts people, property and infrastructure at significant risk and danger. In total, the U.K.’s wildfires of 2025 have estimated to cost a total of some £460 million.
The year 2022 served as a wake-up call for anyone in the U.K. doubting the importance of wildfire preparedness, and it highlighted the lack of official and connected processes that should enable fire and rescue services to respond proactively to upcoming threats. Over the last five years, a range of positive mitigations and adaptations have been put in place, including ad hoc arrangements that encourage close working between fire and rescue services and other agencies, including forestry, charities and private landowners, during wildfire events. In addition, the government through the Forestry Commission has supported the development of accredited wildfire training, building resilience within the land management sector.
Unlike Canada and the U.S., the U.K. does not have firefighters trained only to fight wildfire. In the last few years, new accredited wildfire training has been delivered by the Fire Service College to arrange fire and rescue services. Perhaps the most significant addition has been the creation of a group of wildland fire tactical advisers. These tactical advisers can be rapidly mobilized to provide safety and tactical advice to wildfire incident commanders.
In the last year, the U.K.’s first wildfire behaviour prediction system has been built and launched as a free web app called FireInSite. This was built by a team of U.K. academics to predict the probability of ignition and the potential resulting fire behaviour in U.K. fuel types. The fire service has recently reported that FireInSite has provided an excellent ability to plan and allocate resources at active fire events.
Collaborations between the U.K. and Canada for wildfire would be of significant benefit. The U.K. government Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs holds the U.K. mandate for wildfires, but I am currently unaware of any formalized collaborations between this department and any Canadian government agency in respect to wildfires. The longest established collaboration I’m aware of began in 1995 with the experimental forest fires in the Canadian Northwest Territories, and these are the only crown fire experiments worldwide that are carried out on a regular basis. Moreover, both researchers and the U.K. fire service have links with the National Fire Protection Association to deliver wildfire prevention material, policies and strategies. The U.K. has connected with community-based strategies, including FireSmart from Canada and Firewise from the U.S. Firewise communities have now been established in the U.K. under a memorandum of understanding from the National Fire Protection Association.
A recent round table workshop of international wildfire researchers, including those from Canada and the U.S., identified a set of critical research directions required to enhance prediction, resilience and capability with a focus on our nations. Specifically, it was noted that model development and the understanding of processes linking fire and fuel management and smoke emissions largely rely on data currently lacking or mostly outdated, particularly owing to observations that fire has been changing over the past five years.
Canada and the U.S. have long-established fire danger rating systems whilst the U.K. has recently developed FireInSite. All of these, however, have their basic underlying equations rooted in many decades-old science. These need retesting for both existing ecosystems that exhibit new wildfire extremes and for new regions that are becoming fire prone, if we are to future-proof them. There have also been calls to include prediction of peat fire risk and smouldering fire behaviour, as well as forecasting for smoke dispersion.
The U.K., Canada and the U.S. have leading experts in these fields and whilst all work independently on improvements to these problems, a transnational collaboration in this area would lead to significantly more efficient progress in these key areas.
Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your comments, Ms. Belcher. Ms. Verwey, it is your turn now.
Jill Verwey, First Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Jill Verwey. I am the First Vice-President of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, or CFA, and a fourth‑generation farmer based near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba.
CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization, representing approximately 190,000 farm families from coast to coast to coast. It is both as a farmer and as the CFA Vice‑President that I stand before you today with a deep sense of urgency and responsibility.
This past summer, our province faced one of the most devastating forest fire seasons in recent memory. The Winnipeg Free Press reported at the time that as of July, nearly 5 million acres of land had burned in our province alone. Nationally, it was the second-worst wildfire season on record since 2023.
I saw first-hand how the resilience of our farmers was tested yet again as health officials in my province warned the public and farmers this past June about the serious health risks of exposure to thick smoke from wildfires to farmers and livestock. Farmers were advised to wear N95 masks, and livestock showed signs of respiratory distress. Thousands of people and animals were evacuated.
Wildfires are no longer rare events. Across Canada, they are becoming more frequent, more intense and more destructive to the agriculture sector. Just a few short years ago in 2022, a major wildfire ripped through the Okanagan Valley in B.C. Smoke exposure altered grape development, affecting both harvest timing and flavour profiles. This has had long-term implications for wine quality and marketability in one of Canada’s most productive wine regions. This is just one recent example. Direct effects of wildfires include damage to crops, livestock, machinery and infrastructure. The indirect effects can be even more severe and devastating.
When farmers are displaced — especially evacuating high‑precision operations, including greenhouses and livestock — they often return to devastation. When smoke persists for several days and weeks, it negatively affects crop yields, both in quantity and quality, as well as the health of livestock and pollinators.
Ash from wildfires can even have a negative effect on soil health, affecting future seasons. Farmers are on the front lines of this crisis. We are stewards of the land and we feel the effects acutely. Our crops, our animals and our infrastructure are all vulnerable. Yet, despite our best efforts, the tools we rely on are falling short.
We need to have and maintain a forum for information sharing among the affected provinces and sectors — even internationally — on best practices and on emergency management planning for agriculture in the face of wildfires.
Finally, and most importantly, the current business risk management programs are not designed for this new reality. They are not fit for purpose when disasters strike with such frequency and intensity.
But we have this opportunity: With the renewal of our five‑year federal-provincial-territorial agricultural policy framework, we can take a fresh look at our risk management programs to ensure that they are responsive, predictable and accessible.
We can build a system that reflects the challenges of today and prepares us for the uncertainties of tomorrow — one that protects our farmers, our rural communities and our national food security.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all for your opening statements. We will now proceed to questions from senators.
Senators, you have five minutes for your questions and that includes the answer or response.
Senator Muggli: Thank you to all of you for being here. Are we able to ask questions to Dr. Cherry?
The Deputy Chair: You can ask questions, yes.
Senator Muggli: I was not sure about the interpretation.
Dr. Cherry, I wonder if you could tell us this: In some of your work or discoveries around mental health, specifically the experience of mental health for firefighters, what does that look like, and was there any recommended approach preventively to build resilience or post-care? I’m wondering if your work or work that you are aware of was able to delve into that and what that looks like.
Ms. Cherry: Certainly given the work we did with former firefighters, we looked a lot at the mental health aspects of deployments to the fire and found that certainly when fire services provided mental health support for their firefighters, the firefighters had fewer effects from being to the fire, such as less depression and less anxiety, than those who were working for units that did not provide that sort of support. That was, I think, an important result of our inquiries into mental health.
The firefighters, as you might expect, are also more likely to get a diagnosis of PTSD than people working in the community not as firefighters.
So there is evidence that working as a firefighter can be detrimental to mental health, and support can reduce that effect.
With the wildland firefighters, it is a slightly more complicated message in the sense that people who volunteer and who are employed as seasonal firefighters have rather less mental ill health in the year in which they volunteer, whereas if you look at their cumulative exposure over many years, again, it does affect their mental health. There is evidence both from the wildland firefighters and the structural firefighters that mental health is an important consideration to ill health in firefighters.
Senator Muggli: What might we do to provide the right kind of support preventively for wildfire firefighters as it relates to mental health?
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Cherry, I have to interject in that we are still having translation issues here. We are able to ask the questions, but the response will have to be in writing, unfortunately. I apologize about that, Dr. Cherry. We just have not been able to get it working properly.
Senator Muggli: I would be happy to receive a written response, yes.
I have a question for Ms. Belcher. I am happy to hear about the collaboration between our countries as it relates to wildfires. I wonder if you could tell me about your prediction system; I think you call it FireInSite. I am curious about the indicators or data points that are a part of that prediction system.
Ms. Belcher: Sure. Thank you for asking that question. Yes, I’m part of the team that built FireInSite. I do know quite a bit about it.
As a bit of history, the U.K. has traditionally used other countries’ tools, including the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index System, but, of course, these were not tailored to our landscapes and our particular vegetation types that cover our landscapes.
What we have done over the last five or more years is there has been an intense realm of data collection looking at fuel moistures for the typical fire-prone fuels within the U.K. landscape, how that changes seasonally and how they interact with fire weather, such as droughts.
We have also looked at the changes in the chemistry of those fuels for the seasons as well and built that into models too.
We think it is particularly interesting in respect to northern temperate ecosystems to perhaps expand some of the things we found into other areas. That would be really good to connect with Canada on this as well.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Ms. Belcher: I am happy to provide more information should you need it.
Senator Martin: Thank you to all of our witnesses.
I have questions for everyone. I know that I have limited time. I will start with Ms. Verwey. When you were talking about the renewal of the federal-provincial-territorial agricultural policy framework and that there is an opportunity to build the system, what would that ideal system look like? What should be considered?
Ms. Verwey: Three of the most important points would be having something that is predictable, responsive and bankable for farmers.
In an ideal world, for some of the systems we have built, specifically on the production insurance side and the AgriStability program, given the way that it is, it does not allow for repetitive incidents where that coverage would lower. It’s about having something that would be predictable and, more importantly on the AgriRecovery side, having immediate financial support for producers.
In many cases, for those programs, we do not receive that money immediately when the instance happens, so the timeliness and the amount of red tape and reporting ties the hands. I think we are at a time right now at CFA where we actually have a subcommittee struck now to look at that program, specifically with the frequencies that natural disasters are happening, including fires, and what recommendations we would bring forward. We would have more information in the near future on what we’re looking at there.
We are looking at the effectiveness of all of those programs now.
Senator Martin: Right. There were representatives on the Hill this past week. We are aware of the challenges that farmers face. This is another component that will be very important for officials, for government representatives and for all of us to be aware of.
I think your testimony today is also well timed, as we’re thinking about what we should do. There are so many factors that impact what farmers do every day, and that predictability is definitely key.
I also was just thinking about livestock. When you said they’re showing signs of distress, we think about evacuating people, but without livestock we don’t have the industry.
Would you talk a bit more about the impact on livestock? What’s happening now and what should we be preparing for?
Ms. Verwey: Leaning into being prepared, I think we can look at past experiences and collaborate with the other provinces as to what’s happened. It happened in the not-so-distant past where we had that huge forest fire and flooding on the coast.
How can we share information to make sure we have a system that is nimble and we’re prepared and we have plans going forward to ensure producers have the tools to be able to secure their livestock and evacuate and have places to put those livestock? There are a lot of logistics that are included.
To that point, when you look at the mental health and well‑being of producers in that instance, particularly with livestock, there’s a lot of depth there that we really need to emphasize.
Senator Martin: I have a question for Dr. Cherry to respond in writing.
Next week, we have firefighters on the Hill, and the International Association of Fire Fighters, or IAFF, came to us with important priorities for them. I don’t recall a focus on what we can be doing for firefighters in relation to wildfires and the impact on firefighters.
I think you mentioned about the awareness building among firefighters and the harms — maybe they’re not discussing it in the way they should.
I’m curious about your process of working in this area with firefighters and representing those who are fighting the wildfires, and those needs need to be brought to us as well.
Mine is more of a comment than a question. Given the work you do with firefighters, I note how important it will be for that information to get conveyed to those making decisions about how to support firefighters. They will be on the Hill next week, and I’m curious about what we will be discussing with them when they do come to the Hill this year. Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: I’m going to follow up on Senator Martin’s question on the framework.
My question is: Are current government programs and CFA‑led supports enough to help farmers cope with wildfire risk? In your statement, I sort of heard, “We’re working on that in potentially this updated framework.”
I’m curious: Who does the framework? Is it an internal document with CFA? You’re probably partnering with your organizations across the country. Is there funding required to do that? How long would it take to update it?
Ms. Verwey: Particularly on the programming that is there, it’s a collaboration of our associations — which are members — working with our annual federal and provincial leaders who meet with CFA. We coordinate and we discuss that framework. We’re about halfway into the program as it stands, with the five-year agreement that we have now.
Re-evaluating some of the deficiencies of a program that has been long-standing will take a significant amount of work. We’re working and we have individuals with a strong understanding of the programs and their deficiencies going forward.
I think in the response to natural disasters, where it stands, it’s clarifying that for the support that’s there, at the end of the day, producers probably feel that they don’t know what those programs are. Then there is the timeliness of having access to those funds quickly.
Some of it is trying to create a program at the time that a new incident happens. I think in order to have a resilient and evergreen program, you have to have programs that are ready to access or implement right away without having to develop.
It’s the sharing of information and ensuring we have those programs available — if I could maybe use the drought as an example in accessing feed: Now that that’s happened in the past, I think there’s a tool in the provinces’ back pocket and the federal government’s back pocket to implement right away if that happens again.
When you compare that to natural wildfires — if you look across the nation — having something that you can implement fast so that there is that quick response is really important.
Senator Sorensen: I find this interesting to think about. I live in Banff National Park and wild forest fires are managed by agencies, whether it’s federal or provincial. I would think normally a federal, provincial or territorial agency is stepping in to give guidance.
When I think about these people on these individual farms — and I know farmers are great at joining together and helping their neighbours — and maybe it’s not across this country, but is there a province or a territory that you feel has organized some kind of template in terms of understanding how a fire is moving and where it’s coming from and what it’s likely to do?
We have all that information. We know very clearly. We watch a fire and know how it’s going to behave, but I’ve just never really thought about it in that context.
Ms. Verwey: I might ask Maria Alkayed. She may have additional information in that context.
Maria Alkayed, Manager, Environmental Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Federation of Agriculture: Thank you, senator. Just to give a bit of precision on the business risk management programs, they are usually run by the federal and provincial governments.
On how fires move and whether we have any data on that, there’s nothing, to our knowledge, that is specific to agriculture. When fires happen, we rely on the data that the provinces or the federal government provide on the spread and movement of fires, so we are the same as the other sectors on that, if I understood the question correctly. Thank you.
Senator Sorensen: Yes. Thank you very much.
Senator Robinson: My question is for Vice-President Jill Verwey. Ms. Verwey, can you speak to the information sharing and communication between provinces and the federal government during both pre-disaster and post-disaster? We’ve had that question from Senator Sorensen.
Collectively, are we gathering all the learnings we can from these catastrophic events so that we can better inform and build response mechanisms to — as we hear repeatedly — the guaranteed increase in intensity and frequency of weather events? I’m just wondering how the federal-provincial information sharing goes.
Ms. Verwey: Through our association, we have strong collaboration from province to province. That information is shared federally as well. I think that’s the benefit of the organization collectively in having all of those provinces together in order to get that insight. Can it be better? I think certainly there’s always room for improvement. It leads to being prepared.
Certainly, we’ve seen the best practices that are out there. I would encourage collaboration, and having that information in one place would strengthen us as an industry because we would have somewhere to go.
It’s all about having the right tools available as a producer going forward and knowing what’s available.
Senator Robinson: Can you speak to the size of the funding pot for business risk management, not specifically so much the numbers? We’ve certainly seen an increase in the dollars involved in agriculture, both through inflation and also through growth. We’ve seen so much growth in the industry. I’m just wondering if the level of funding has grown accordingly, along with those two factors, and how the funding for Canadian farmers compares. For example, when we look at the U.S., we see the U.S. farm bill. Looking at our competitors, are Canadian producers covered in a comparable fashion to how American farmers would be covered?
Ms. Verwey: My first comment would be “no.” From a competitive advantage, regarding our neighbours to the south and our international competitors — because we are global exporters — I think agriculture falls significantly short compared to our competitors.
As far as the actual number, I’d probably defer to Maria. We do fall significantly short in comparison if you look at agriculture’s actual contribution to GDP in our country. I think the sense of that is changing. I can lean to our efforts in making sure that we’re educating individuals like yourselves and our members of Parliament as to the importance and the value of agriculture in Canada and that it needs to shift. They definitely need more support and that is particularly in the innovation and research, and that would lead to having the right tools in instances like this. We need that investment.
Senator Robinson: This is more a question to get a written response in the future: You mentioned that there’s been a committee struck that will be reviewing the business risk management suite of programs. I don’t know what the timeline is on that, but I’m wondering if you might be able to share some of the findings. If the timeline is longer than what we have for this study, perhaps you could ask your staff to give us a submission to put more examples together and more meat on the bones for these bigger questions that we don’t have time to cover today.
Ms. Verwey: Certainly, we can provide that, yes.
Senator McBean: Dr. Cherry, I don’t know if you’ve been able to get your headset working. I see you’re working on your headset.
Dr. Cherry, I’m sorry to see that your headset is not connecting today, but I’d still love to ask a question. I look forward to your written reply.
I was listening as you were saying how obviously masks are helpful, but it’s hard for the wildland firefighters to be wearing them. I can imagine such a hot, physical environment and trying to deal with that. I can envision an urban firefighter wearing a full-face mask with supplied air. Is there some value in the federal government trying to develop a proper mask that would be appropriate for that type of environment? Do you think a good mask would be worn or it’s just that current masks are not worn? Is there any chance it’s been fixed for the translation? Could you speak a little bit?
Ms. Cherry: I can certainly hear you. Can you hear me?
Senator McBean: Yes, we can. The problem is our translators need your headset to work. I understand you’re having a tough time connecting it properly. I can see you’re working on it. If your headset is not connected properly, we can’t have you speaking. It can cause some trauma for our translators.
Ms. Cherry: I think I should leave the meeting at this point. I think I’m getting rather impatient. I’ll leave you to get on with it. Thank you.
Senator McBean: Thank you. That’s a pity. Okay, let’s pivot. Ms. Verwey, recently we had another witness here talking to us about being in local Indigenous communities and how helpful it is to have very local air quality testing done. When a notice comes, an air quality warning comes that says it’s time to evacuate because of the air quality conditions. It is impressed upon them that it is very local and specific to them.
You were talking about how when farmers have to leave high‑precision practices like greenhouses and livestock, they’re often returning to devastating responses.
How can Ottawa work with provinces and farm organizations to improve early warning systems and emergency response plans for farms and farm areas?
Ms. Verwey: If I can speak to what happened this past summer, I think having that immediate information is crucial and knowing, day to day, the quality of air that is there. Producers don’t have this luxury; even with smoke in the air, we still have our day-to-day operations. Providing that information and having it available is, I think, part of being prepared and having those tools available to producers.
Having those systems is very important in the future.
Senator McBean: I’m trying to nail down how local people want and need this information to be for them to actually respond to it. In Manitoba, the air quality warning could be coming from people in Winnipeg, yet they’re farther north in Manitoba. Do you think it needs to be very local?
Ms. Verwey: On the systems that we have today, even if I can use an example of rain and wind and the weather systems that we have right now, for the tools that are available, I think we can use some of those to be very specific right down to the farm location. The amount of rain is probably a great example where most farms have the technology to know from field to field the amount of rain that we’ve received or the amount of moisture in the ground.
I think the tools are there for that information to be very local right down to the field level. It’s just coordinating that information and having it compiled in one spot.
Senator McBean: Are you saying the tools are there?
Ms. Verwey: I think the tools are there with the technology that we have. If we can measure the amount of rain from field to field, then certainly I think it can be more specific than just the city of Winnipeg. With the access of technology that we have today, I think it can actually be right down to the field level.
Senator McBean: It would be great if it’s farm to farm where we’re testing specific air quality.
Ms. Verwey: 100%.
Senator Varone: My question is for you, Ms. Verwey. Thank you for being here.
I live in Toronto, and when the Manitoba fires hit, about a week later we had orange skies in Toronto. We’ve got all kinds of broadcasts throughout the news about air quality warnings and keeping your children inside. My daughter’s outdoor class was cancelled. I can only imagine what Manitobans went through in that moment.
The thing that struck me was “stay inside.” We have marvellous systems in terms of air handling and air filtration that assist businesses and homeowners. I just question the fact of why you’re being evacuated as opposed to being upgraded with air quality systems within your homes, making your homes and your farms more resilient to the susceptibility of wildfires and smoke.
Putting livestock indoors with better air quality is a challenge. The comment was made — and Senator McBean touched upon it — about coming back to something disastrous like in a greenhouse. Systems are available today. Is there enough money that’s being afforded to Manitobans at this point or anybody susceptible to wildfires to upgrade your air quality systems to stay in place?
Ms. Verwey: What leads to innovation in having those systems is a farmer’s ability to reinvest in their farm, whether that’s through additional supports or programs to assist in that investment through partnership. At the end of the day, if farmers are able to be profitable — which, in today’s landscape, is very difficult — then farmers are resilient in reinvesting in their farming operation to first be productive and also to provide safe, affordable food. If the ways and means are there, we would reinvest.
What’s unique about agriculture is that we don’t have the luxury of staying inside. We’re still going to have to do our day‑to-day work.
The Deputy Chair: Colleagues, we’re into the second round. There will be three minutes for the question and the answer because we’re running up against the clock.
Senator Muggli: My question is for Ms. Belcher, and it’s a request, if possible, to provide us some information in writing. I was very intrigued about some of the data inputs for predictive modelling. You talked about measuring the chemistry of the fuels. I’d be interested if there’s some material you could send us about that and your FireInSite program. It’s just a request for more information in writing, if that’s possible.
Ms. Belcher: Yes, of course. I can send you a link to the website and then whatever other information you would like. It would work well for a lot of Canadian landscapes, including for some crops, hopefully.
Senator Muggli: Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thanks for joining us.
Senator Robinson: My first question is for Dr. Belcher. It, too, is on FireInSite. Maybe when you put your submission together for Senator Muggli, you can tag on a bit more information for me. Specifically, I’d like to understand what the cost and timeline were to develop the app and also how it was funded. Just to learn how you executed that domestically, that would be great.
Ms. Belcher: FireInSite was part of a larger project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council in the U.K. It was there to fund the overall science as part of the development of the app, but it also funded the development of the web app itself, which was made purely by academics. We now don’t have continued funding for it, which is a struggle, so we’re trying to continue to update that and improve its capabilities as best we can within our own academic abilities.
Senator Robinson: Super. In your written submission, if you can give us a bit of a timeline regarding what you experienced developing it and the costs as well, that would be great.
Ms. Belcher: Thank you.
Senator Robinson: I’ll put a quick second question on the record for Ms. Verwey.
You mentioned predictability and bankability being qualities the program could improve upon. Perhaps this could be for your written submission because we’re tight on time: Can you give us examples or just more background on how this has been lacking and what producers have experienced in that manner? That would be great. Thank you.
Ms. Verwey: Yes, of course.
Senator McBean: For Ms. Belcher, you were talking about your tactical advisers and how you deploy them and move them around as needed. We’re always trying to figure out the best solution here, whether it’s federal, provincial or local. As I was saying earlier, I’m trying to learn how local things need to be. I know your geography is simpler than ours, but how local are your tactical advisers to the issues that they might be responding to? How are they working with the locals when they’re helicoptering into a location?
Ms. Belcher: There are, I think, 37 wildfire tactical advisers currently, and they’re expanding. That’s still quite a lot for our whole country based on our size. They can be deployed anywhere within the U.K. They work within their own local fire crews anyway, but they can be called and deployed anywhere within a three-hour window to an actual fire incident, which is easier due to the size of our country.
A lot of the big wins that the U.K. has had recently is in developing these relationships with landowners and farmers, for example, who have been upskilling in wildland firefighting and buying their own infrastructure like fire beaters and water bowsers. While there’s no official remit for them to do so, we’ve found that landowners and farmers are the people first on the ground if there’s a fire. By attempting to upskill those people, it means they have the potential to action those fires rapidly before fire and rescue services and the tactical advisers arrive. I think that’s where we’ve made the biggest gains in the U.K.
Senator McBean: Thank you very much. That’s it for me.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senators. On behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank each of the witnesses today. Thank you very much for your participation. Your testimony and insight are very much appreciated, as are the written responses that we’ve talked about.
For our second panel, from De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited, we welcome Neil Sweeney, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs; Philippe Poutissou, Vice-President, De Havilland Defence; and Sandra Howell, Vice-President, Corporate Operations and Programs.
We also welcome Jacobus Benedik, General Manager, Scodev International B.V.; and, via video conference, John Gradek, Faculty Lecturer and Academic Program Coordinator of the Supply Chain Management and Supply Networks programs as well as the Aviation Management program at McGill University.
Mr. Gradek, you win the award for the longest descriptor.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you all for being here today. We will now hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators.
Mr. Sweeney, the floor is yours.
Neil Sweeney, Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited: Thank you, chair.
Good morning, senators. On behalf of De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, my colleagues and I are pleased to be with you this morning to discuss approaches to wildfire management in Canada.
As we all know, summers across the globe are becoming longer and hotter. While some may debate the reason for a warming climate, there is no debate that the climate is warming and leading to significant weather pattern disruptions.
For Canada, a warming climate is leading to massive disruption in forest management and forest practices. My home province of British Columbia has fought a losing battle against the mountain pine beetle, which has killed millions of hectares of forest as a result of winters not being cold enough to kill off the pest.
This has led to massive wildfires in the interior and north of British Columbia whose fuel was the dead and dying forests left behind by the epidemic.
The year 2024 was the warmest on record in Canada, being 3 degrees warmer than the average temperature between 1948 and 1990. And 7 of the 10 warmest years on record in Canada have occurred in the past 10 years.
The trend, unfortunately, is toward continued warming, which means we must adapt the ways in which we protect the people and communities of our country against wildfires.
Currently, wildfire management is a provincial responsibility, with Canada being called in when situations become overwhelming. However, while provinces have done an admirable job in sharing resources between themselves, the scale of wildfires is growing at an unprecedented rate and now requires new approaches and ways of managing both wildfire risk and attack.
At De Havilland Canada, we support customers in Canada and around the world by providing new firefighting aircraft and supporting the current fleet.
Currently, there are approximately 160 Canadian-made Canadair scooping water bombers in operation around the globe, with the aircraft in operation in six provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland.
During wildfire seasons, the provinces share resources when they can. However, as summers have become longer and hotter and as they continue to warm over the coming years, the ability to share across provincial borders will become further strained without additional investments by the provinces or the federal government.
As I mentioned, we support global customers, including nations in the Mediterranean who have been operating our aircraft for over 50 years. By example, France has chosen to take a very aggressive approach when it comes to fighting wildfires. Their approach is to attempt to have fire response within 10 minutes of alert to prevent wildfires from getting out of control.
While 10 minutes is likely impractical for a country the size of Canada, having additional federal resources — pre-deployed across the country during fire seasons — would enable provinces to attack wildfires more aggressively and potentially lessen their severity.
The backbone of this rapid response strategy in France is the Canadair CL-415, and it would be an ideal aircraft for a national government fleet here in Canada.
With a scooping capacity of 6,000 litres, the De Havilland Canadair 515, when operated in squadrons of four, would be able to drop almost 25,000 litres of water on a fire at a time.
And as it is a scooping aircraft, it does not have to return to base to be filled, which enables the aircraft to maximize time on the fire and potentially hold the fire until ground crews can access the site.
Being able to more quickly put out fires through a significant federal investment would have two other additional benefits: First is reduced carbon emissions. The 2023 wildfire season saw nearly 1 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted in Canada as a result of wildfires. This figure exceeded all other human-caused carbon emissions in the country.
Second, as you were just discussing, is the reduced impact on human health. Wildfire smoke has a significant impact on human health, especially in older Canadians and those with lung diseases or who have trouble breathing.
In conclusion, the continued warming trend does not appear to be slowing. Canada, while having managed wildfires successfully in the past, is seeing resource challenges today as fire seasons become longer and hotter.
New approaches are required not only for today but also for the next 10 to 20 years if we are to manage wildfires in Canada; protect Canadians’ environment, property and health; and reduce carbon emissions.
One such approach would be through the creation of a new federal government aerial firefighting fleet that could be pre‑positioned across the country and support provinces during wildfire seasons.
Thank you for your time and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Deputy Chair: Mr. Sweeney, thank you for your opening statement.
Mr. Benedik, it’s your opportunity. You have the floor.
Jacobus Benedik, General Manager, Scodev International B.V.: Thank you. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this study on Canada’s wildfire response capacity.
Canada faces record wildfire seasons that exceed existing firefighting capacity. Amphibious aircraft remain the main tool for water bombing operations, yet they are few in number and costly to operate.
Non-amphibious aircraft, such as air tankers and cargo airplanes, are widely available but cannot scoop water in flight. Today, I will present a solution that enables non-amphibious aircraft to scoop water in flight, significantly increasing overall firefighting capacity.
Scodev International has developed a patented system that enables non-amphibious aircraft to scoop water in flight, flying at an altitude of 10 to 15 metres above the sea, lake, river or canal. The aircraft deploys a self-stabilizing scooping device into a water source which pushes the water through a hose into the on-board tanks.
The aircraft can then drop the water on wildfires up to five times per hour, greatly increasing operational capacity. Not all aircraft are dedicated for forest firefighting. For this reason, we have developed a roll-on roll-off tank platform that carries the SCODEV system on a modular base. After a few minor aircraft modifications, the roll-on roll-off tank platform can be rolled into or out of a transport aircraft within one hour, turning it into a scooping air tanker on a called-when-needed basis.
This combination enables an unlimited number of military or civil transport aircraft to be deployed as an amphibious air tanker for optimal forest firefighting on a called-when-needed basis.
This new business model adds additional resources to entities with forest firefighting responsibilities. This will change the global industry, we believe.
We think that dedicated one-purpose air tankers, which are deployed only a limited number of days annually, are an outdated concept. Just invest €4 million in the SCODEV system and call upon the Royal Canadian Air Force strictly when needed.
Dedicated air tankers in Canada are deployed between 90 to 120 days annually. A survey shows that military transport aircraft are deployed between 65 to 150 days per year. It would then be logical to delegate forest firefighting tasks to the air force in the event that commercial operators are overburdened.
The copy of the table you have shows the main differences between an amphibious aircraft and, for example, a military C-130 Hercules equipped with the SCODEV system. The investment in an amphibious aircraft would be €52.5 million or even more. Investment in the SCODEV system would require only €4 million.
The capacity of an amphibious aircraft would be 7,000 litres, and a C-130 Hercules with the SCODEV system would be 17,000 litres. The cost per drop is €425 per 1,000 litres, and the cost per drop for the SCODEV system would be €159 per 1,000 litres. The extinguishing capacity is also 2.5 times better because it is volume-based, and forest firefighting is volume‑based.
The SCODEV system is in the final stages of going to market. The next step is the flight test program to obtain the Supplemental Type Certificate required for operational use. Scodev International has already secured private investment and is applying for a development grant to support the certification phase.
Thank you for your attention.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benedik.
Mr. Gradek, the floor is yours. Please proceed when you are ready.
John Gradek, Faculty Lecturer, Area Coordinator, Aviation Management and Supply Chain Management, School of Continuing Studies, McGill University, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My name is John Gradek. That title can be shortened. You can just call me John, and we can work from there. Thank you and good morning.
I’m honoured to appear before this committee as you examine Canada’s growing wildfire challenges. My contribution today comes from the world of aircraft management. I teach at McGill University’s School of Continuing Studies in Montreal, where I lead programs in supply networks and aviation management. My focus in academia is on fleet strategy and aircraft performance — issues that I believe lie at the heart of Canada’s aerial firefighting capabilities.
My connection with firefighting aircraft, however, goes back many years. My dad got me interested in aviation as a youngster. As a teenager, I joined the Royal Canadian Air Cadets based in Cartierville, Quebec, and it happened to be next door to the Canadair plant.
One evening, as I was waiting for my dad to pick me up, I watched two newly painted CL-215s roll out of the nearby Canadair hangar, and I was immediately awestruck. That moment sparked a lifelong fascination with aviation. Now more than 60 years later, I can be considered a senior citizen.
After a career in aviation and academia, I remain deeply interested in these aircraft. The Canadair family has become the gold standard for amphibious water bombers globally, and I commend De Havilland for taking up that legacy and investing in its continued operation and future. But as we celebrate that success, there are important caveats that we have to consider in the world of amphibious water bombers.
For centuries, Indigenous Peoples across this country practised fire management, not just to protect their communities but also to renew the forest life itself. Fire was and remains part of their ecosystem and part of our ecosystem. Today, however, climate change has transformed that balance. Wildfires, as we have heard this morning, are more frequent and more severe, and the seasons last longer.
At the same time, as we have this evolution of Indigenous fire management, communities and industries have moved deeper into our forested areas, increasing the risks to people, infrastructure and the environment. This pattern is not unique to Canada. Around the world, whether in Greece, Australia, Brazil, the United States and beyond, countries are confronting the same escalating threat.
The demand for amphibious water bombers has never been higher as governments look to Canada’s long-standing experience. It is no wonder that President Macron calls these aircraft Canadairs, but it is essential to ask the question: How effective are these aircraft, and how can we best use them?
Water bombers are designed to attack fires in their early stages before they become large, fast-moving events. Once a wildfire grows beyond a certain point, aircraft alone cannot stop the fire. They can only slow its advance. At this stage, ground-based crews become essential. When air and ground teams are well coordinated, the results can be powerful, particularly near developed areas where access and logistics allow both to work together. We’ve seen many examples over the last few months of a coordinated approach to firefighting by both ground and air teams, and we’ve seen its effectiveness.
This raises several key operational questions. When we look at where we go with this fleet, the question is: Should water bombers be used primarily to attack fires as soon as they ignite and before they spread — and I commend De Havilland for mentioning the French model, which is what they do: response within 10 minutes — or should they serve mainly to support ground crews once operations are under way?
As wildfire smoke becomes a major health hazard, should we consider how aerial suppression might also reduce smoke from remote fires that never threaten communities directly?
These are not rhetorical questions. They relate directly to how we allocate our national firefighting assets.
Today, wildfire aviation in Canada is managed largely at the provincial level. Each province has developed its own approach. Some own and operate fleets; others contract private operators or rely on interprovincial support through the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre, or CIFFC. The CIFFC plays a valuable coordinating role, but decisions on deployment remain with the provincial authorities.
We are now seeing an increase in Level 5 alerts, meaning all available assets are fully deployed, and there is little capacity left for any interprovincial assistance. That trend should concern us all.
Another challenge is the age of our aircraft fleet. Many CL-215s, our first generation of water bombers, are now more than 50 years old. Some have been re-engined into CL-215Ts, while the newer CL-415s — though more capable — are two to three decades old and increasingly maintenance intensive. There is, unfortunately, little published data on fleet reliability across the provinces, so our understanding of the true readiness of these aging aircraft is incomplete. The next generation, or the DHC-515, which was mentioned this morning by De Havilland, is an encouraging step forward. Production is expected to begin in 2027 at a production rate of about approximately 10 aircraft per year.
That timeline raises an urgent question: How do we meet both Canadian and international demand with this type of investment and this type of production plan?
The key policy questions before us are these: Should Canada consider a more unified, perhaps federally coordinated, approach to water bomber ownership, management and accountability while still enabling provincial deployment as needed?
Are there ways to accelerate production and delivery of next-generation aircraft to strengthen our own national resilience and the world’s demand for these airplanes in the face of climate change?
In closing, Canada has been a leader in aerial firefighting innovation, no doubt about it. The CL series stands as enduring symbols of Canadian ingenuity and service. But maintaining that leadership will require coordinated planning, investment and a shared national vision.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. I appreciate your attention. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Muggli: Thank you, everyone, for being here today. We really appreciate it. I will direct my first questions to the De Havilland team.
I have a couple of questions. One of them is around trained pilots. We have a situation in Saskatchewan. I wonder if you have thoughts or recommendations on how to tackle the supply of trained pilots to coincide with the ability to use the planes.
Mr. Sweeney: Thank you, senator. I will stick within my remit. I will stick within the boundaries of my expertise. I am not a pilot. I do not know pilots — well, I do know some pilots. Training is, generally speaking, left to the agencies that provide them.
We provide and have provided training programs for experienced pilots. In terms of accessing pilots, in European settings, they are generally air force or ex-air force pilots. I am not going to get into something that I do not know about.
Senator Muggli: I was more curious if you had suggestions around how to expand the education opportunities to train more pilots.
Mr. Sweeney: Professor Gradek may have more insight into that than we would.
Senator Muggli: Well, let’s go to the professor and hear some thoughts on that, if you have some.
Mr. Gradek: I do have thoughts on training, education and resource building. You are talking to the right guy.
In terms of pilot training, it is a challenge. These aircraft are special aircraft. They require some special skills. They require a lot of hands-on training and experience in low-level flying in attack formation for these firefights. They are a special breed. They command a premium in terms of salary and benefits from normal bush flying or turboprop airplane operations.
Yes, there is a premium being paid. There is a shortage of pilots qualified for these airplanes. The Province of Ontario is going through negotiations with their pilots to ensure they are retaining the pilots they have.
Yes, there is a need to do it. The question would be this: In a national program, which we’re talking about this morning, a key responsibility and a key deliverable of that program would be, in fact, ensuring we have sufficient and trained resources to do that.
Senator Muggli: What about the intersection of aircraft and the utilization of drones. Do you utilize drones? Is there an intersection with drones?
Mr. Sweeney: Yes. Drones have been used in order to find the sources of fires or locations of fires. Bird dogs are an example of aircraft up in the sky and satellites — any number or combination of those types of detection systems are used. We do not manufacture them ourselves, but there are others in Canada that do.
Typically, the provincial governments — professor, correct me if I’m wrong — use bird dogs. So they are up there and they are looking for the fires, and then once they are on the fire, they coordinate the activities of the water-dropping aircraft themselves. It is a dual purpose. As UAVs increase in their longevity and capabilities, you will see more of that.
Senator Muggli: If I do not have time, maybe Mr. Gradek can think about this for the second round: What are your thoughts on the development of drones that can carry product or water to extinguish fires? We heard from a witness regarding some technology on that. Is there time for him to speak to that?
The Deputy Chair: Go to the second round for that.
Senator Muggli: Something for you to think about for the second round. Thanks.
Senator Sorensen: My question is for Mr. Sweeney. As Canadians, and certainly as an Albertan, I’m really proud of the DHC-515 design built and assembled in Canada. Am I right that final assembly is in Alberta?
Mr. Sweeney: Correct, it is in Calgary, Alberta, and it is under way right now. The first article — we call it Greek 1 — is in final assembly right now.
Senator Sorensen: Yes, that’s pride for Canada.
I read some articles that international orders are backlogged. I am interested to understand because these are in fairly high demand around the world. How is production being managed to meet your — they are all clients, but I will be concerned about Canada getting what they need.
Mr. Sweeney: Sure.
Senator Sorensen: How are production timelines prioritized between international orders and Canada’s domestic needs, and could you prioritize Canada? Is that something you would do in terms of orders? I get it. You are a business and you have clients.
Mr. Sweeney: Thank you, senator. I appreciate the question.
Number one, we acquired the type certificate from Bombardier in 2016. We started talking with the European Union about renewing their fleet in about 2019. The pandemic hit. We needed a significant order in order to re-establish production. At the time, Canada wasn’t in a position to respond to our need. It is several hundred millions of dollars to restart production of an aircraft. The European Union through the auspices of rescEU coordinated six nations for a purchase of 22 aircraft. They are first. Those are the first aircraft we are producing, 100%. The European customers are long-standing and we respect that.
Second, yes, if there are significant orders, especially from Canada, we would entertain investing in a second line and establishing additional production capacity, but you do not want to get into a position where you go up and down and you end up laying people off and hiring people. There is a bubble right now; there is no question about it. We have to manage our production schedule to meet the needs of our customers, but at the same time, we have to meet the needs of our workforce and not get into a position where we are hiring and laying off staff. If there were a significant order from Canada in a national fleet that the professor is talking about, then we would entertain a second line for sure.
Senator Sorensen: Thank you. That is helpful.
On the DHC-515, you mentioned it but elaborate more about that equipment and why it is so much more effective.
Mr. Sweeney: The professor talked about it. It is very much a precision aircraft. You scoop 6,000 litres at a time in 12 seconds, and depending upon how close the water source is to the fire, you are on and off the fire in five to seven minutes. The pilots, as the professor said, are really skilled. They go in and do very low‑level drops and very precise drops on the location of the fire. They coordinate with the on-the-ground crews.
It is the only purpose-built amphibious aircraft ever made. We are incredibly proud to be the custodians of the engineering that was done in the 1960s. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It is, in essence, very similar to the same aircraft produced in the 1960s. It has been modified and upgraded over time. But in essence, it is the same backbone of engineering that Canadair produced in the 1960s. It is a wonderful aircraft.
Senator Sorensen: Mr. Benedik, I wish to thank you. We have all of the information to answer that question in here. I appreciate you doing this work for us.
Senator Robinson: I will build on Senator Sorensen’s question.
While entertaining the idea of a second line, what limiting factors do you anticipate? I wonder in particular about skilled labour or components. What do you see — if you do get those orders — that would push you to put the second line in place? It could be anyone from the team.
Mr. Sweeney: I am happy to answer. I’m trying not to hog the mic. Skilled labour is always a challenge. We are working with the Government of Alberta today and the federal government about making sure that we have the labour we need.
To date, we have been incredibly successful in attracting and retaining our workforce in Calgary, Victoria and Ontario. We have about 2,500 people now. We have grown and doubled in size in the last couple of years. We will continue to grow either through acquisition or through training.
Second, supply chains are under stress in aerospace around the world. I would say that having a strong supply chain is something we are managing on a daily and hourly basis, honestly. As you get more orders, people are more inclined to be supportive of a program. If it is a one-z or two-z kind of order, they look at you and say, “Well, you are not Boeing. We are going to push your order down to the next week or month.”
Having significant orders allows us to have the supply chain that will be with the program for decades to come. In fact, they’re getting signed up for life-of-program contracts, which means they will be with us until the Canadairs don’t fly.
Really, it’s a matter of continuing to attract and retain a skilled workforce. We do career fairs all over the country and at engineering schools, if you know people who are interested.
Professor, it’s a shame you didn’t become an aircraft maintenance engineer, or AME, and come to work for De Havilland, but that’s okay. It’s about the supply chain and continuing to be able to attract and retain.
Senator Robinson: Thank you.
Mr. Benedik, can you tell us what countries are currently using the SCODEV technology?
Mr. Benedik: It is not yet being produced or sold. We have developed it — we have developed the concept — and we estimate that we have to carry out a supply test program in 2026 and then obtain the Supplemental Type Certificate in 2027. We would go into production in 2027-28.
We have tested it with heavy helicopters and very heavy helicopters, and that was all in conformity with the prior studies and the computational fluid dynamics, or CFD. That gives us confidence that we will be able to scoop the volumes that we predict.
Senator Robinson: Okay.
I’m not sure if my next question is for the De Havilland crew or the professor, but I wanted to talk about flight crew safety. In particular, my questions are about crashes. I understand scooping is not a thing that comes without dangers.
My second question is about cabin filtration. In tractors, which I’m more familiar with than airplanes, there are fairly complex air filtration systems. Can you speak to how you keep flight crews safe while they are in high-smoke environments?
Sandra Howell, Vice-President, Corporate Operations and Programs, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited: First and foremost, it is the operator who manages the pilots and the operation. Having experience at De Havilland in working with these operators, we often hear about the importance of training. There is flight simulation training that happens for all of the operator pilots, which helps them learn how to manage these very strenuous operations. However, because they are so well trained, they are able to manage it.
Also, in terms of the equipment in the aircraft, we have the proper technical equipment in the aircraft that helps manage those elements during firefighting operations.
I don’t know if the professor wants to jump in here as well; he probably has a point of view.
Mr. Gradek: Yes. The cabin environment and the smoke clearance in the cabin will depend upon the age of the airplanes. The older airplanes don’t have much compared to the newer ones. The CL-415 and the DHC-515 will have air conditioning and the capability to minimize smoke in the cabin.
Ms. Howell: We do have oxygen in the aircraft as well. We are also upgrading the air conditioning system in the aircraft for the DHC-515. Modernizing the cockpit certainly helps the environment for the pilots to operate in.
Mr. Gradek: Remember, this is a risky aircraft to fly, and we do have crashes. We’ve had crashes over the years, primarily in Europe where they have very narrow focus of attention.
Yes, this is a risky mission to fly in. That’s why we need good aircraft and good pilots.
Senator McBean: There’s always a problem when your question falls after all your colleagues, because they’re constantly mowing your lawn. It’s pivot, merge and try to be more creative.
Mr. Benedik, I’ll start with you. As you were presenting the SCODEV plan, I couldn’t help but think about one of our other colleagues, Senator Deacon, who is always such a passionate fan of innovation and new ideas. I had noticed there were no images of planes pulling the system; I know it’s still in the development phase.
Are you talking to the Canadian Air Force about their interest in your product? We’ve also heard that it was an ultra-heavy jet‑powered drone that had a payload capacity of 300 litres, which doesn’t come close to what you guys are doing with a drone that can work at night. How can the federal government support innovation and help fast-track new solutions?
Mr. Benedik: We have been speaking with the air forces in Europe. Unfortunately, I tried to make an appointment with the Royal Canadian Air Force for today, but I did not succeed.
Of course, we have the input and the demands from the European air forces.
Senator McBean: This goes to my next question, because it seems to me that 22 planes at 10 planes a year means that Canada is not getting a new plane for up to three years. We’re not buying into the technology. Obviously, it’s if they support their technology.
I will go to the overarching voice, Professor Gradek. What do you think Canada needs to be doing to put a fleet together or something that’s in the air? What are we not doing such that the rest of the world is able to get access to this Canadian technology and good ideas, but we seem to be really heavy-footed and not at all agile to meet the moment?
Mr. Gradek: Agility — that’s an understatement. Canada has seen the evolution of the 515 for the last eight or nine years. Bombardier had it and then Viking Air; De Havilland has it. The 515 has been around for a long time in terms of its availability and capabilities. The Europeans through rescEU saw interest back in 2021-22 and signed a contract, with price unseen and delivery date unseen, buying 22 aircraft. Who’s the risk-averse community in this one? It is not the EU. They moved ahead. We need more of these aircraft.
The provinces — not Canada necessarily, but the provinces — are still sitting on an ever-aging fleet. We still have 22 CL‑215‑type aircraft still flying to fight fires in Canada. That airplane should not fly. It is old and is going to require 20 to 30 hours of maintenance for every hour it is flown. It’s not a value‑added proposition. We should have made this decision years ago.
We have at least 20 aircraft in Canada that need immediate replacement, and the CL-415s aren’t getting any younger. Those aircraft have some air time left, yes, but we need to renew the fleet. That fleet has to be brought up to speed with the new technology and new capabilities that the DHC-515 represents.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
I think what we’re hearing is we’ve got a really old fleet. You started off by saying that we needed to have a fleet. In your estimation, how many planes should we have? Also, what’s the range? We’ve got 20 planes that shouldn’t be flying anymore, but thank you to the mechanics for making that happen. What does a healthy fleet of fire management aircraft look like?
Mr. Gradek: I’ll just jump in here quickly. It all depends upon what types of fires you want to fight. The question we have right now is this: With the way we have to currently deploy an airplane, we have 50 airplanes in the air, and those are candidates for replacement. The question is whether we attack fires within 10 minutes, which is what the Europeans decided. It may not be 10 minutes. It may be 30 or 45 minutes. If we’re going to start attacking fires quickly, we need to strategically place these aircraft in wooded and forested areas, and we need to respond, so we need probably another 40 to 50 aircraft.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Mr. Sweeney: I concur.
Senator McBean: Even then, 40 or 50 aircraft don’t just show up. That’s a minimum of seven years if we’re not competing with anyone in the world. They aren’t going to show up.
Mr. Sweeney: There’s definitely an opportunity.
Senator Muggli: Mr. Gradek, could you expand upon or share any opinions you have on this jet-powered drone technology that we learned about recently? You probably know about it, but do you have any thoughts or opinions on its utility?
Mr. Gradek: It’s an evolving technology. I think we really have to see production, and we have to see this thing deployed in service by the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre or the provinces.
Is 300 litres enough? For spot fires, maybe. Nighttime operations are very difficult. Just ask our friends at Bombardier or De Havilland what night-vision capabilities these aircraft have, and they’re very limited.
They’re small capacity for small fires. They can be deployed quickly, but the proof is not there yet.
Senator Muggli: The big opportunity is that this technology could, perhaps, be used at night. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Gradek: I would say “yes,” but like I said, claims are interesting. Let’s see it in action. I want to see that unit in action and operating at three o’clock in the morning in a heavy-smoke area. That would be a feat in itself.
Senator Muggli: Speaking of technology, I was just curious if your aircraft carries or is able to carry some of the recently developed gel-based materials that we’ve been hearing about for fire suppression?
Mr. Sweeney: Our aircraft is primarily used for water, but there is foam capability as well. I’m not familiar with the gel that you’re talking about, but it is able to have a mix. It’s either straight water or a mix of water and foam. If you want foam, you’ll have to go back to a base, which reduces the efficacy of having a scooper. A scooper is designed to get in and out of a fire with water very quickly. Generally, it’s water with some foam as an addition.
Mr. Gradek: The issue with foam and retardants and everything else is the cycle time between drops. They need a fixed base to refill. There is also the environmental impact of dropping retardants and gel on forests. It’s not an environmentally friendly product to drop. I think we’ve seen retardants dropped in the U.S. on a number of occasions where vegetation has been stunted as a result.
In my opinion, on a first-attack basis, it really is water. It’s plentiful, and we have the equipment designed to deliver it quickly. That’s my view.
Mr. Benedik: Our systems are also based on scooping and dropping water. They could be enhanced with a kind of foam that will increase the water surface, which would also mean increasing the extinguishing effectiveness because extinguishing effectiveness depends on volume. It’s one-on-one. There, I see a clear advantage with the SCODEV system in combination with the C-130 Hercules. The Canadian Air Force has 29 of these aircraft, which have the capacity of 17,000 litres. Compared to the Canadair, which has already increased its capacity from 6,000 to 7,000 litres, it is still 2.5 times more. That is directly related to the extinguishing effectiveness.
Senator Muggli: Thank you.
Senator McBean: To De Havilland, regarding the technologies in the new airplanes, one of the things we heard when the wildfires were devastating Manitoba is that one of the problems with the scoopers was they were already in a high‑drought period of time and the level of water had dropped in many of the lakes, making scooping in the lakes somewhat precarious.
I’m wondering what kind of innovations not only in aircraft design and technology but also in information and data would be helpful to meet the growing challenge of beating large-scale wildfires.
Mr. Sweeney: The provinces have an incredible mapping system they use to determine where their water sources are. Each one of the pilots receives information on a daily basis from their bases about which sources are appropriate. The great thing about the Canadair is that it’s literally flying along and just scooping. It doesn’t have to be very deep in order to scoop.
I get what you’re saying in terms of a time of drought. You’re picking your poison. You’re taking water from a water source, and at the same time, you’re trying to manage an emergency.
Senator McBean: Not really. I just don’t want the plane to hit a rock island that suddenly found itself at the surface.
Mr. Sweeney: The bases do a remarkable job in making sure the pilots understand which water sources are available. It’s done on a frequent basis.
Senator McBean: I know you can go fishing and see where the fish are right down to the fish. Is technology on the plane changing so that they can map and see these areas as they’re flying?
Ms. Howell: The DHC-515 that we’re producing right now has upgraded equipment in it. A water-drop control system, for example, has been upgraded in it. We’ve also just recently upgraded the avionics system.
There’s a lot of technology. There’s upwards of about 30 different improvements we’ve made on that aircraft, which will be delivered in February 2028. All of these updated technologies that we’ve put on the aircraft will help with that mapping.
Senator McBean: I imagine it’s going to Greece, so the first one isn’t going to hit the air until 2028, and then we’re three years beyond that at a minimum. Canada can’t get one of these planes — and this isn’t on you but on Canada’s procurement — until 2031?
Mr. Sweeney: I’m going to be careful with how I say this. Under certain scenarios, the next Canadian aircraft available will be after the Europeans. Manitoba announced a purchase of three. Manitoba is officially in the queue. There are other countries and provinces that we’re in discussions with. Depending on the size of an order, we would entertain a second line which could — I’m using all of these very weaselly words, so I appreciate this — accelerate the timeline for delivery, if there were a sufficient order to justify the start of a second line. At this point, there are not, but if there were a significant order, say, from the federal government, we would entertain a second line and that could accelerate deliveries.
Senator McBean: If you’re a homeowner or a landowner in a wildfire area, would you suggest that we need to be looking at new technologies, such as something like the SCODEV system, in the interim — that’s a lot of time and a lot of fires. Do you think Canada needs to also be looking for different solutions?
Mr. Sweeney: We’ve always said that there’s no one-size-fits-all attack for fires. I think the professor hit the nail on the head. Our aircraft is the backbone, but it’s by no means the only tool. There are small scoopers, large scoopers, helicopters and drones. Any number of tools in the tool box will help.
In the meantime, infrastructure is needed, whether it be on the ground or in the air. My advice to Canada would be to go now and develop whatever you need to procure to accelerate wildfire fighting and management in the country.
Mr. Benedik: You are asking or looking for the speed to bring equipment. The C-130 Hercules aircraft are already present, and the SCODEV system is not a whole aircraft that needs to be developed and built. We can do that rather quickly because it is an add-on. We are not limited to 10 units per year; we could do more.
The aircraft are there. The SCODEV system could go into production in 2027. We could probably deliver in 2027-28. Let’s say 2028, to be fair. That would match the C-130 Hercules with a capacity of 17,000 litres.
Senator McBean: Thank you.
Senator Robinson: We heard testimony from folks who have developed a product at FireRein. It’s called Eco-Gel, and I think it’s probably what Senator Muggli was trying to get to with her question. We understand it’s 97% water and 3% canola oil. I love to fly the Canadian flag as we do with De Havilland.
With an agriculture background, I’m familiar with tank mixes. I wonder if your aircraft has or would ever be able to have the capacity to do a tank mix on the fly, inserting that Eco-Gel into a scooped volume of water that would in the end — speaking to Senator McBean’s point about having to consider the scarcity of water in some situations — increase the efficacy. It’s what we would call a surfactant, a spreader sticker. It helps make the best use of that water that is such a precious resource. Are you looking at any kind of technology to do a tank injection system on the fly?
Philippe Poutissou, Vice-President, De Havilland Defence, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited: The aircraft today actually has a tank in the aircraft to take the retardant on board and to inject that into the scooped water. I’m not familiar with these new products. It’s not really our area of expertise. But what I would suggest is there should be ways in which to adapt that system to accommodate the appropriate mixes depending on the retardant.
Senator Robinson: Great to know you have the technology to do an injection. That’s fantastic. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I’m going to exercise my discretion as the deputy chair to ask a question to the professor.
Professor Gradek, in a perfect world, how large is the fleet? You also talked about the fact that the decision has to be made on how the fleet will be used. You talked about the rapid response, like they’re doing in France, or ground support. What’s your recommendation? Is it a hybrid or is it one or the other?
Mr. Gradek: No, it’s probably a fleet that would have — we need to replace the current fleets. The fleet is pretty close to 20 aircraft that are close to the end of their useful life. There are another 20 or 30 aircraft that are creeping up there. Those 50 airplanes, as far as I’m concerned, need to be replaced within the next five years. That’s 50 aircraft.
If we are going to change our strategy when looking at attacking forest fires that are starting, which are currently being ignored until they get bigger or they’re remotely monitored, we’re going to need another 50 aircraft. My view is that if I were going to place an order with our friends over at De Havilland, it would be an order for 100 units within the next 36 months. Whatever that means for De Havilland production lines, whether it’s one more, two more or whatever it takes, we need those aircraft and we need them quickly.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Robinson: One last question, maybe, for the professor. When we consider a national wildfire-fighting force, our committee will be preparing a report. I’m wondering if you have any specific recommendations in how we encourage or urge governments to develop a national wildfire-fighting force. What action items would we suggest that they undertake?
Mr. Gradek: I think there’s a need for us to really understand: How do we attack fires? When do we attack fires? If the current strategy is to basically protect property, protect human establishment and protect infrastructure and we send units to basically protect those, then we need 50 airplanes. They can be managed federally, which means we own the airplanes. The federal government owns the airplanes. The airplanes are maintained federally and the pilots are federal employees. The deployment can remain within the provinces —
Senator Robinson: Sorry, I just want to interrupt for a second. My question is more specifically to the mechanics of how the bodies come together to develop the system, the infrastructure, the governance and the execution of developing, not so much the details of what we need in the plan. Whom do we empower? Whom do we urge to undertake this work at the national, provincial and territorial levels to come together so that we can share these resources and build a national response team?
Mr. Gradek: The question would be: What federal agency, department or ministry should be leading this? My view is that the Agriculture and Forestry Committee as a Senate committee is great, but my view would be that Natural Resources Canada would be the one looking at coordinating it and whether it’s Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Transport Canada has to be involved. It’s going to require a coordinated approach. I’m not looking at a single agency or a single ministry for government. It’s going to have to be hybrid that will look at trying to manage this whole process.
Senator Robinson: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time to appear before us today. This was a very informative session, and we appreciate your contributions to our study.
I would like to thank the committee members for your active participation and, as usual, thoughtful questions. I would also like to take a moment to thank all the staff that support the work of this committee: our clerk, our Library of Parliament analyst, the interpreters, the Debates team transcribing this meeting, the committee room attendant, the multimedia services technician, the Broadcasting team, the recording centre, ISD and, last but not least, our page.
(The committee adjourned.)