International Trade Committee on Oct. 31st, 2023

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

However, the regulatory regime isn't formally harmonized yet.

You're telling us that you've seen similar procedures in the United States. Would you please give us more details on how that has been audited?

[Dr. Celia Lourenco]

We work very closely with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. We have a very close relationship. We've worked together on standards, so we have a lot of confidence in their approach to the way they review those products, just through the long-standing relationship we've built with them over the years.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We will move on to Mr. Cannings, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

This is a learning experience for everyone around this table.

I'd like to back up and learn a bit more about biocides in general. It's clear that they are sanitizer types of things that you would use to clean surfaces or skin or whatever. You mentioned the impact of COVID on that supply, and why we needed more sanitizers.

I have a lot of distilleries in my riding. They are small distilleries that switched over to, or added, the production of hand sanitizer in their business model. Are those various types of alcohols included in these regulations?

[Lisa Duncan, Acting Director General and Chief Registrar Officer, Registration Directorate, Department of Health]

Thank you for the question.

The disinfectants and sanitizers are used for hard surfaces and/or soft surfaces. Those microbial elimination products do include alcohols. However, hand sanitizers are not included in the biocides regulations. These biocides are used on hard, non-porous surfaces or on textiles such as soft surfaces or carpets.

There are two different pathways to authorization in Canada. The regulations here apply to the biocides, whereas there is a slightly different pathway for the hand sanitizers.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

That doesn't include things that you put on your skin. When I get a vaccination and they scrub my shoulder, that substance is not included in this.

[Lisa Duncan]

No, this is really for non-living hard surfaces or soft surfaces.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Okay.

With other trade issues, we've heard of non-tariff barriers around meat carcasses here that are washed with certain chemicals to help preserve them. That causes problems when we try to sell that product in Europe, for instance.

Is that not part of this process?

[Lisa Duncan]

In your example, biocides that are used to sanitize a beef carcass are regulated under the Food and Drugs Act and are captured as part of this work on the biocides regulations.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Would there be any benefit to these changes in regulations to help bring Europe onside with that issue? Of all the trade issues about how biocides interfere with trade, this is the one that sprang to my mind.

[David Lee]

That question, again, goes to our analysis. Certainly this platforms the science so that we can organize the area and our supervision of it. However, assessing how much it will be like Europe is something that we will continue to do for those particular products.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

If you're in talks with the European Union about making these regulations more similar, might that be a benefit down the road?

[David Lee]

It is certainly a point we can raise, Madam Chair.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Please do.

You say there are new, innovative products here. I'm trying to get at what spurred this need for change and what the problem was.

What kinds of innovative products are out there that somehow we can't produce in Canada, such that you wanted to speed up the process or make it more efficient? Can you give us some ideas there?

[Dr. Celia Lourenco]

Definitely. Thank you for the question.

The COVID-19 pandemic really demonstrated the challenges with the current framework and the need to be more agile and have the ability to bring in products more quickly when there are challenges in access to products in Canada. That was a key driver for the change. These regulations are integrating the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic into this new framework that provides different pathways to market.

In terms of different kinds of innovations in biocides that we're seeing, I'll turn to my colleague Lisa to answer.

[Lisa Duncan]

Thank you for your question.

We've certainly seen a larger demand since the COVID-19 pandemic for a variety of innovative products, some of which are part of the biocides regulations, such as laundry additives. We've seen a higher demand for products that will sanitize textiles and clothing, as well as surfaces.

There's another subset of products that have a greater interest in entering the Canadian market, which will remain under the Pest Control Products Act. These are certain linked devices such as UV radiation-emitting devices and ozone-generating devices, for example.

We still have a different pathway to market for those types of products, given that they have a higher exposure scenario, which merits a different type of rigorous review, whereas the oversight of similar types of biocide products will be streamlined and consistent with our counterparts in the U.S.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

You have 32 seconds.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

That's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Baldinelli for five minutes, please.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today. Thank you for the educational opportunity you've provided us in giving some more examples of what biocides are and the need for the regulations.

Based on what my colleague has indicated, there seems to be a universal acceptance that the regulations need to be updated into one system, as opposed to regulations under two different acts: the Food and Drugs Act and the Pest Control Products Act. That's been universally accepted, I think.

You've indicated that from the stakeholders, the one area of concern is the foreign decision pathway.

With regard to the concerns that are being raised by those Canadian firms, is it simply that their concern stems from the fact that it would probably be easier for some of the larger multinationals that exist in Canada to bring in their products from the United States? Is it that instead of Canadian manufacturers developing and manufacturing these type of products in Canada, they could simply be brought in from the United States?

[David Lee]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

On the pathway for use of foreign decisions, a couple of things are important to lay out.

First of all, the companies in the United States would not be required to do any less science. They would still do the same testing. If you started the clock at “I'm going to develop a new product”, they would have to do all the normal tests that they would do here in Canada. All of those would be required in the regulatory text here. Frankly, it's that basis that brings the equity, at least in terms of filing under that pathway, because you'd have to get approved by the EPA and then come to us.

Again, you'd start the clock at the test and you'd still spend the time getting your primary approval, and then you'd come to Canada. The only thing we're not looking at is that primary scientific data to show effectiveness and safety. We trust that, because we work with the EPA and we know their tests are the same tests.

They have to keep the information on hand, so if we need to look at it, we can get it very quickly.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

If they've already had their EPA approvals in the United States, how long does it take them to get those approvals in Canada, then? Is it under the pathways of 45 days or 60 days? I imagine they wouldn't need the 200-day approval method. Is that correct?

[Dr. Celia Lourenco]

For that pathway, it's a 90-day review, simply because our scientists would not need to spend as much time on the review process. They would take the review conducted by the American scientists into consideration and would be able to expedite the process.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

You indicated that you're in discussions with other countries as well to expand the pathways. Do you believe you will be able to reach agreements before the final regulations are posted, or will that still take some time?

[Dr. Celia Lourenco]

We don't anticipate that the agreements will be reached before the regulations are posted. That is something that would unfold afterwards. We're starting first with the United States as a reference country and we'll initiate the review of other regulators afterwards.