International Trade Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Baldinelli.

We will move on to Ms. Fortier for five minutes, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us today to discuss this draft regulation. Many of us would like to know more about biocides.

Mr. Harrington, during your presentation, you mentioned that we were on the right track in terms of modernizing and harmonizing the regulatory framework. If we're on the right track, that means that there are probably things we could improve, ways to promote exports, for example, or other aspects. I'd like to hear your comments on that.

Can you tell us about two or three areas that you would like to improve?

[Gerry Harrington]

Thank you for the question.

I work in a world where our members also manufacture drugs, for example, and natural health products. For this type of efficiency and this type of leveraging of other decisions from other trusted regulators, I think if folks had a better understanding of how often the same data is reviewed for multiple products in multiple jurisdictions that arrive at the same outcome, the impetus there is not only in terms of market access, which of course from our perspective is the important issue, but also in terms of the resources being churned up in government. It's also about the opportunities perhaps for regulators to specialize. It's the idea that, rather than everybody doing the same thing over and over again, regulators who are collaborating and co-operative can find ways to reduce the amount of duplication that happens in that space.

I guess that's the general principle I would point to that we would love to see.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Do you think businesses have to contend with a lot of red tape? If so, how can we continue to cut it?

Also, if I understand correctly, given the high cost associated with a registration application, businesses have to pay to be recognized, in a way, or to ensure that their products are in a good position to be exported or marketed.

I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Gerry Harrington]

Thank you for the question, once again.

The idea of cumulative regulatory burden is one of the things we need to spend more time looking at. For example, we're talking right now about the biocides regulations, but the manufacturers of those products are also dealing with new regulations from ECCC around recyclability. We're also dealing with new regulations around packaging materials and pollution reduction.

All those initiatives don't necessarily align. Manufacturers are put into very challenging positions, and the lack of stability, the lack of predictability.... If you're in the middle of taking on a project, for example, right now, there's a whole relabelling initiative for natural health products under way, and then halfway through the implementation exercise—whoops—ECCC now says we have to put new labelling information on the front of the product label, so now that whole relabelling exercise has to take a step back.

We could point to a lot of different examples like that, where there is this whole concept of the cumulative burden. It's not just any one exercise or one regulatory framework, but it's the number of overlapping regulatory frameworks that industry is dealing with.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Côté, I'm glad you're appearing before the committee again today, because I think it's important that we hear what you have to say. I also had the privilege of speaking with your colleague right after our last meeting.

My concern about the moratorium is that this process could take even longer. This suggestion creates a certain amount of pressure. Do you have any other suggestions on ways make things easier, so that businesses can meet the regulatory framework and then export their products?

[André Côté]

There are only so many ways to do it. The Canadian industry has to sell apples and the American industry has to sell apples. There is no other way to align our regulatory frameworks, and there is no other way to be fair. If our businesses don't start the race from the same starting point, they can't expect to achieve results other than what we've predicted.

We are calling for a moratorium for two main reasons. Registering a product is done basically in four stages, and the process takes 12 to 24 months, when all goes well. At this time, we know that between 700 and 800 products are not registered. We have passed that information on to Health Canada officials. They have archived the lists themselves, because they were the ones who managed it previously. We have demonstrated this to officials, we've repeated the information, and they don't believe us.

I go to food factories every day to perform checks, and I send approval files to Health Canada. I help Canadian contractors with that process, because we don't need certification. It happens quickly, because we can do it ourselves.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Chair, am I done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Very much so.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Wow, time flies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Your time is more than up.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Côté, why are you asking for a two-year moratorium in particular? What will that change? In other words, how will the situation be so different two years from now for your partners and association members?

[André Côté]

That's how long it will take to complete the required studies and comply with the new regulatory framework. Businesses will have to put together a dossier and submit an application. They will then have to wait for Health Canada to make a decision. In the best-case scenario, if Health Canada is not understaffed and there are no computer problems or communication problems, the registration process will take two years.

As I said, many products are not currently recognized. Health Canada does not consider them to be disinfectants. They don't exist, because they're not registered. However, just because they're not on Health Canada's official lists does not mean that these products are not being used.

In camera, I could provide names and lists of products, and provide committee members with references to support everything I'm saying.

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

You mentioned the fact that Health Canada had not consulted you, in response to a question from my colleague opposite. You said that you sent the documents and that Health Canada was acting with full knowledge of the facts. Health Canada, meanwhile, told us on Tuesday that everything had been done transparently and that it had been published in the Canada Gazette.

How flawed was the process?

[André Côté]

I don't know. I'm not familiar with the process or how officials define “consensus”. What I do know is that since 2016 I've been involved in a number of discussions with Health Canada and various stakeholders.

From the beginning, we have been raising our hand and insisting that a moratorium is needed, that the industry must be allowed to get up to speed. It's not true that the current or proposed Canadian regulations are equivalent to the U.S. regulations. That's simply not true.

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

I think you've demonstrated that. It's surprising to see that this has been ignored, given your demonstration.

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 20 seconds.

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

I'll wait for the next round of questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannings, you have two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Parker.

You've been talking off and on about the pandemic and how things changed—what went well and what didn't. Toward the end, you mentioned the fact that, when we started, everybody was washing their hands and wiping every surface down—their groceries, their newspapers and everything. Then we discovered that it was more of an airborne situation, and you talked about people wanting sprays, basically, to deal with the air.

I'm just wondering if that is still the best situation. We've been hearing.... Towards the end of the pandemic, it was more about filtering. Are there products that you sell or produce that are combined with filters for airborne diseases like COVID?

[Stephen Parker]

We do. If I had to guess, I would say that, for this room two and a half years ago, between meetings—assuming you were having meetings—someone would come in after a meeting at eight o'clock at night, don his garb and put on all his PPE, if he was smart. He would spray the entire room with sanitizers. The product would go into the air and then land on a surface. Theoretically, it would disinfect or sanitize the surface. The amount that was done during that period was incredible, the amount of rooms and stuff. There were still people doing it a couple of months ago.

What I read in the Gazette said that for now the air sanitizing was going to be put aside. There is only so much anyone can do at one time. I just wanted to urge people that it's a definite issue, and that if it comes up again, should we get something like that, people are going to want to do the same thing.

On the filtration, the units that we and other people sell for filtering the air do a great job, not just for COVID or something like that but to improve the quality of the air that we all breathe. I think the air filtration is a positive thing that has come out. The other is a real thing: People are going to want to spray rooms again if they think there are people inside who have had COVID or whatever it is.

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

That spring, it functioned more to clean surfaces rather than the air.

[Stephen Parker]

Yes. It goes into the air, and then that's a way of getting into the nooks and crannies and all of that. There's no other way that you could do it, because you couldn't wipe them all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Seeback for five minutes, please.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I wanted to just quickly go back to some of the things you spoke about today, Mr. Parker.

You said that 80% to 90% of the Canadian industry uses formulations from the United States. I guess my question, then, is this. Would the UFD be useful, if you're getting the formulations from the U.S. that have already been approved in the U.S.? Any new formulation, I would assume, can go on this new 90-day approval track.

When I look at that and I look at what you've said, it would seem to me that these new proposed regulations will actually be a benefit to the industry. Would you agree with that?