International Trade Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sheehan, you have five minutes.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much to all our presenters.

I was amazed to hear about the business being a fifth-generation business. That's quite a remarkable feat. Where I'm from in northern Ontario, in Sault Ste. Marie, the Ojibwa, when they have discussions like this, when they arrive at decisions, will try to figure out how it will affect five generations down the way. A lot of first nations think this way.

In listening to your presentation, it was very thoughtful, not only about the moment and about what happened but also about what Canada ought to do to be prepared if, as you said, another pandemic happens. A lot of people have been saying that we hadn't seen a pandemic like this. People were comparing it to the one after the First World War. People are saying that the way we live now, there is the potential for another pandemic of some sort to happen.

You mentioned the supply issue. I wanted you to drill down on that. I'm wondering if, with your expertise, you can inform the committee on how Canada could be prepared to have supply on hand. I don't understand your industry that much. Can we stockpile stuff? Is there a shelf life? Is it capacity in manufacturing?

If you wouldn't mind delving into that, that would be great.

[Stephen Parker]

Stockpiling is very tough because there is a shelf life, and it's typically on the raw material.

Typically, when we make a disinfectant cleaner that has eight to 10 ingredients in it, one or two are the products that do the disinfection. They have a limited life. It's generally a year to two years, so it's problematic to stockpile, just as there are, unfortunately, millions and millions of gallons of hand sanitizer that are out of date and sitting in warehouses all over the world—all over North America anyway.

A possibility would be if could Canada make some of these raw materials. We make some. We make bleach, and we make hydrogen peroxide. Those are two disinfectants that are used. We make peracetic acid, but some of the other products we probably don't want to make because they're quite corrosive and no one wants a chemical plant next door to them.

It's a definite problem. To be honest, I don't know how you could guarantee the supply and, unfortunately, it was a real issue. We were waiting for products to arrive at our facility so that we could make the finished product.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

What about the breweries, the microbreweries? In a lot of communities across Canada, they went from manufacturing spirits to making hand sanitizer. Would they then still have the same issue of trying to get hold of those materials to manufacture? I'm just trying to drill down on that one, sir.

[Stephen Parker]

In that case, it was alcohol that did the disinfecting. They were able to produce it, so that was a very good situation for them. Those products were generally horrible, but they were timely. There are disinfectant cleaners that have alcohol, but they're not currently made in Canada. They're made in the U.S., so it's a good example. It was timely, but it was only because of the alcohol.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

The strength wasn't as high as the other ones.

The other issue that you just identified that I think we need to also note is that, if there are these products that are expired and they're sitting in warehouses, it concerns me that somebody, a bad actor, might distribute them and sell them, that kind of thing.

Do you have any recommendations or thoughts about that and what Canada ought to do to basically take an inventory, if you will, of what's out there and what might be expired yet still be for sale? It could be through reputable retail, although I would imagine they have their own processes, but anyone can go online and sell products.

Sir, would you mind drilling into that observation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could I get a brief answer, please?

[Stephen Parker]

During SARS, Health Canada allowed products like Purell to have extended dates, so there's the possibility that it could be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have enough time for you, Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thanks for making time, Madam Chair.

I want to thank everybody for joining us today.

I'll ask a little bit about the safety standards first, but then, at the end of my five minutes, I'll allow a bit of time for you, Mr. Kolz, and you, Ms. Bergeron, to weigh in on some of the things you might have heard here.

First of all, to you, Mr. Parker and Mr. Côté, there were some comments made at the last meeting that perhaps the companies using a UFD would be held to a lesser safety standard than Canadian manufacturers, and I think Canadians listening to and watching this committee would be concerned about comments like that. Would you agree with that statement?

I'll start with you first, Mr. Côté.

[André Côté]

No, we absolutely don't agree with that kind of allegation.

Whether it's used in Canada or the U.S., a disinfectant that's registered in Canada does the job it was marketed to do. It's not the product itself that's at issue here. What is at issue is the process by which a product is recognized and registered. It has nothing to do with product quality or the safety of Canadians.

As Mr. Parker said earlier, a peroxide-based disinfectant approved by Health Canada, whether manufactured in his plant or by another manufacturer, will give the same result as an equivalent product manufactured and approved in the United States. In fact, the standards in place ensure that both products will kill bacteria on a surface. However, it's the process of obtaining approval that is problematic—therein lies the difference between the two systems.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you.

I'll turn to you now, Mr. Parker.

[Stephen Parker]

I'm sorry, but I need you to repeat the question.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

There were comments made last hearing—this is day two of this, as you may know—that perhaps companies using a UFD would be held to a lower safety standard than that of Canadian manufacturers.

[Stephen Parker]

I wouldn't believe that to be true. There's no reason for that.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

That's great.

Just for those listening in and watching, there are three points in particular, as part of this regulation, that are put in there to help with ensuring that they are held to a high safety standard. I will just quickly read two of them.

The first one is that to meet the standards under the UFD pathway, a company must meet several criteria outlined in the regulations including identifiable formulation, same conditions of use, same manufacturing process and specifications, and confirmation that the company possesses or has immediate access to all information submitted to the foreign regulator to support approval.

The second one is that the UFD review pathway does not diminish Canadian health and safety standards. Manufacturers and importers who submit applications through this authorization pathway will need to meet all Canadian regulatory requirements including bilingual product labelling, standardized safety statements, robust incident reporting and postmarket surveillance obligations.

With that being said, as promised, I will turn it over to you, Mr. Kolz and Ms. Bergeron, to provide some summary perhaps.

[Gregory Kolz]

Thank you.

Yes, with respect to the question we received earlier about whether we still have faith in the American system, it's not just about having faith in the American system. It's about having faith in the Canadian system as well. We have one of the strongest systems in the world, quite frankly. If they assess the information they are provided and decide that the dataset is accurate, then we have reason to have faith in that.

Furthermore, a point was raised about how things maybe evolved or changed under the Trump administration. Our exact point is that: We don't want political involvement in this process. We want it to be based on science and on facts. It shouldn't be about public perception. It should be about data and making those changes.

Is it a question of the current system not being fact-based or science-based? No, it's absolutely not.

Are there options to refine the system, expedite the system or make it more competitive? We hear about it in various jurisdictions, whether it's transportation or groceries or otherwise. Canadians want lower prices. They want more competition. They want a healthy economic environment. We're talking to the trade committee, so there's obviously a sensitivity to those deals with other countries. That is why we are here. We are in favour of something that helps our growers, our companies, which very much rely on biocides among other products and which should have access to those in a timely manner whether they're produced domestically or internationally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 13 seconds.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I cede my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have a few minutes left before we get to 12:30.

Mr. Arya, do you have any outstanding questions?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair.

Mr. Harrington, thank you so much.

Last time I did not have time to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Arya, just hold on for a minute.

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

The Conservatives had their turn to speak. Why is it now the Liberals' turn? Wouldn't it be logical to give me the floor again for two minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We are scheduled to stop at 12:30.

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

I know, but you asked another member of the Liberal Party if he had any further questions or comments. Mr. Sheehan had his turn, followed by Mr. Jeneroux. Normally, we don't go back to one of the last two parties to have the floor.