Agriculture Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 10 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to Standing Orders, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Before we continue, I'd like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on a card that links to a short awareness video.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of all witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking or asking a question directly to a member. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, October 20, 2025, the committee is commencing its study of the importation of broiler meat mislabeled as spent fowl.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses today. Thank you for joining us.

From the Chicken Farmers of Canada, we have Tim Klompmaker, who's the chair, and Yves Ruel, associate executive director. From the Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, Trent University, we have Christopher Kyle, who's the director. From Sterisense, we have Geoff Lumby, who is the founder.

I'll give each of the delegations five minutes to speak. Please try to be on time. We'll start with the Chicken Farmers of Canada.

Welcome, and thank you for joining us here today.

[Tim Klompmaker, Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada]

Thank you very much for having us here this afternoon.

Good afternoon. My name is Tim Klompmaker. I'm a third-generation chicken farmer from Ontario and the chair of Chicken Farmers of Canada.

We are here to ask that the committee work with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to direct the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency to implement the DNA test that will help stop the fraudulent importation of broiler chicken mislabelled as spent fowl. This border fraud has been impacting Canadian chicken farmers for well over a decade, so thank you for studying this important topic.

Chicken Farmers of Canada represents more than 2,800 farmers, located in every province. We are built on supply management, ensuring stability for farmers, processors and consumers. One pillar of supply management, import controls—meaning the predictability of imports—helps us determine how much chicken must be produced to satisfy the domestic market.

While there is market access provided for broiler meat, based off agreements with trading partners, there are no restrictions on spent fowl imports, and they can enter Canada duty-free. Spent fowl are egg-laying hens that are processed for their meat at the end of their production cycle. Canada imports both broiler and spent-fowl meat; however, one cannot visually distinguish between the two products. As a result, some importers have been purposely mislabelling broiler chicken meat as spent fowl to circumvent Canadian import regulations.

Over the years, we have worked closely with AAFC, CFIA and CBSA to address this fraudulent mislabelling, and they have implemented some measures to try to control the mislabelled imports. From CFIA's suspension of a cold storage establishment in the U.S. to CBSA's inclusion of spent fowl under its priority verification program, over $361 million in duties, interests and penalties on mis-declared spent fowl have been assessed, proof that the problem is real and that better enforcement is required.

I'll take you back. In 2012, we noticed the first warning signs: imports labelled as spent fowl were exceeding what was even possible in U.S. production. Thirteen years later, those numbers persist. For 2025, available data, from January to August, shows that imports of spent fowl have increased by 25% compared to last year. Even more alarming, when converted into a whole-bird equivalent, those imports represent 115% of total U.S. spent fowl slaughter. This shows that Canada's imports of spent fowl exceed the U.S.'s entire production, a clear signal that illegal imports are entering the country, and concrete action is urgently required. These growing numbers and overall concern for fraudulent imports led to a statement from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Public Safety in March, directing CFIA and CBSA to develop an action plan to improve detection, enforce compliance and ensure a level playing field.

Back in 2014, we worked with Trent University to develop a scientifically validated forensic DNA test that can distinguish between broiler meat and spent fowl, in order to help government agencies find a solution to identify mislabelled imports and show our commitment to eradicating this problem. Despite these efforts, there has been no further action from the department or agencies on the DNA test since 2018, and it has not yet been implemented as part of Canada's import verification process. CFC has committed to investing in more work with Trent on the update of the tests and hopes that agencies will implement them as part of their tools to enforce Canadian import regulations and ensure food safety for Canadians.

Although these are not guns or drugs, this is illegal activity at our borders. This fraud costs jobs, tax revenue and fair-market competition. More importantly, it risks undermining consumer trust and food safety, because mislabelled products can't be traced if there's a recall on the original product.

Our farmers take these consequences seriously, so seriously that seeking government implementation of the DNA testing by the end of 2026 is a critical priority for our sector. Doing so would not only end this criminal activity but would generate additional economic activity, strengthen food safety and restore fairness for Canadian farmers and processors.

Together we can stop this border fraud once and for all. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

We will now go to the Trent University representative.

[Christopher Kyle, Director, Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, Trent University]

Hello. My name is Christopher Kyle. I'm a professor here at Trent University. I'm also the director of the Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre.

Today, I would like to talk to you about some of the centre's services to give you some context on a test that we developed that distinguishes between spent hens and broiler meat.

Our facility provides molecular diagnostic support for a range of wildlife research and environmental pathogen detection, including waste-water detection that we report to public health agencies. Our facility also includes a forensic wildlife DNA lab, where we provide expert witnesses and services for a range of federal and provincial agencies that have included the RCMP, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Cases range from poaching, animal abuse, animal attacks, parentage testing of breeding stock and, importantly for today, food mislabelling.

As I mention food mislabelling, I think it's important to introduce my colleague Geoff Lumby, who founded Sterisense. Sterisense and Trent work together on industrial commercialization, testing of international seafood and retail company samples for species identification and population verification. This relationship expanded greatly in 2011, when Maple Leaf Foods approached Sterisense and Trent University to develop a spent-fowl test that distinguished between broiler meat and spent fowl and assessed the fraudulent mislabelling of spent fowl.

In 2012, contracts were inked between Maple Leaf Foods and the Chicken Farmers of Canada with the planned phases of research and development followed by proficiency testing and subsequent deployment by the government. By 2014, we had an approximately 800-sample database that was built from sire and dam lines of commercial genetics companies with a three-stage test to assess shipments across the border. I think it's important to mention what these three phases do.

The first phase was to sort sex identification where the expectation was that spent hens from egg layers would have roughly a 98% to 2% ratio of females to males, whereas broilers would have a ratio that was roughly fifty-fifty. The second stage involved using genetic differences between broiler lines and egg-laying lines to distinguish between the groups. Third, in some cases, the parental stock of broilers can enter the spent-fowl market, so we actually had a third phase to distinguish parental stock from the actual broiler meat itself. This was completed in 2014.

From 2015 to 2017, we did some testing for different commercial groups and had ongoing discussions with CBSA and CFIA to discuss the implementation of the test and assess the validity of the test. It wasn't until 2018 that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada sent us 90 samples to assess the test. Of the 90 samples, three actually weren't even chickens but were assessed as being a turkey, a cow and a duck. Of the remaining 87 samples, 73 were properly distinguished; 13 of the samples were unassigned, as some of the genetic variants that we came across were not in our database and thus couldn't be assigned; and one was declared as a misassigned sample, something that I'll put an asterisk around for now.

After this test, there were some discussions to discuss the results, and in 2019, CBSA representatives came to visit the Trent lab. However, since then, it wasn't until the last two weeks that we've had some communications with some of these agencies to discuss the test again.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in your study. I also thank you for your interest in the genetic test that we've developed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

We will now go to Geoff Lumby.

[Geoff Lumby, Founder, Sterisense]

Hi folks. Thanks. I'm glad to be here.

I don't have much more to add to what Chris has said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Okay. Thank you very much.

That was the shortest presentation ever. We appreciate your time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll do a round of six minutes each. We'll go to the Conservatives for six minutes.

Richard.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each of the witnesses who have come here today.

I'll start with you, Klompmaker. You've given us a lot of pertinent information. Can you summarize quicky what the overall impact is on the poultry industry here in Canada, and even the impact it may be having on our U.S. counterparts as well?

Just a brief summary on that, please. I have some follow-up questions for you.

[Tim Klompmaker]

I'll start with the impact we're seeing that the U.S. is talking about, and then I'll go over to Yves and he can give you the details exactly on the impact on our sector in Canada.

In discussions we had with some of our processors down in the U.S. who do spent fowl, they're actually quite concerned about this because they see themselves as being sole exporters of spent fowl into Canada. They're saying they're unfairly having to compete with these companies that are bringing in broiler chicken that's classified as spent fowl. They're concerned about it as well, and they're willing to work with us.

If we go back to when CFIA shut down that storage facility in the U.S., they were very supportive of that occurring as well—very much on side with us.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Ruel, do you want to add?

[Yves Ruel, Associate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada]

Thank you.

I'll add on the Canadian impacts. We assume that legitimate imports should be about 60 million kilograms per year. Based on the trends so far this year, we're heading toward 105 million. If you take 45 million of illegal imports or very questionable production, that's 45 million displaced from Canadian production. The impact generated by 45 million is about 3,600 jobs, $394 million in economic contribution to the GDP and $129 million in taxes. Basically, this is what's taken away from Canadian economic activity by those illegal imports.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

That's a pretty significant impact, for sure.

Are there any health risks associated with the mislabelling of broiler chicken as spent fowl? Can you provide a little background on that as well if there are some health concerns?

[Yves Ruel]

Obviously, if the chicken is imported and illegally declared as spent fowl, Canadian authorities will be able to trace it as a spent-fowl imports but not as chicken imports. If the chicken were to be recalled in the U.S. for whatever reason—there's something at the U.S. processing plant—there would be no way to find out that it has made its way into Canada. It would enter the food chain in Canada and there would be a food safety risk.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

Are you aware of any other countries dealing with similar issues to this? What are they doing about this?

[Yves Ruel]

I'm not aware of any other countries. Most of the time, if they have import controls on chicken, they would be on the overall chicken species. They would not be broken down. In our case, we have import controls on broiler chicken but not on spent fowl.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Kyle, my understanding is that you have a test that's been developed. You did the test, and it was reviewed in 2018, which identified a couple of questions or issues or challenges.

Can you tell us what developments or adjustments you've made to alleviate the concerns? Have they addressed with you why they haven't implemented this test yet?

[Christopher Kyle]

It's a challenging question to answer.

There was no more funding. We did the proficiency test. Things did not continue beyond the meetings we had in 2018 and the tour we had in 2019. As such, there have been no further developments in refining the database. That's what was just mentioned by Chicken Farmers of Canada. We're about to re-embark on updating the database, which will be critical. I think an ongoing update of the database each year will be critical to making sure we maintain its validity.

I think a lot has happened in over a decade in our ability to do this type of work, where I think we could probably make it much better. That is our goal in the coming year, to build on that preliminary proficiency test, which quite honestly had a few minor issues with it. I think the important part whenever you're doing a forensic case is to always have a “none of the above” choice, so those 13 of 87 samples that we didn't assign. I think that's an important thing to maintain and to remember that we're going to be assessing shipments, not individual samples.

Overall, I think that three-phase test could be implemented quite soon, but we would really like to update that database.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Do you feel quite confident about where the science is on this, that any concerns that were brought up have been alleviated? Do you feel that this could withstand a court challenge?

[Christopher Kyle]

I guess that's why I tried to introduce some of the services that we do provide. We do provide expert witness testimony, when need be, for a range of forensic cases. You're going to like this comment, perhaps: We like to be conservative on those fronts in making those assignments. We will be developing relative probabilities. It doesn't mean that we're absolutely right, but we will be giving you something to the equivalent of what you might hear in a human DNA forensics case, such as “there's a one in x chance”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Perron.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt the witness, Mr. Chair. On a point of order.

There is some noise disrupting the meeting.

I would like to ask the interpreters if the noise is disrupting their work. We want to preserve their auditory health.

Can you make the noise stop for the next hour?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you for bringing that to our attention.

I have asked Chris, who works with me, to go downstairs. I think there is some construction.

Is there no interpretation...?

I'll start again.

Thank you so much, Mr. Perron, for bringing this to our attention—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

I'm told that it disrupts the interpreters' work. I think we need to take a break and ask that the noise stop.