Agriculture Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Geoff, I'm sorry. This is the second time I've had to do it to you. I have to move on to the next person. We have very limited time here. I apologize. Hopefully someone can ask you the question again.

Mr. Perron, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lumby, I'll give you about 20 seconds to answer the question.

[Geoff Lumby]

Thanks, Mr. Perron, and thanks for your comments earlier.

We tested for industry parties after creating the test and while we were waiting for the government to decide whether or not to deploy it. At that time, when I interacted with those groups, they all were so afraid of the test that, to my understanding, imports dropped off. They thought the government had already deployed the test, even though it hadn't. The point is that the deterrence factor was huge.

On your earlier question, Mr. Perron, I'm glad to talk about those costs of the deployment. The cost of creating the test again, or updating, is one thing, but deploying it is another.

Thanks.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ruel, if I understand correctly, the DNA test could be ready in less than a year. This test could be added to the administrative work, which you commended. This administrative work resulted in $361 million in duties, interest and penalties being assessed. We agree on that.

Would it be a good idea to recommend to the government that it allocate the necessary resources to update the database associated with this test so that it can be put in place in existing infrastructure?

Random testing is already being done. It would be a small, low-cost top-up.

Does that make sense?

[Yves Ruel]

Yes, that makes a lot of sense.

As members of the Chicken Farmers of Canada's board of directors, we're prepared to contribute to updating the test and to invest up to $350,000 in it.

Why not do that?

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

What more could we do?

In an ideal world, we'd make the recommendation to the government, it would invest in the project and, within a year, we'd introduce this test.

The administrative work that's produced results, could we bring in other elements of that nature?

[Yves Ruel]

I don't know if other administrative measures would be effective. We've tried a lot over the last 10 years. Despite these efforts, illegal imports continue.

What we want is results, not means.

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

When we receive more of this product than what the United States produces, we're basically being had, to put it politely.

[Yves Ruel]

Let's be clear: Canadian importers are abusing this subterfuge, not the Americans. The Americans we met with are on our side to try to limit these illegal imports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

We'll go to John for five minutes.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses.

I can certainly understand how important this issue is when we see those numbers that have skyrocketed over the last few years.

I'll go on with my colleague's question. I think it was Mr. Lumby or Mr. Kyle who mentioned that the testing was done or that the development of the tests was done, and then they ran out of resources. I see this as a program that should be self-sustaining when the Liberal government is collecting $360 million in penalties and tariffs.

Mr. Lumby, has the government had discussions about using the tariffs and fines collected from the illegal importation of these spent fowl? Would that be sufficient to fund the expansion or the additional development of the test that needs to be done?

[Geoff Lumby]

We haven't had those discussions in the past, but that's an order of magnitude difference there. It's $350,000 to develop the test versus $350 million in penalties taken in.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

To Mr. Klompmaker, have you had those discussions with the government at all? This seems to be a resource issue. Funding is clearly coming in. It would exponential, I think, for a short time, because, hopefully, the deterrent would be there.

Is that a discussion you've had with the government in terms of using the tariffs and fines that have been collected as a means of funding the DNA testing and the development of that DNA test?

[Tim Klompmaker]

At this point we have not had those discussions with government about exactly how they would operationalize the whole thing as far as the DNA test is concerned. That certainly is a solution.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

In your conversations with the government, since this has become more and more of an issue over the last few years, what is the reasoning the government has given you for not providing the resources necessary to develop this DNA test and get it implemented, when clearly—to the testimony of Mr. Lumby—even the threat of having that DNA test has been a deterrent?

What has been the excuse from the government for not providing the resources necessary to get this in place?

[Tim Klompmaker]

I guess what we've heard from government was that they felt that the enforcement they had in place today was sufficient. They showed us what they were issuing in fines and interest and the duties they were taking in, and they said that showed that their enforcement was working.

Our concern is that we're seeing those numbers at $360 million. We see that on the enforcement, but we're still seeing spent fowl imports going up. All the stuff that's happening at this point is by paper verification. Our thing is that you can't argue with science. You can forge a piece of paper, but you can't change science. That's why we're on the page that, once a DNA test is in place, that is the true deterrent, because there's no questioning it.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

One quick question for me would be this: Would you agree with the government's assessment that their fines and current deterrents are enough? Would you agree with that assessment?

[Tim Klompmaker]

No, I would not.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

You talk about science, and I have concerns. We had the agriculture minister here on Thursday. Time after time, he said that they have the science, but that they were in a geopolitical situation and that they were making decisions on politics rather than defending our science and our protocols in Canada, and thus defending our producers.

Is this just a question of resources, or does there need to be some political will here by the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Health to make sure this happens?

[Tim Klompmaker]

Certainly there needs to be the political will to get it done, no doubt.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Concerning the letter that was done in March, six or seven months ago, have you seen any progress from the date of that letter to where we are now, where we see those numbers up 25% on the recent stats? Have you seen any progress from the government in terms of resolving this issue?

[Tim Klompmaker]

Maybe I'll turn that question over to Yves. He's probably better qualified to answer that.

[Yves Ruel]

Thanks.

We had two meetings, one on August 1 and one on October 14, to update us on discussions that took place between CFIA and CBSA, but there was nothing concrete in terms of new actions or action plans as far as we know.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

It's been seven or eight months—it's actually been more than 10 years—and there's still no action.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Connors.