Evidence of meeting #10 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fowl.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
Thank you.
I'm a strong supporter of the supply management system. I recognize how important it is. Mr. Ruel, thank you for your commitment to protecting supply management. I think that's entirely to be expected in your case. It's interesting to see the projects you have in this area.
According to my notes, the amount of imported chicken is 45 million kilograms.
I'd like to get a better perspective on what that represents. How many kilograms of chicken does Canada produce?
Associate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada
Canadian production is 1.4 billion kilograms.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
What does the TRQ look like with respect to the U.S. for chicken imports into Canada?
Associate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada
Under the World Trade Organization, or WTO, of which it is a member, the U.S. has access to the Canadian market, at 40 million kilograms of chicken. It's also at 55 million kilograms or 57 million kilograms this year.
Associate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada
I'm sorry. I would just like to add that, when we talk about 45 million kilograms, we're mainly talking about chicken breast. If we were talking about chicken production, production would have to be a little more then doubled. So we're not talking about 45 million kilograms of whole chickens, but 45 million kilograms of chicken breast.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
We now have an idea of what that represents. U.S. producers export roughly one and a half times as much as they are allowed to send us, because they cheat the system.
Associate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada
Yes, that's right.
However, I need to clarify something. For this to work, both parties, the exporter and the importer, need to be involved. This gives the importer access to illegally imported chicken. They're probably much more motivated to take advantage of this subterfuge than the U.S. producers are.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
Later on, we can talk about the other solutions the Canada Border Services Agency has put in place.
The solution you proposed is interesting, and we tried to explore it a little. You said that it would be up to the CBSA to determine how to proceed. However, it would take several weeks to get the test results.
As I understand it, the shipment would make it to its destination, the poultry would be consumed in Canada and we would get the test results after the fact.
How do you and the researchers think the process would go after the DNA testing stage?
Associate Executive Director, Chicken Farmers of Canada
About 10 years ago, we discussed a proposal that we could make to the government. What ensued was that it would first be up to the government to determine the level of risk. To do that, it could inspect one in 10 shipments or set a percentage. It would assess the risk based on imports.
When an officer opened the container or the truck to inspect food safety, they would also take a sample of chicken and send it to the Trent University lab. University representatives would share the results with the CBSA. If the results showed that the import was mis-declared, the CBSA could follow up with the importer if the law had been broken.
We never talked about holding the product. Right now, I believe checks are done 12 to 24 months after importation. The CBSA will be able to tell you the exact number of months.
Right now, products aren't held on consignment for 12 to 24 months. We don't want to complicate things and make the process too cumbersome for the government and industry.
However, one thing's for sure: as Mr. Lumby said, if everyone in the industry knows that a test is being used, they won't take any risks.
Liberal
Marianne Dandurand Liberal Compton—Stanstead, QC
I'll turn now to the researchers.
You said you took on the cost of developing the test. You also mentioned that the university wouldn't have the resources needed to prioritize the analysis of results, so we would have to wait a few weeks before getting them.
How much could this DNA test cost?
How much funding would it take to maintain a database? Who would pay for it?
Director, Natural Resources DNA Profiling and Forensic Centre, Trent University
I wish I was more confident in French to answer in French—my apologies.
I don't think we're really prepared to tell you how much each test is going to cost right now. Things have changed tremendously in the past 10 years. Simple reagents are two and three times what they were at that point, so we'll have to reassess that.
Please remember that we hadn't heard about any real attempts to rejuvenate this test until just a few weeks ago, so we look forward to providing those estimates and telling you how fast we could provide results. Right now, we're just focused on working with Chicken Farmers of Canada, getting the database back up and running and reassessing the test. I would assume there would be some costs obviously to maintain the database, as the producers change their genetics over time. We need to be able to adapt with time and provide the most reliable results that are contemporary.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for joining us here today. This is an important study. We appreciate your time.
We'll suspend for five minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
I'd like to call the meeting back to order.
I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses: For those on Zoom, please wait until I recognize you. At the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 20, 2025, the committee is resuming its study on the importation of broiler meat mislabelled as spent fowl.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses joining us here today. Online, we have Diane Allan from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. From CBSA, we have Cathy Toxopeus and Alexander Lawton.
Thank you for joining us. We'll give you five minutes each.
Why don't we start with Diane Allan for five minutes first?
Diane Allan Associate Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA.
The CFIA is a science-based regulatory organization with a dual mandate: to protect and to promote. Our primary responsibility is to safeguard Canada's food supply, plant and animal health. At the same time, we play a vital role in enabling trade to support the economic resilience of the agriculture and agri-food sector.
Importantly, the agency applies an economic lens to its work without compromising health and safety. By ensuring that all food, whether produced domestically or imported, meets consistent, science-based standards, this enables trade, protects market integrity and supports the success of Canadian farmers and food producers.
As for the issue related to spent fowl, it is important to note that broiler chicken imports are tightly controlled and subject to tariffs, while spent fowl can be imported freely.
The matter of broiler chickens being incorrectly declared as spent fowl when imported is not a food safety or a labelling concern. In Canada, all chicken products, whether produced locally or imported, are sold and labelled as “chicken”. The distinction between broiler chicken and spent fowl matters only for import tariffs, which is neither a food safety nor a labelling issue, which I mentioned earlier. What is at stake here is that some imported chicken may be incorrectly declared as spent fowl to avoid higher tariffs.
The Canada Border Services Agency is the lead authority for enforcing tariff and import declaration requirements, while the CFIA's role is mandated to provide regulatory oversight and scientific expertise to ensure that food is safe and animals are healthy, and to support trade and the economic prosperity of Canada's agricultural resource base.
While we are not the lead agency on tariff enforcement, the CFIA does continue to work closely with domestic and international partners, particularly the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, to ensure that all imported meat products, whether they be spent fowl or broiler chicken, come from approved systems that meet or exceed Canada's food safety requirements. An official meat certificate endorsed by a USDA veterinarian is required for import of meats and meat products from the U.S.
Again, both spent fowl and broiler chicken are declared. The health certificate includes attestations related to the food safety, animal health and traceability information, including details on where the animals are slaughtered, processed and stored before they are exported to Canada.
By maintaining strong, scientific-based standards, the CFIA protects consumers, animals and plant health and preserves the confidence of trading partners, all of which contribute directly to a more resilient and competitive Canadian agri-food economy.
In closing, the matter of imported chicken and tariffs is neither a food safety nor a labelling issue; therefore, CFIA has really no role in this area.
The CFIA is responsible for overseeing the safety of Canada's food supply and protecting animal health and the plant resource base. The CFIA's regulatory framework is there to both safeguard and create a foundation for economic strength. Protecting food safety, animals and plants not only supports public health, but sustains market confidence and fuels continued growth across Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector.
Thank you for your attention. I'd be pleased to answer any questions from the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you very much.
We'll now go to the Canada Border Services Agency for five minutes.
Alexander Lawton Executive Director, Commercial Programs Directorate, Canada Border Services Agency
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, members of the committee.
My name is Alex Lawton. I'm the executive director responsible for the Canada Border Services Agency's trade compliance program.
As the committee may be aware, the CBSA has a dual mandate to safeguard our borders and to facilitate legitimate travellers and goods into Canada. In carrying out its mandate, the agency administers more than 100 acts, regulations and agreements on behalf of other federal government departments, provinces and territories.
Within the CBSA, my area works to ensure that all importers and exporters understand and respect Canadian trade laws and international trade agreements relating to the movement of commercial goods across Canada's borders. We assess duties and taxes owing on imported goods, conduct compliance verification audits and ensure the integrity of Canadian trade data and, by doing so, support the competitiveness of Canadian businesses.
Under Canada's tariff rate quota system, agricultural goods imported within the quota are subject to lower rates of duty, and goods imported over the quota are classified under higher rates of duty.
Allegations have previously been brought to our attention that some importers were incorrectly classifying broiler chicken imported to Canada, which is subject to a tariff rate quota and a rate of duty of 249%, as spent fowl in order to avoid the tariff rate quota requirement and the higher rate of duty. Spent fowl is meat processed from egg-laying hens once they have passed their useful productivity. Spent fowl is not subject to the tariff rate quota, whereas broiler chicken is.
The CBSA maintains a robust post-release verification regime and has made spent fowl the subject of regular trade compliance verifications. In response to stakeholder concerns, the CBSA developed tailored verification procedures to verify this specific commodity. These procedures served to create a comprehensive audit approach and provide a more effective means of identifying non-compliance by engaging all parties involved in the supply chain, including exporters, importers and Canadian customers, in order to validate the accuracy of the import declarations.
Between January 2010 and October 2025, the CBSA concluded 176 verifications of spent fowl and assessed $377,416,130 in duty, interest and penalties as a result. Another 18 verifications or other compliance actions are still in process.
These verification results show a significant decline in non-compliance since 2017. Initial rounds of spent fowl verifications in 2017 and 2020, as a national priority, resulted in an overall non-compliance rate of 38%. The most recent round of verifications launched in September 2023 has so far resulted in a 15% non-compliance rate.
The CBSA continues to seek improvements in how it identifies and addresses non-compliance. With the release of the CBSA assessment of revenue management system, or CARM, on October 21, 2024, the CBSA now has higher-quality and more timely data, plus an improved ability to analyze this data and identify potential non-compliance.
By facilitating aggregation analysis of trade data, CARM allows the CBSA to better identify changes in an individual importer's import patterns over time, inconsistencies in an importer's trading activities relative to others importing the same commodity or even discrepancies in how an importer describes its goods at different stages of the import process. As a result, CARM has improved the CBSA's ability to detect potential non-compliance, while also decreasing the time it takes to do so, and this is expected to directly impact the agency's ability to detect and address imports of poultry incorrectly classified as spent fowl.
Thank you for the opportunity to tell you about the CBSA's work concerning this issue.
I'd be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Michael Coteau
Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
We'll go to the Conservatives now for six minutes.
I'll start with Mr. Bragdon.
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to each of the witnesses today.
I want to start with you, Ms. Allan, if I may. You received a letter from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture—is that correct?—back in March, and they were insisting on this matter being resolved. On what date will the matter get resolved, in your estimate?
Associate Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Mr. Chair, we have had a significant amount of progress in discussions between us at CFIA and CBSA in sharing intelligence and information. We have met with a variety of stakeholders across the value chain, such as the Chicken Farmers of Canada. We also met with our colleagues at Food and Beverage Canada, as well as a number of other stakeholders.
We continue to provide stakeholder engagement in that space. We also are gathering further information and we have had discussions recently with Trent and CFC. As we continue to engage with our colleagues and understand their perspectives—
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thanks, Ms. Allan. I have a short amount of time, and I have to try to get a few more questions in here.
If indeed we've seen a 25% increase in the mislabelled product coming into this country since the beginning of this year alone, how is this being mitigated? Have there been any steps? It doesn't seem like it. It seems like there have been more conversations. There have been more talks and a lot more discussions, but what concrete action has been taken by CFIA to address this problem, which has been raised by both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health?
Associate Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
As you heard from colleagues earlier from Trent University, there are some discussions happening. We are discussing the rigour of the methodology that they're using.
In 2018, when we were engaged with them, there were limitations of the test that were found. We do know that the threshold for risk, as was mentioned by the Chicken Farmers of Canada, is something we need to look at without necessarily underplaying the upstream and downstream impacts in terms of the value chain in Canada.
Conservative
Richard Bragdon Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Ms. Allan, is it not true that this does pose a serious food safety risk to Canadians because of the egg allergy aspect and the traceability aspect?
This is a huge concern not only for the producers here in Canada; it's actually a concern on both sides of the border. This is something that needs urgent attention. It needs to be addressed. It seems like we're hearing that there's just going to be more discussion and more examination.
What concrete steps is CFIA taking to get this matter resolved expeditiously?
Associate Vice-President, Policy and Programs Branch, Canadian Food Inspection Agency
As I indicated earlier, we have had some intelligence exchanged between us. There has been a decrease in non-compliance, as was mentioned by my colleague at border services.
To go back to your point about the food safety issue, although there are studies that show spent fowl may contain egg protein, the risk is managed by industry through good manufacturing practices. Allergen labelling is available and exists to inform consumers when allergens such as egg are present in processed food products.
