Agriculture Committee on Oct. 27th, 2025

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Do you think that the non-compliance rate is coming down because of the increased tariffs that would be put on it, or because you're using better ways of detecting spent fowl?

[Alexander Lawton]

I believe it would be a combination of both better risking and compliance techniques, but also faster risking, interventions and audits. Importers are no longer able to import for a year or two years before we knock on their door and ask to see their records. Today, generally, it's within a matter of weeks or months that we're able to launch a verification or an audit, which really does address the problem early. If they're inadvertently making an error, we alert them to it. If they're intentionally or advertently making an error, they become aware that we're onto them very quickly.

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

We had the Chicken Farmers of Canada in, and they were very supportive of DNA testing and want us to move forward with this. What do you have...?

We talked about what you have in your tool box. Tell us what you have in your tool box that can satisfy us that you'll be able to pick out the spent chickens or the broiler chickens.

[Alexander Lawton]

I'd say, in general, there are three different tools in our tool box, three different things that really will address this issue.

The first is that we're verifying or auditing every single significant importer. We either have audited or are in the process of auditing them, so everyone who's in this space is getting contacted by the CBSA. The second is that we continue to monitor imports. By using the CBSA's new CARM system, we're actually much better at monitoring in a faster way. We look to see whether there are any changes in importer or any changes in market behaviour. We will identify that very quickly and address it as appropriate. The third is, essentially, just as you said: The 249% duty rate is prohibitive. If we're able to identify non-compliant imports very quickly and assess that duty very quickly, a 249% duty, generally, will dissuade people from attempting to mislabel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lawton, you've told us a number of times that the DNA test doesn't confirm the age of the chicken. However, chicken farmers are telling us the opposite, and people from Trent University seem to be saying the same thing.

Who is right?

If the test isn't perfect, wouldn't it be worth investing in developing that tool?

[Alexander Lawton]

My understanding—and, again, I'm happy to be corrected by anyone from Trent University—is that the DNA test is able to determine if the chicken is male or female and the breed of the chicken—so, whether it's commonly used for eggs or not—but the age is not a factor.

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

Mr. Lawton, from what I understand, the DNA test makes it possible to find out the age of the chicken. So it would be important to explore this tool further.

You're saying there's a 249% tariff on broiler chicken. You also say that, if we're able to quickly identify non-compliant imports, that is to say misrepresenting broiler chicken as spent fowl, that rate of duty is quite a deterrent.

However, that doesn't seem to be the case, since non-compliant imports are on the rise. I think we could be tougher on repeat offenders. You say that they're being criminally investigated.

For example, why couldn't we take away the import permit from people who use this scheme?

This could significantly reduce imports of broiler chicken mislabelled as spent fowl.

[Alexander Lawton]

In that respect, unfortunately I'd have to defer to colleagues within Global Affairs Canada with respect to import permits or the management of the tariff-free quota system. I apologize.

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

We're going to have to tackle this problem. We've been at this for 10 or 12 years, if not longer. Work had already begun on the DNA test.

My colleagues wondered how long it would take to analyze DNA tests. We were told that the results of those test results wouldn't be available until several weeks after the fowl was imported.

I don't think that's a big deal. Once the results are known, customs duties can be imposed on importers at fault and their import permits can be revoked. I don't think they'll use this scheme over and over again, and it will send a clear message to everyone.

One of the witnesses in the previous panel mentioned that just making it known that work was being done on a DNA test reduced the number of fraudulent import cases.

In any case, I've made a lot of suggestions to you today. We'll take your testimony into account and make recommendations to the government.

Thank you for being open to the idea of looking at the Canada Revenue Agency's figures. A shipment that cost much less than others is all the more suspicious.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawton.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you.

We'll go to our final five minutes from the Conservatives.

Go ahead, Mr. Bonk.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

This question is for Ms. Allan and the CFIA.

What organization is in charge of labelling and enforcement in Canada? Once the spent fowl is in Canada, who enforces labelling?

[Diane Allan]

The misrepresentation of fowl in terms of its import is the CBSA's responsibility. Labelling on the packaging sold to consumers is a CFIA responsibility, and on that labelling it clearly says chicken. We do not differentiate spent fowl labelling versus broiler chicken labelling; it is just chicken. That is the responsibility we have at the CFIA.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

What would be the difference if someone was to import buffalo and call it beef, for example? Is there no enforcement once it's in Canada?

[Diane Allan]

If the product that is coming in is misrepresented, that is definitely a responsibility for the CFIA. Misrepresentation in the circumstance that you've indicated would be a different species versus the species that's on the label. In the question of spent fowl, spent fowl is chicken, and broiler chicken is chicken.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Okay.

There's a DNA test that's been proposed here that can basically solve the problem between broiler meat and spent fowl, and it's being proposed to you by the Chicken Farmers of Canada. Is that not something that you could use as a tool to have proper labelling? It seems that the crux of the problem here is a labelling issue.

[Diane Allan]

The question is not the labelling of the product, per se. It's a question of the misrepresentation when it's imported through the tariff aspects. Maybe I can defer to my colleague at the CBSA.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I'd like to make some comments for the record.

In response to the Chicken Farmers of Canada request, the former federal minister of agriculture announced:

...to ensure appropriate tariff classification of spent fowl, the Government will also look at specific options regarding certification requirement for imports of spent fowl product, while ensuring that any such requirement would be fully consistent with Canada's international trade obligations.

That quote comes from former minister of agriculture Lawrence MacAulay in November 2016.

This committee is undertaking two studies, and I can't help but draw some parallels between them. You can't help but wonder why Canadians are frustrated at times with government and our departments when we're talking about the speed of reacting to issues. That was back in 2016.

I want to laud the work of the Chicken Farmers of Canada and their persistence in carrying on. They've provided some materials. I'm going to read into the record a bit of the chronology of this entire issue:

2013: Multiple meetings with AAFC and CBSA to find ways to prevent illegal imports and to request specific labeling for spent fowl products (CFIA requires whole bird to be labelled as “mature chicken”, but cut-up products can be labeled as “chicken”, therefore misleading consumers...

2014: Successful DNA test developed by Trent University presented to government officials

2014: Proposed pilot for DNA testing from Trent University-Sterisense to government officials

2016: Senate Standing committee on agriculture and forestry - hearings on the imports of spent fowl

2016: Presentation of the spent fowl DNA test to government officials for scientific validation

2016: CFIA suspended a cold storage facility in Detroit for mislabeling practices

2017: [Chicken Farmers of Canada] seeking progress from government officials on validation of the DNA test

2017: First round of CBSA Priority Verifications for spent fowl

2018: Blind validation of the DNA test—90 samples...

We've heard testimony on that. It continues:

2019: On-going lobby to have the implementation of the DNA test

We heard in testimony there was radio silence since then until a couple of weeks ago. It says:

2020: Second round of CBSA Priority Verifications for spent fowl

2023: Third round of CBSA Priority Verifications for spent fowl—$250 million assessed for misclassified imports under rounds 1 and 2.

2023: Imports are increasing again—Year to date end of July - 17% increase. Estimate annual volume to be at 85Mkg, similar to 2020

2023: Starting to have imports from Brazil and Argentina

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but the interpreters are saying you're going a little bit too fast.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

I will slow down. I do have that tendency.

It's not a wonder that the public and farm organizations become frustrated with the speed of government and of departments to respond.

The numbers don't add up. One country cannot import more than 100% of another country's production without there being criminal fraud.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Coteau]

Thank you very much.

I'll go to the Liberals for the final five minutes.

Go ahead, MP Harrison.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you very much.

My first question is for the CBSA. How frequently or in how many cases has the criminal investigations unit of the CBSA been successful in investigating when it comes to spent fowl?

[Alexander Lawton]

Unfortunately, I don't have those numbers in front of me. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure to what extent those could even be shared. That's something that, if it's acceptable, we will table and provide at a later date, to the extent we're able to.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Do you know what the consequences would be if the criminal investigation were successful?

[Alexander Lawton]

It would be a criminal infraction. In terms of the actual consequences and penalties, I'm really not able to say. I apologize.