A bit more specifically, I would add that the news release we received from Agriculture Canada on October 5 contained various commitments regarding three import control circumvention techniques.
The first commitment is about the duties relief program. The program enables Canadian processors to import, process, and re-export products if it's done within a four-year period. Currently, 96 million kilograms of chicken come through under that program. That's equivalent to 9% of our production, and it's a major issue for us. We suspect that a portion of those products are not re-exported. A program intended for re-exports already exists. It's called the import for re-export program, or IREP. It's truly intended for supply-managed products. So there's a duplication here, in our view. Removing supply-managed products from this program would really be a disengagement, and we urge the government to maintain its position.
The circumvention involving so-called spent chicken imports is also a very serious problem for our industry. Here is what's happening. Chicken is coming into the country as "spent fowl", when the importation is, in fact, fraudulent. Roughly 10% of our production is imported as "spent fowl." A portion of those imports is legitimate, but another portion is not. Based on the statistics at our disposal, in 2012-13, Canada supposedly imported more spent poultry breast meat than the entire U.S. production of such meat. This is a strong indication of fraud. We therefore ask that this government, in keeping with the announcement made in the October 5 news release, truly put mandatory certification in place for spent poultry imported to Canada—it needs to be certified—and that the government use the DNA tests developed to identify which chicken is spent.
The other import control measure that is needed should address specialty defined mixtures—that is, the use of sauces or dressings in products containing 87% chicken or less. A few businesses are using a subterfuge: they put more than 13% worth of sauce in chicken wing boxes so the product is no longer subject to the same tariff. That's another problem the government should take care of.
I will allow Mr. Leblanc to conclude.