For Immediate Release
February 7th , 2014
Senator Ringuette present motion questioning why Canada is import 101% of US spent fowl production
Yesterday, Senator Pierrette Ringuette spoke in the Senate chamber in support of her recently tabled motion to ask the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce to study the trade between the United States and Canada to determine the adherence to the letter and spirit of our trade agreements.
In particular, the motion seeks to study the potential for loopholes in the classification system used to determine import quotas with on focus on spent fowl and chicken.
Spent fowl is meat processed from egg laying hens once they have past their useful productivity. It is tougher and tastes different than broiler chicken and poses egg allergy risks.
There is a lack of control and oversight to properly asses the importation and labeling of spent fowl and broiler chicken.
Under the current system, importers can mix spent fowl and chicken in one shipment and as long as there is slightly more spent fowl, they can import it all as spent fowl.
The last 3 years have seen imports of spent fowl increase by over 50%, and the total amount of spent fowl imported from the US exceeds the amount they produce.
Clearly, there is something wrong.
This motion will grant an opportunity to remedy an unfair practice and help our farmers and all Canadians.
Please find the text of the motion and transcript of Senator Ringuette’s remarks attached.
For more information:
Tim Rosenburgh
Office of Senator Pierrette Ringuette
rosent@sen.parl.gc.ca
MOTION
That the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report on trade between the United States and Canada and the adherence to the laws and principles of all trade agreements, with particular focus on spent fowl and chicken imports, including:
(a) the application of tariffs and quotas on classifications that include blends, food preparation, kits, and sets, as well as the potential for these products to circumvent the law and principle of trade agreements, in particular import quotas;
(b) the regulations regarding import tariffs and quotas as established by the Department of Finance;
(c) the interpretation and application of those rules and regulations by the Canadian Border Services Agency;
(d) the monitoring of products defined as blends, food preparation, kits, and sets; and
(e) The reciprocity of US regulations regarding similar Canadian imports;
That the committee provide recommendations for regulatory and legislative actions to ensure fairness for Canadians in the system; and
That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 27, 2014, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.
TRANSCRIPT
Hon. Pierrette Ringuette, pursuant to notice of January 30, 2014, moved:
That the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report on trade between the United States and Canada and the adherence to the laws and principles of all trade agreements, with particular focus on spent fowl and chicken imports, including:
(a) the application of tariffs and quotas on classifications that include blends, food preparation, kits, and sets, as well as the potential for these products to circumvent the law and principle of trade agreements, in particular import quotas;
(b) the regulations regarding import tariffs and quotas as established by the Department of Finance;
(c) the interpretation and application of those rules and regulations by the Canadian Border Services Agency;
(d) the monitoring of products defined as blends, food preparation, kits, and sets; and
(e) the reciprocity of US regulations regarding similar Canadian imports;
That the committee provide recommendations for regulatory and legislative actions to ensure fairness for Canadians in the system; and
That the committee submit its final report to the Senate no later than June 27, 2014, and retain all powers necessary to publicize its findings for 180 days after the tabling of the final report.
She said: Honourable senators, today I stand to speak in support of my motion to authorize the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce to conduct a study on trade between the United States and Canada and the adherence to our trade agreement, particularly the issue of import quotas.
I have spoken with numerous stakeholders in the agricultural industry, including national associations, like the Chicken Farmers of Canada and the Dairy Farmers of Canada, as well as producers in my province; they have all described issues they have with the classification process for import quotas. As I state in my motion, I believe that the study should focus on the issue of spent fowl and chicken imports, although I know that these issues exist in many other industries and would want this study to address the larger, systemic issues.
Spent fowl is one of the larger and more pressing concerns that I have heard during my discussions and would be a good place to focus the study and learn about the problems with our current system.
Spent fowl is a by-product of egg productions. It is, basically, old hens.
Regular chicken is raised for consumption, whereas spent fowl are hens that have passed their time of useful productivity, which is around 60 weeks.
Once they are past their prime, the hens are processed for meat.
Spent fowl is not considered `chicken' for the purposes of import quotas. You heard me right: it is not included in the quota system. There is no limit on how much can be imported.
According to the Chicken Farmers of Canada, in 2012, 106 million kilograms of spent fowl was imported, which is 10 per cent of domestic broiler chicken production.
It has been increasing every year; in fact it has increased by 50 per cent over the last three years.
And as a percentage of chicken production, it has been on a steady increase, around 5 per cent in 2005, to an estimated 17 per cent for 2013.
So, why should we care about this?
Well, first of all, spent fowl is not as good as broiler chicken. It is tougher and tastes different. However, Modern processing techniques have made it an increasingly viable and cheaper alternative.
Spent fowl can also pose potential health issues because it carries an egg allergy risk. I want to draw your attention to something. I have a friend in Edmundston, New Brunswick, who has an 18-month-old granddaughter living in Saint John, New Brunswick, who is very allergic to all egg products. Let me explain the health risk. If the spent fowl imported from the United States is not properly labelled, it presents a serious health risk.
The increasing importation of spent fowl displaces Canadian production, Chicken farmers estimate as many as 8,900 jobs and $591 million has been lost.
In my area of northwestern New Brunswick the production and processing of eggs and chicken industry is the biggest creator of jobs and contributor to our economy.
After the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce committee conducts its study, makes its recommendations, and these recommendations are put in place, chicken farmers in my region and across Canada could have an increased demand of up to 30 per cent of the Canadian market. The need to supply this additional product will create a lot of jobs and greatly increase farmers' revenues.
What I seek to address in my motion is that spent fowl is being imported without proper checks. There is a loophole that allows importers to bypass chicken import quotas by blending spent fowl and broiler chicken. As long as the spent fowl represents more than 50 per cent, they can import it all as spent fowl, without tariffs or quotas.
In recent years, Canada has been importing more spent fowl from the United States than they actually produce.
(1610)
Did you hear me? I will repeat what I said. Last year, Canada imported more spent fowl from the United States than that country can produce. When we look at the data on U.S. spent fowl production and what is imported into Canada from the U.S. under that heading, we are importing 101 per cent of the U.S. production of spent fowl. This means that no American eats spent fowl. Canadians eat all their spent fowl.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge that there is obviously something wrong here.
[English]
Honourable senators, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to acknowledge that there is obviously something wrong here. The Canadian Border Service Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency do not properly identify what is spent fowl and what is broiler chicken.
There is no certification process to ensure that products are labeled properly. This problem costs Canadians jobs and income; it poses health risks and creates questions about what we are told and what we are actually consuming. It's about fairness for our farmers and our citizens.
Last weekend I went to the Madawaska, Maine, border office. I spent three hours there in conversation with a U.S. border officer. In the U.S., they have import specialists to enforce their trade and tariff laws. These specialists are responsible for ensuring that all duties are paid and that all imports are classified accurately. They are highly trained and have the technical enterprise and industry knowledge to do the job. They help protect jobs, revenue and health. They ensure that trade agreements are followed properly. They combat fraud and counterfeiting. In 2011, approximately $96 million in revenue was collected by this particular unit. We do not have import specialists in Canada. Why? Perhaps we should.
There are other issues that arise around these import quotas. One is that of products such as chicken and sauce, which are again imported outside of the broiler chicken quota because there's sauce with the chicken. It's still chicken. They package it with sauce, therefore it has a different classification.
A recent issue that hit the news was that of pizza kits. I don't know if you've read about it.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes, yes.
Senator Ringuette: These kits put cheese and pepperoni together and, all of a sudden, we're not importing cheese because it was not classified as such, ignoring quotas and tariffs.
This issue was addressed by the government in the last few months, to their credit, but that is not the proper way to deal with these issues. We cannot have the government acting on an ad hoc basis to fix problems that seem to occur on a larger scale to more than cheese imports, as the chicken that I have just indicated to you.
While my motion specifies spent fowl and chicken, the purpose is to look at a system where importers can get around the rules and where we are failing to uphold our commitments to our industries. We need to find solutions to these systemic problems and not address them product by product.
My motion asks the committee to look at how the government applies the rules we have in place and how we can improve the system. We need to understand how these products are classified, how they are monitored and how importers can find loopholes to circumvent the rules. We need to look at what the U.S. does to our own exports and apply the same standard and process.
I urge my fellow senators to support our farmers, to support our domestic industry, to support our consumers and, please, support this motion. Thank you.