Transport Committee on June 18th, 2025

[Lauren Martin, Senior Director, Public Affairs & Corporate Counsel, Canadian Meat Council]

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with you this evening.

I'm pleased to provide comments on behalf of the Canadian Meat Council, which is the voice of Canada's federally inspected meat industry, representing the entire value chain of red meat production and distribution in Canada, including all beef and pork sold internationally. We are the largest component of Canada's food-processing sector, with annual sales surpassing $32 billion, exports of $9.5 billion and a workforce of almost 70,000 people nationwide.

We applaud the spirit and intent of Bill C-5 as it pertains to the removal of interprovincial trade barriers. However, Bill C-5 purports to recognize provincially inspected meat-processing facilities as equivalent to federally inspected facilities, when they are not. We are concerned that the legislation in its current form would harm the meat-processing sector by limiting market access, affecting consumer confidence and, more broadly, introducing greater food risk safety and exposing the federal government to liability.

We recommend that the regulations intended to accompany this framework either exclude red meat interprovincial trade or ensure that provincially inspected facilities meet equivalent food safety standards as federally licensed establishments.

To provide a little bit of context, I would like to briefly describe Canada's meat inspection system. It's not something everyone knows. There are two levels of inspection.

The first is the provincial inspection. Provincially licensed abattoirs can only sell meat within a province. Provincially inspected facilities tend to be smaller and often serve local areas or specialty markets. Provincially inspected meat only accounts for 5% of Canada's red meat supply. Every province has different legislation, and inspection oversight varies from province to province.

By contrast, only facilities that are federally licensed can export meat to other provinces and countries. Federally licensed facilities process 95% of the total volume, meaning that most of the meat processed in Canada can be traded interprovincially right now. Federal facilities are usually larger, designed for higher volumes, but there are also small and medium-sized federal facilities that supply local product.

Just to reiterate, the lion's share of meat processed in Canada currently is traded interprovincially. While Bill C-5 purports to unlock the last 5%, we have concerns with the proposed wording of proposed section 8, which deems provincial requirements as equivalent to federal requirements.

The first and chief area of concern is food safety. A 2022 report commissioned by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute found sharp variances between provincial and federal standards and inspections. In 2017, the World Organization for Animal Health evaluated Canada's inspection system and also noted the same variability. Pathogens such as E. coli, salmonella and listeria have different levels of protection in provincial plants, which is a major risk to consumers.

The federal government could expose itself and the industry to legal liability in the event of a food safety incident traced to a provincially inspected facility that doesn't have the same level of food safety standards. The legal implications of deemed equivalency would increase liability for government and industry.

In addition, there's also the control of foreign animal disease within provincial plants, which varies and could contribute to the spread of foreign animal disease or to a public health risk for consumption of products coming from sick animals.

The second risk that I want to mention is to our international trade relationships.

Canada's federal food inspection system is based on international standards, and it is among the top five inspection systems in the world. This is one of the key reasons why Canadian products are highly sought after. The federal inspection system was developed and has been evolving within the context of the international trading system, while the provincial system has not needed to.

There are many instances of this. By way of illustration, I will describe just one example. Countries that wish to import Canadian red meat will come to Canada and audit pre-selected facilities, thereby recognizing the whole of Canada as approved. This is called systems-wide approval. We jeopardize the systems approval model by deeming provincial inspection systems as equivalent to federal.

The federal government, particularly the federal regulating body—the Canadian Food Inspection Agency—is aware of the risks facing industry in a multi-tiered inspection regime. It has worked with CMC and other stakeholders to remove interprovincial trade barriers without elevating the concerns of food safety, international relationships and sector-wide competitiveness.

In conclusion, we support the spirit and intent of Bill C-5, which is to increase trade within Canada and to make goods and services more accessible to Canadians, and we reiterate that, for red meat, we have interprovincial trade for 95% of the supply. If the federal government wishes to go further, this must be done in a way that recognizes the integrity of Canada's federally inspected meat-processing system to protect Canadians and enhance the sector overall. A regulatory approach that ensures provincial establishments meet federal standards would be most practical for provinces that already have near-federal standards or inspections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Martin.

Next we go to Chief Haymond.

You have three minutes, please.

[Chief Lance Haymond, Kebaowek First Nation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm coming to you from the traditional territory of the Huron-Wendat people here in Quebec City, where the chiefs of Quebec are gathered in assembly, and one of the topics we're talking about is Bill C-5.

I'm here today to express my firm and unequivocal opposition to Bill C-5, a bill that, under the guise of cutting red tape and building the nation, threatens the very foundations of Canada's constitutional order, the rights of first nations and our shared path towards reconciliation. Let me be clear: Bill C-5 proposes to reduce federal regulatory burdens and accelerate major infrastructure projects, but in doing so, it casts aside essential constitutional obligations. The duty to consult and accommodate first nations is not a procedural hurdle or a box to be checked; it is a constitutional imperative recognized and guaranteed in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, upheld time and again by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed in Canada's commitments under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The bill does not represent legislative reconciliation; it represents legislative recklessness. Prime Minister Carney says he wants to “Build, baby, build.” I ask, “Build what, and at what cost, in a country that sidelines the rights of its first peoples, that chooses speed over justice, discretion over duty and litigation over dialogue?” The process that led to Bill C-5 is a case study in how to not engage with indigenous nations: no draft bill; no meaningful engagement; no recognition of the complexity of our rights, title and interests; and no possibility of legislative co-development. Some may argue that Bill C-5 reaffirms the government's obligations under section 35 and UNDRIP, but I say that words in a bill mean nothing if the process is hollow, if free, prior, and informed consent is disregarded and if discretion trumps rights in practice, no pun intended.

Let me point to a recent decision that lays bare the gap between promise and reality. Earlier this year, in Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, the Federal Court ruled that the Crown failed in its constitutional duty to consult when it approved a nuclear waste facility near the Ottawa River without properly applying UNDRIP. The court found that free, prior and informed consent requires more than a box-checking exercise. It demands a meaningful process that respects indigenous laws, knowledge and governance, aimed at achieving mutual agreement.

This is the risk we face with Bill C-5, a future in which UNDRIP becomes another hollow promise on the long road to reconciliation. Let's be honest about what this bill represents: It represents a choice between two paths. The first path is legislative reconciliation, and that means implementing the UNDRIP Act in good faith; harmonizing federal laws to respect indigenous rights, title and treaties; and working with first nations to build a sustainable and just future for us all. The second path is litigation, the path that this government seems determined to follow. However, let me remind you that first nations have defended our rights in court. For decades we have won, and we will continue to win. Governments that ignore their constitutional obligations invite legal challenges and delays, and deepen division.

Bill C-5 does not address climate targets, protect biodiversity and respect the rights of first nations. Instead, it sets the stage for another wave of conflict, protest, court battles and public outcry. The conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak.

This is about which country we want to build: a country where economic development is pursued at any cost, or a country where growth is balanced with justice, partnership and respect for the land and its original stewards. We must reject Bill C-5. We must call on the government to start over, engage first nations as true partners and co-develop the legislation that aligns economic ambitions with constitutional duty, environmental protection and indigenous sovereignty. The clock may be ticking for the government's deadline, but our rights are not on their schedule. Our future is not for sale.

In closing, I urge this chamber and all Canadians to recognize that Bill C-5 is not a blueprint for progress. It is a blueprint for division at a time when our country needs to be more united than ever. Let's choose a better path, one that honours our Constitution, our commitments under UNDRIP and our shared future on this land.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Meegwetch. Thank you, Chief Haymond.

Next we will go to Ms. Exner-Pirot.

You have three minutes for your opening remarks. The floor is yours.

[Heather Exner-Pirot, Director, Energy, Natural Resources and Environment, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you, Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today. I join you from beautiful Inuvik, Northwest Territories, which has the midnight sun this time of year.

Bill C-5 is a very imperfect bill. It's not where I would start if I was looking to unleash Canadian resources and make Canada into an energy superpower, but I won't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Bill C-5 responds to the urgency of Canada's situation. If implemented well, it could position Canada to grow our economy, diversify our trade and improve our market access. I do not oppose this bill.

Let me start with the good. I am grateful that this government has made building major projects a focus of its first sitting and a hallmark bill. It matters. It signifies a change of priorities and an enthusiasm for building instead of blocking major projects. For 10 years much of the resource sector in the country has been in fight-or-flight mode, but in the past few weeks, I've been hearing optimism and bullishness from prairie premiers and energy CEOs. They believe this government may actually intend to build some infrastructure and position Canada to be an energy superpower. It is refreshing, and it is a relief.

I am grateful Conservatives are working with Liberals to pass this. Eighty-five per cent of Canadians voted for your parties with the expectation that you would meet the moment and turn our economy around and leverage our natural resources to increase Canada's power and prosperity in a time when we badly need both. I am glad Canadian politics have moved back towards the centre, but let me be clear that Bill C-5 is a shortcut and it cannot replace the hard work that will need to be done to fully restore investor confidence, improve regulatory processes and get projects built in this country.

Bill C-5 lets government pick winners and losers. For a handful of projects decided on in collaboration with provinces and territories, this is tolerable, but it's no way to run an economy in the long term. There are hundreds of projects advanced by private proponents in various stages of regulatory processes. Many are languishing. If Bill C-5 gives some projects an easier ride than others, it will disadvantage competitors unfairly.

If regulatory resources are concentrated on a handful of high-profile projects at the expense of the other ones already in line, it will exacerbate our reputation as a hard place to do business. If projects are chosen based on a political calculus rather than our economic returns, we may actually get poorer, not richer, by misallocating capital and effort. The bill is rife with potential for abuse.

It does do a service by highlighting in schedule 2 many of the acts and regulations that make it too difficult to build here in Canada. They must be reformed for all projects and for all proponents, not just a select few. Many more regulations and laws, many of which are likely unconstitutional, remain on the books. That will mute much of what Bill C-5 is trying to accomplish.

What good is a pipeline if the emissions cap means you can't fill it? What good is a railway if the Impact Assessment Act means you can't mine products to ship on it? The business community has not been coy about what needs to be done to really unleash our energy and resource sectors and it goes far beyond Bill C-5.

I will conclude with a short comment on indigenous rights and consultation on resource projects, a topic I care and think deeply about. The duty to consult and accommodate is very well defined in Canadian law, and aboriginal and treaty rights are constitutionally protected. I don't see anything in Bill C-5 that would reduce that obligation of the Crown or proponents to engage meaningfully with indigenous rights holders on projects that impact their rights.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Exner-Pirot.

We'll begin our line of questioning today with Mr. Albas.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today.

I'm going to start with Mr. Hatch at the Canadian Credit Union Association.

Mr. Hatch, although Bill C-5 doesn't seem to address the issue you're talking about, maybe we can briefly mention the transition rules that were first brought in under the Harper government. Jim Flaherty introduced them. It really was looked at as a potential game-changer for many small credit unions that could link together, create their back office as one and be able to have a wider footprint, but I would imagine that for some credit unions, it's like flying across the country and then being asked to do a holding pattern at the destination, like over Pearson, where they're circling and circling and circling.

Maybe you could explain the costs that go along with being under the federal rules, under the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and the provincial regulator at the same time and why that is such a difficult situation for a credit union if it goes on for an indefinite amount of time.

[Michael Hatch]

It is very burdensome. Just to be clear, we're not asking for the regulatory regime at the federal level or the provincial level to be lessened. Credit unions have existed for decades, or over a century, in a lot of cases. They're well capitalized and well regulated at the provincial level, in most cases.

What we're asking for is for a shorter and more reasonable path for those that are considering expanding outside of their own province. It's never going to happen overnight. A lot of things have to take place.

I would credit previous governments for the foresight to legislate that process. It was thought, at the time, to be a game-changer, as you said. However, the game hasn't changed as much as we would have perhaps hoped a decade ago because of the length of time that it takes.

You know, six, seven or eight years is not something that anybody, frankly, is willing to take on. If it was closer to 12 or 24 months, then I could tell you that a lot more institutions would actively consider going down that road, which would ultimately result in more competition for consumers and more choice in financial services because you'd have more institutions competing at the national level.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Can you give us an example right now of any credit unions that are going through that process and have been more than, let's say, 36 months?

[Michael Hatch]

It is a matter of public record. There is one in your province of B.C. It's First West Credit Union. It is going through the process.

Three have completed the process: one in B.C., one in Saskatchewan and one in New Brunswick. That's three out of nearly 200 institutions. That's a pretty small percentage of the overall market.

I don't necessarily want to comment on any individual cases. I can tell you that in the case in B.C. right now, they are in constant contact with OSFI and with officials here in Ottawa and are doing their due diligence in order to complete that process.

That's just one example. We want to take the learnings from that and the other processes we've seen over the last few years and just make the case that it has to be made easier and less time consuming, frankly.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

If a road map was agreed to with certain time limits and it was honoured by both federal and provincial regulators, everyone would be better off. Is that what you're saying?

[Michael Hatch]

Absolutely.

Ultimately, it's about the consumer. It's about competition. It's about having more institutions competing nationally in financial services.

It's about mobility between the provinces as well. If you're a small business and you want to expand from one province to another, if you bank with a credit union, all of a sudden you have to go to a new financial institution. That is not necessarily debilitating from the business's point of view—it's certainly possible to do—but, like I said in my opening comments, it serves as a vehicle for further concentration amongst the big banks.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

I guess it must be frustrating because the big banks can capitalize by issuing more stock or by putting out bonds, but credit unions are limited by their provincial regulator as to how much debt they can hold, which may be different from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions. To kind of be holding that back-and-forth method while you're still waiting to see who's going to be your regulator that year, I'm sure could be difficult.

I will just quickly go to the Meat Council.

Thank you very much for raising the issue today.

Have you had any conversation with either the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Health? Obviously, the Minister of Health is the minister responsible for CFIA.

[Lauren Martin]

Yes, absolutely. I think both entities have been aware for quite a long time as to the differences between inspection systems at the federal level and then at various provincial levels.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

We saw a lot of our small abattoirs close in the early 2000s because of the requirement by the province that everyone had to be CFIA qualified so that they could send their products both interprovincially and federally. We really saw these small markets dry up.

I'm concerned, being a local member of Parliament for B.C., that these small abattoirs might suddenly, under this rule, actually start to face competition from other provinces that may or may not have the same rules.

Is that possible?

[Lauren Martin]

I think that's a real possibility. I appreciate you raising it. It's a tricky balance to walk.

At this point in time, all provincial facilities could come up to the federal standards if they so chose. It would be a business decision on their part to do so. The fact that they haven't suggests to us, and should to all of you, that there's a business reason for why they choose not to be federally inspected at this point.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

That's fair enough.

My last question will be really brief.

Have you raised the concerns around Bill C‑5 to the CFIA directly, or to the Minister of Health or the Minister of Agriculture?

What was their response?

[Lauren Martin]

Yes, we have, directly, and they are supportive.

What we also understand is that once Bill C-5 goes through its legislative process, there will be a regulatory process that is undertaken in which we can unpack some of these exceptions, potentially, in greater detail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Next, we'll go with Ms. Nguyen.

Ms. Nguyen, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, please.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Thanks very much.

It's been some hours, folks. Thank you, everyone, for joining us this evening for the discussion of this very important piece of legislation.

I'm someone who likes to give out gold stars and recognize when there are some positive things.

Lauren, I'm curious about this. You said there are some pieces in the legislation or in the framing that you feel comfortable with. Could you tell us a bit more about where you think there might be some good opportunities for us to be building and growing the economy if we move forward with this legislation?

[Lauren Martin]

Certainly. I would point to two examples where you, as a committee, and the regulators might take better learning.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency developed a domestic comparability assessment tool, which is used by provincial establishments to self-assess their safety systems against the federal standards. That helps to identify commonalities and gaps, and then that turns into discussions as to how to elevate, if they so choose.

There was also a domestic trade journey that was organized by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, which identified provincial meat processors that are interested in federal licensing.

To the extent that we can support those provincial facilities that are interested in becoming federal, I think that's a space that government can play a role in, and that would benefit us all.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Thanks.

It sounds like you see that there might be some opening around the regulatory process to make sure that we get this right.

[Lauren Martin]

Yes.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Great.

Mr. Hatch, I want to ask you about the opportunities you see. You talked about the challenges in terms of your particular sector around credit unions and moving into a broader frame and the pieces there. I wonder if you could frame up some of the things here that you see are potential advantages in the legislation, especially how we could use it to make sure that we're supporting young workers and families.

[Michael Hatch]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we had hoped to see some language in the bill that would address the issue that I brought up, which is what we feel to be the unnecessarily burdensome process for credit unions to grow beyond their provincial borders and to operate at the national level.

The Department of Finance is well aware of our concerns in this area, and so is OSFI. We have been very candid with them, and we will continue to be. They have, to their credit, been open to this idea.

It's not necessarily a legislative fix, although there are some technical pieces of legislation or components of legislation that I think could address some of the components that make that process so very difficult, but it's more of a cultural resource allocation question within OSFI, perhaps, and also the treatment of capital.

Without getting too much into the weeds, credit unions are co-operatives. They're financial institutions that are organized along co-operative lines, as opposed to the large, shareholder-owned, primarily for profit, publicly traded financial institutions that can go out and raise capital, in the billions of dollars, in capital markets at the drop of a hat.

The way that credit unions raise capital is largely through retained earnings—their profits year over year—which is pretty much by definition a much slower, more difficult and time-consuming way to raise capital.

There are ways that OSFI can change the way it looks at things like that to make it easier. Again, they're open to it, and we hope to continue that conversation for the duration of this Parliament and beyond.