Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you about Bill S-5.
I am Justyna Laurie-Lean with the Mining Association of Canada.
The mining industry is affected by several parts of CEPA, but we do not offer comments on amendments that we have little experience with. We see Bill S-5 as generally well-crafted amendments that modernize and clarify existing enabling authorities, but we are concerned about the departmental capacity and resource implications of legislative changes. We urge you to be mindful that the implementation of changes to the act will require resources from departments already tasked with delivering on other priorities and struggling to deliver regulatory development and administration.
We previously highlighted the need for an online query tool to facilitate finding out the status of a substance under CEPA. Senate amendment number 4 responded to our recommendation. On November 4, Environment and Climate Change Canada made available, on its website, a new tool that meets the needs that MAC identified. This tool will increase transparency and amplify awareness and compliance.
We continue to struggle to understand what the proposed “List of substances capable of becoming toxic” would do that is not already accomplished by other existing provisions of CEPA. The list is not tied to any consequent action. It is not integrated in the CEPA framework for managing substances.
We recommend that this new list be removed or amended to require that the listing of a substance includes a specification of actions to be taken. We are concerned that Senate amendment 15(c) moves proposed schedule 1, part 1 away from focusing on substances that pose the highest risk and towards legislating specific hazard characteristics.
We recommend returning paragraph 77(3)(b) to the original wording and recommend avoiding limiting the flexibility of defining “highest risk”.
CEPA applies to a very wide range of substances with diverse combinations of hazard characteristics and exposure scenarios. CEPA is technical and complex.
As you consider Bill S-5, we urge you to avoid hamstringing enabling provisions through excess prescription. The act should encourage the use of expert judgment to adjust assessments and actions to the specifics of each issue based on the best available knowledge at the time.
We would also urge you to avoid constructing provisions in a way that encourages litigation. Fear of litigation drives departments to focus on avoiding litigation rather than on protecting the environment and health. Transparency and parliamentary oversight would be more effective at stimulating progress.
Thank you.