Re: Bill S-5, An Act to Amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, etc. – Response to Mining Association of Canada letter dated May 27, 2022 I. CELA Experience With CEC and NPRI Databases

The CELA Response With respect to MAC point 1, above, the MAC letter does not dispute the accuracy of the CEC estimate of a 49 percent increase in on-site air emissions of arsenic in Quebec for the period 2006- 2018. [...] However, the simple fact of the matter is that the Federal Court ordered the Minister to require retroactive reporting by the mining industry of on-site disposal to 2006, the Minister in turn ordered the mining industry to comply, and we have NPRI-CEC data for the 2006-2009 period that are in accord, which MAC, nonetheless, suggests should be ignored for the purpose of evaluating trends. [...] Letter from CELA - 6 does not prevent the release of pollutants into the environment and should be reported upon to the public as part of the NPRI: “Although TIAs and WRSAs are on-site, I do not see how this prevents some kind of release, in the sense of a deposit, seepage or interaction with air, land and water that is brought about because the natural environment has been transformed by human ag. [...] In CELA’s view, the Federal Court judgment in Great Lakes United stands for the proposition that once there has been human manipulation of substances in the environment for industrial or commercial purposes, even if the substance (arsenic) is not what is sought commercially by the manipulator (e.g., gold is), the result of that manipulation is of interest to the public under CEPA. [...] The on-site presence of arsenic and its compounds in TIAs and WRSAs poses such risks and, therefore, is of interest to the public, and is within the four corners of the statute.