Questions

• Do you agree with the issues identified by the departments?
  
• Do you have additional issues?
  
• How would you suggest CEPA 1999 and/or its implementation evolve to address these issues?

No questions.

No questions.

• Q 3.1. What are your views on this issue?
  
• Q 3.2. Should CEPA 1999 provide support for the objective of keeping-clean-areas-clean? If so, how?
  
• Q 3.3. Does work under CEPA 1999 adequately consider the precautionary principle and the most vulnerable populations?
  
• Q 3.4. Does CEPA 1999 adequately enable effective transparency, access to information and opportunities for public participation?
  
• Q 3.5. Are there improvements needed to the CEPA Environmental Registry to facilitate better access to information and informed participation in decisions related to CEPA 1999?
  
• Q 3.6. Should the Parliamentary review of the Act be increased from every five years to every seven years?
  
• Q 3.7. If Ministers choose the route of no further action under CEPA 1999 (i.e. a non-CEPA measure is pursued), should conditions be put in place to ensure effective accountability for protection of the environment and human health?
  
• Q 3.8. If a non-CEPA 1999 measure is pursued, should CEPA 1999 play a backstop role? If so, how can this be done efficiently?

Environment Canada and Health Canada regard administrative and equivalency Agreements as important mechanisms for enhancing the efficiency of the overall Canadian environmental management regime. As such, the subject matter, scope and timeframe of these agreements can vary markedly.

• Q 3.9. Should CEPA 1999 provide the flexibility to tailor administrative and equivalency agreements to appropriate circumstances?
  
• Q 3.10. What are your views on this issue?
  
• Q 3.11. What are your views on this issue?
  
• Q 3.12. How should CEPA 1999 interface with other federal authorities for the management of products?

The management of biotechnology is an important and complex issue that has many dimensions - such as horizontal governance - outside of the scope of CEPA 1999.

• Q 3.13. In the context of a federal strategy to build on existing legislation, is the residual role that CEPA 1999 serves adequate for assessing and managing current products of biotechnology?
  
• Q 3.14. Is the Act adequate for assessing and managing emerging developments of biotechnology?
  
• Q 3.15. Should CEPA 1999 authorize remedial measures with respect to animate products of biotechnology?

The regulatory gaps with respect to federal activities and lands and with respect to Aboriginal lands presents ongoing challenges whose resolution requires considering a wide range of factors, some of which are well outside of the scope of CEPA 1999.

• Q 3.16. What are your views on this issue?

• Q 4.1. Should CEPA 1999 be clarified to require the Minister of Health to conduct monitoring studies?
  
• Q 4.2. Is there a need to improve the reliability of information reported under NPRI and the administrative efficiency of the program? If so, what type of changes to CEPA 1999 would you recommend?
  
• Q 4.3. Should the Act extend the information gathering powers in s. 71 to the Minister of Health?

• Q 5.1. How may current resources and capacity be used to further develop and coordinate scientific and research partnerships and activities, in order to advance scientific objectives which support decision-making under CEPA 1999?
  
• Q 5.2. How can Environment Canada and Health Canada most effectively include traditional aboriginal knowledge in their decision-making processes?

Given the challenges listed above, Environment Canada and Health Canada plan to continue to:

• use the tools provided by CEPA 1999 in the most efficient manner possible;
• identify opportunities and methodologies for grouping substances together by class or sector for risk assessment; and
• seek collaborative opportunities to improve databases and reduce resource requirements and timelines for assessments of existing substances.

• Q 5.3. What are your views on this issue?
  
• Q 5.4. Does the Act provide adequate authority to support inter-jurisdictional cooperation in the implementation of the New Substances Program?
  
• Q 5.5. Should CEPA 1999: fl provide the authority to remove any of the originating substances from the DSL if information determines that the is no longer used in Canada; and fl clarify the authority for the submission of information regarding current use patterns and quantities in use of substances on the DSL?

CEPA 1999 provides broad authorities to enforce the Act and its regulations.

• Q 6.1. What are your views on this issue?
  
• Q 6.2. Should the Act provide an alternative approach to the designation of substances?
  
• Q 6.3. Should the Act provide an alternative approach to the listing of substances that have been determined to be toxic?
  
• Q 6.4. Should the Act include additional authority regarding economic instruments?
  
• Q 6.5. Should CEPA 1999 require an LoQ for every substance being added to the Virtual Elimination List?
  
• Q 6.6. Should the Act enable export/import permits to adapt to changing circumstances?
  
• Q 6.7. Are the export reduction planning provisions effective, or should they be clarified or removed from the Act?
  
• Q 6.8. Should CEPA 1999 enable further alignment with emission control standards of other countries, including the U.S.?
  
• Q 6.9. Should CEPA 1999 include authorities to address fuels as they move throughout the entire distribution system (from the refinery to the service station)?
  
• Q 6.10. Should CEPA 1999 be clarified to ensure that the Minister can prohibit the sale or use of a new substance that has been manufactured in or imported into Canada prior to completion of its assessment?
  
• Q 6.11. Are there benefits to the CEPA 1999 requirement that disposal at sea permits be published in the Canada Gazette for a 30 day period?
  
• Q 6.12. Should more flexibility be accorded for a permit's term?
  
• Q 6.13. What are your views on this issue?
  
• Q 6.14. Should CEPA 1999 authorize the designation of qualified persons as environmental emergencies officers?

7.3 Should CEPA 1999 be Implemented Differently? Should the Act be Changed?

• Q 7.1. What are your views on this issue?

Indicators and Environmental and Health Prediction

• Q 7.2. What are your views on this issue?

Risk communication

• Q 7.3. What are your views on this issue?

No questions.