7. Education - promoting understanding

One commentator noted that an overall assessment of what is working and what needs improvement in the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA 1999) needs to be completed before the Act is fundamentally changed. However, changes that incorporate the requirements for "Smart Regulations" should be implemented.

One commentary suggested that CEPA 1999 should promote a public education program along the lines of "PARTICIPACTION" to explain the economic and environmental benefits of recycling products and materials.

One commentary noted that the government should continuously strive to encourage incentives as opposed to disincentives as a means of promoting environmental and health policy.

One commentary noted that Environment Canada and Health Canada need to be proactive in facilitating the work of those sectors of society involved in improving public awareness and management. While the formal education system is an important part of that process, there is also a significant pool of motivated and qualified environmental educators associated with ENGOs that should be considered.

One commentary noted that while it is admirable and beneficial for the government to better promote understanding, it is still up to the regulated communities to comply with CEPA 1999.

The reinstatement of State of the Environment reporting and establishing a State of Health report was flagged as a means to assist in this process. One commentary also recommended the development of a State of Economic Sustainability report.

One commentary noted that developing indicators and prediction models could help avert government liability for industrial pollution.

One commentary noted that providing clear labeling of assessments of known risks on consumer packaging would be helpful in communicating risk. This information would enable consumers to choose the degree of risk they are prepared to take. One commentary noted that mechanisms must be established to ensure a third party review of the information used to make CEPA 1999 decisions.

One commentary noted that it is imperative that the reasons why a substance has been placed on Schedule 1 are readily available. The challenge will be to ensure that appropriate risk management and communications pertaining to Schedule 1 substances to fairly and adequately inform Canadians of the level of risk they represent. Governments should provide risk communication training to their spokespeople.