8. General comments on CEPA 1999

Note: While most commentaries addressed the specific questions identified in this CEPA 1999 Scoping Paper, several commentaries also addressed various aspects of the text that are not necessarily captured by one of the specific questions. This part of the summary report details these general comments.

The eligibility for Aboriginal representation in the administration of CEPA 1999 is too limited. The government must develop a more cooperative and solid relationship with Aboriginal peoples.

Any amendments to CEPA 1999 must recognize the primacy of Land Claim Agreements. The non-derogation clause should be redrafted to include "asserted" as well as "existing" Aboriginal rights.

There is a need for the creation of an enforceable federal safety net for environmental emergencies if other jurisdictions in Canada do not provide a sufficient response to an environmental emergency.

One commentary noted its support for the External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulations framework for the modernization of Canada's regulatory structures and recommends the report is examined and the use to help develop an efficient and effective CEPA 1999.

Environment Canada and Health Canada need to interpret the data they collect in the Act for Canadians each year on progress on problems in order to put this information into perspective. Reporting needs to be simplified so that meaningful data is collected.

The definition of "toxic" in s. 64 of CEPA should be amended in accordance with international understanding of the term. Section 64 should be changed to define a "substance for control" as a substance that is entering or may enter the environment and a quantity or concentration or under conditions that may constitute a hazard to human life or health. To date, many substances on the Priority Substances List (PSL) that are recognized by international bodies as toxic have been assessed by the government as non-toxic using the definition in CEPA 1999.

Many of the problems associated with CEPA 1999 are the result of the failure to fully implement the Act.

There is concern with the phrase "competitive economy" in the CEPA 1999 Scoping Paper. CEPA needs to maintain its respect for sustainable development, but it's emphasis needs to shift from "primarily about promoting sustainable development" to "primarily focusing on protecting and promoting the health of the public and the environment." The first priority goal of CEPA should be the protection of human health and the environment and secondarily the promotion of a competitive economy.

CEPA is extremely difficult to understand; it requires clearer language.

There are numerous problems with jurisdictional conflicts and confusion between CEPA and other legislation.

The Act should have the authority to require all government procurements to consider environmental factors.

The goal statement for this CEPA review should be as follows: to strengthen the well-being of Canadians, the health of our planet, and our long-term competitiveness.

Sufficient human and financial resources must be allocated to effectively implement CEPA 1999. The government has diverted its attention to harmonization agreements with provinces and territories and the promotion of volunteerism, as opposed to regulatory environmental protection measures. More detailed performance based reporting requirements and improved timelines for CEPA processes should be initiated. The federal "safety net" should be defined and should require the best available processes, practices and technologies for the protection of the environment and human health.

The Act needs to place much greater emphasis on action as opposed to study and consultation, particularly on toxic substances. The process of toxicity assessment must be accelerated. CEPA needs to take a stronger and more integrative approach to information gathering and dissemination. Increased reliance should not be placed on other government departments and other levels of government for the implementation of risk management measures under CEPA 1999.

Concern was expressed with respect to the long-term environmental impacts of mining high-grade uranium.

The government should apply the Precautionary Principle, along with the Polluter Pays Principle to large hog farm operations.

Preparing risk assessment and management approaches under CEPA 1999 should include sector-based evaluations and should include options for site-specific evaluations.

Nanotechnology should be regulated under CEPA 1999.

There is a need to ensure that the information gathering powers in CEPA 1999 include expanded National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) inventories that include greenhouse gas emissions. Whistleblower provisions need to be improved. Research and reporting requirements for groups of substances sharing similar attributes (i.e. chemical families.) need to be expanded. CEPA needs a mechanism to fast track the assessments and listing of substances of concern identified by international treaties to which Canada is signatory (e.g., persistant organic pollutants [POPs]). There needs to be a fundamental shift in the burden of proof from government to industry in demonstrating that substances are safe.