ARCHIVED - Summary Report of Web-Based Comments to Assist Environment Canada and Health Canada in Preparing for the Parliamentary Review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

Q 4.1. Should CEPA 1999 be clarified to require the Minister of Health to conduct monitoring studies?

Most commentaries agreed that CEPA 1999 should ensure that the Minister of Health can conduct monitoring studies. Some of these commentaries noted that this requirement should be mandatory, while other commentaries noted that the requirement should be enabling.

Almost all commentaries strongly recommended that CEPA 1999 should enable the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Health to provide State of the Environment and State of Health reporting. One commentary noted that the State of the Environment and the State of Health reports should be provided at least every five years. One commentary noted the importance of biomonitoring studies to help researchers in understanding the contribution of toxicants to disease/disorders in populations, and to reducing their incidence and the resulting major social and medical costs.

A couple of commentaries felt that CEPA 1999 currently provides adequate authority enabling the Minister of Health to conduct monitoring studies, including biomonitoring studies and therefore does not need to be amended.

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?

Most commentaries agreed on the need to improve reliability of information reported under NPRI and the administrative efficiency of the program. Concern was expressed concerning the quality of information received, the quantity required of the various reporting sectors, and the inappropriate use of information and the timeliness of reporting. Specific suggestions for improvements to the NPRI included the following: more resources allocated to the program to allow the government to audit reports submitted to the NPRI; use of estimation techniques, and specific reporting software, should be mandated; substances that are recommended for addition to the toxic substances list should be automatically added to the NPRI, at the threshold appropriate to capture 90% of facility generated releases and transfers; records should be maintained for a minimum of 10 years; testing and estimation techniques should be publicly accessible; radionuclides should be reported to better track the nuclear waste and storage industries; quality assurance and quality control requirements should be standard procedure; the criteria for calculating releases of substances should be based on sound scientific principles; NPRI reporting requirements should be harmonized with other jurisdictions (domestic and other countries) to minimize duplication and to enable effective comparisons.

Some commentaries noted that the reliability of the information reported could be significantly improved if the complex reporting requirements currently required were simplified.

Q 4.3. Should the Act extend the information gathering powers in s. 71 to the Minister of Health?

Most commentaries noted that CEPA 1999 should extend the information gathering powers in s. 71 to the Minister of Health. Some commentaries cautioned that efforts at gathering information by the departments must be carefully coordinated to avoid duplication.

One commentary noted that the information gathering powers under s. 71 should be expanded to allow the government to require the collection of new data. It was also noted that CEPA should require the departments to make publicly available up-to-date inventories of the information gathered under CEPA 1999.

A couple of commentaries stated and that CEPA 1999 does not need to be amended to extend information gathering powers to the Minister of Health. Instead, Health Canada should work with Environment Canada to develop a coordinated approach for dealing with any information needed under section 71.