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

SECTION 5: SOUND SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

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?

Most commentaries stressed the importance of credible scientific research and the need to further develop and coordinate scientific and research partnerships and activities to ensure effective decision-making under CEPA 1999. In essence, these commentaries identified the need to ensure adequate human and financial resources, as well as the need for vigorous efforts to strategically identify and coordinate research needs with credible domestic and foreign (international and other national jurisdictions) initiatives. This would allow Canada to contribute to and benefit from research that is occurring throughout the world. Most commentaries recognized that amendments to CEPA 1999 would not be necessary to promote this objective.

Some commentaries noted that Aboriginal peoples have little awareness of research activities of CEPA 1999 relating to environmental and human health, the issues that are addressed, where the information is stored, or how to access it. Concern was expressed that there is little dedicated research addressing the specific concerns and needs of Aboriginal peoples. Dedicated research of relevance to Aboriginal peoples, conducted by Aboriginal peoples is required to help close this gap. This information must inform the public policy debate.

A couple of commentaries flagged concern about the lack of independent science that is used by Environment Canada and Health Canada to support decision-making under CEPA 1999; most information used for a these decisions is provided by industry proponents. These commentaries felt it would be vital for governments to have the capacity to conduct independent studies and, in this regard, resources to do this work must be made available.

Q 5.2. How can Environment Canada and Health Canada most effectively include Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge in their decision-making processes?

Several commentaries expressed the need to better Integrate Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge into all aspects of CEPA 1999 decision-making. At the same time, these commentaries stressed that accessing and using this knowledge must be done in a respectful manner, which includes permission to use the knowledge and recognition of proprietary considerations. Some suggestions for better integrating this knowledge included: amending the administrative duties of CEPA 1999 to incorporate the consideration of Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge in all CEPA 1999 decision-making functions; working with Aboriginal groups (communities and Elders) at the earliest stages in the scientific information gathering processes; and, training departmental personnel in Aboriginal awareness, including the value of Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge.

One commentary noted that the Act should recognize Traditional Ecological Knowledge, as well as Traditional Aboriginal Knowledge.

Q 5.3. With respect to sound science and risk assessment of existing substances, what are your views on Environment Canada and Health Canada's plan 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?

Several commentaries strongly supported the stated intention of Environment Canada and Health Canada to focus more on classes of substances instead of proceeding on the current substance-by-substance approach. Some commentaries noted that CEPA processes should use and incorporate data generated by other jurisdictions (e.g. REACH, the High Production Volume Challenge program in the United States), but that the final decisions on toxicity and risk management strategies must remain with the Canadian government. Some commentaries noted that the responsibilities for providing enough information to establish that the substance and its current or proposed uses is acceptable remains with those who manufacture or use the substance. One commentary noted that CEPA 1999 should list health endpoints of concern for toxicity (e.g. carcinogenesis, immunotoxicity). One commentary noted that all of the information used in the risk assessment process of the specific substance should be made publicly available.

Some commentaries noted that Canada is a world leader in its approach to the current DSL categorization and screening initiative and that no changes should be made to CEPA 1999 pertaining to these provisions.

Some commentaries noted that the categorization criteria imposed by CEPA 1999 are unsuitable for addressing inorganic substances. While amendments to CEPA 1999 to address this problem were considered unnecessary, these commentaries stressed the need to ensure that the risk assessment process is sufficiently rigorous to clearly identify which form of an element and under what circumstances that part of the element may pose a risk that will require risk management.

One commentary noted that where other competent jurisdictions have concluded that a substance does not pose a threat to the environment or to human health, these findings should be taken into consideration in part to ensure that Canada remains on a competitive footing with its international competitors.

A couple of commentaries encouraged the government to treat "In Commerce List" substances as "existing" substances.

One commentary supported a single window approach to substance management in which all substances are managed by one set of rules, under one government department, with each registration requiring one submission.

One commentary noted that: the criteria for persistence presently used to evaluate chemicals is now widely accepted as being inadequate; the criteria defining bioaccumulation is inadequate for protecting mammals, birds and humans; the currently proposed definition of inherent toxicity is fundamentally unsound and does not reflect recent advances in the science of toxicology; and, the focus on hazard assessments of the DSL fails to address the real and compelling demands of the public.

One commentary noted that an immediate ban should be placed on substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic, citing the European Union and several American States as blueprints for action in Canada.

Q 5.4. Does the Act provide adequate authority to support inter-jurisdictional cooperation in the implementation of the New Substances Program?

Most commentaries stated that inter-jurisdictional cooperation for new substances is a useful exercise, and should be promoted. Some commentaries noted that CEPA 1999 should be amended to expressly authorize inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Some other commentaries noted that there were no current legislative impediments to the use of data, including assessments from other jurisdictions if that information was submitted by the proponent. Some commentaries stated that CEPA should explicitly allow the Ministers to accept assessments from other jurisdictions, particularly from the United States. Some other commentaries did not support the concept of automatic approvals or "fast-tracked" assessments of substances approved in other jurisdictions.

A couple of commentaries favoured a single window approach for all new substance registrations in order to ensure that new substances are managed by one set of rules.

Q 5.5. Should CEPA 1999: provide the authority to remove any of the originating substances from the DSL if information determines that it is no longer used in Canada; and, clarify the authority for the submission of information regarding current use patterns and quantities in use of substances on the DSL?

Some commentaries agreed that CEPA 1999 should provide the authority to remove any of the original substances from the DSL if the information determines that the substance is no longer used in Canada. These commentaries also agreed on the need to clarify the authority for the submission of information regarding current use patterns and quantities in use of substances on the DSL.

Some commentaries argued that there are is no compelling reason for CEPA 1999 to authorize the removal of substances listed on the DSL. These commentaries are of the view that the DSL categorization and screening process will not result in an unreasonably increased workload issue in this area. These commentaries generally agreed that the current powers under s. 71 are adequate for requesting information regarding use patterns and quantities for substances on the DSL. One commentary suggested that DSL substances that are no longer in commercial use in Canada be given a low review priority.