Common Themes

• 3.1 Harmonization
• 3.2 Linkage to Other Federal Policies
• 3.3 The Recyclables Dynamic (1)
• 3.4 The Recyclables Dynamic (2): Differentiated Controls for Recyclable Materials
• 3.5 Usability and Simplicity of Regulations
• 3.6 Focus of Enforcement Activities
• 3.7 Regional or Workshop Specific Comments

Throughout the workshops a number of common themes emerged. These are summarized below.

Some participants at all sessions expressed a strong desire that this regulation be harmonized with hazardous waste and recycling requirements across Canada and in the US. Some expressed frustration over the amount of effort that has been expended in talking about harmonization of federal and provincial hazardous waste regulations in Canada, and the lack of progress in achieving it in practice. Specific comments concerning harmonization were made in reference to definitions, classification of wastes and recyclables as hazardous, coverage of recyclables in the regulation, and permits of equivalent levels of environmental safety (PELES). The non-coverage of certain recyclables in the US was brought forward by many industry representatives as a direction to seek in harmonization efforts. Other stakeholders sought the inclusion of the US "waste derived from" rules into Canadian definitions.

At all sessions, participants urged Environment Canada to link the work on this regulation with other EC and federal policies including: the Toxic Substances Management Policy, POPs and The Minerals and Metals Policy. The pollution prevention program was also specifically noted several times in this context.

While participants generally supported the principle of meeting Canada's international commitments under Basel and OECD, some stakeholders urged Environment Canada to focus the regulation on the fact that approximately 95 % of transboundary movements of hazardous waste and recyclables are with the U.S.. They argued that EC should use the flexibility afforded in our international commitments to come up with an approach that takes into account the domestic regulatory regimes in Canada and the US and not put redundant or irrelevant requirements in place. These stakeholders urged that this approach be adopted to exclude many recyclables from the scope of an amended regulation.

While there were no specific proposals, participants at all session expressed a strong desire in some cases and understanding in other cases for different controls on recyclable materials than for hazardous wastes. Recognizing that differentiation already exists in the current regulations, some NGO representatives wanted any such differences limited to those recyclable materials that do not create a hazardous waste residue after recycling treatment. Industry representatives generally sought an expansion of differentiated controls, including introducing the concept of "blanket" approvals or permitting for repeated (but substantially similar) transboundary movements for recycling. There was debate over whether this would be best achieved through the PELES provisions or by incorporating it directly into the regulation.

Many participants argued that the current regulations were written primarily to satisfy international commitments and were difficult to understand and apply. Many suggested that the classification process and use of lists in the regulation should be made more explicit. Related to this point, a number of participants were concerned by the number of related regulatory initiatives going on (PCB Regulations, Interprovincial Regulations, Prescribed Non-Hazardous Waste, etc.). They urged EC to use this convergence of processes as an opportunity to consolidate these initiatives into an overall harmonized framework.

At all sessions, participants raised the issue of enforcement. Many argued that EC has focused too much on enforcement of administrative issues rather than identifying and prosecuting more serious illegal practices. At some sessions participants suggested that the EIHWR regime incorporate the "ticketing" activity for minor violations provided for in CEPA, 99.

While there were a number of themes common to all five sessions, some comments were made only at individual sessions:

• In Montreal some participants argued that the EIHWR regime should explicitly address marine transportation issues; and
• One participant in the Vancouver session discussed the use of a market based regime (i.e. trading in waste credits).

The workshop presentation raised issues concerning carriers, including increased reliance on subcontractors. The reaction to this issue was not universal, with participants from the Maritimes and Quebec providing a different perspective than those in Western Canada. Most participants encouraged EC to avoid regulating carriers, since they are already regulations under provincial legislation and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations.