Consultation Process
This initial consultation process was specifically designed to take place prior to Environment Canada having formulated its own policy choices on the key issues surrounding the amendment of the EIHWR. These key issues were selected jointly by the consultants and Environment Canada, based on the new powers set out in CEPA 1999, changes to the international agreements, and specific implementation issues that have arisen over the course of the application of the EIHWR. Thus, the consultation was not open ended, but focuses on the key new policy issues facing Environment Canada in the amendment process.
The initial consultation was designed to provide information to and solicit input from Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs), local community groups, provinces and industry on these key issues at a very early stage in the amendment timeline. The primary means of achieving this was a series multi-stakeholder sessions held at five locations across the country:
- Moncton - February 28, 2001;
- Montreal - March 7, 2001;
- Edmonton - March 19, 2001;
- Vancouver - March 22, 2001; and
- Toronto - March 27, 2001.
Stratos Inc., Environment Canada's consultants for this process, developed an invitation list from lists used for a number of previous consultations and contacted individuals primarily by e-mail. Members of the CCME Hazardous Waste Technical Group (Provincial Representatives) were invited to participate in this process during their meeting in the week of January 15th. In advance of the sessions, a discussion paper was prepared and circulated to all potential participants. Environment Canada also posted the paper on the CEPA Registry web site.
At each of the sessions, a two-person team facilitated and recorded the proceedings, with an EC representative on hand to respond to specific questions and provide clarification on issues. A copy of the agenda is included in Appendix A and the list of attendees at all five sessions is included in Appendix B. Individual reports were prepared for each of the sessions, and sent to all participants for validation. All of the session reports were synthesized into this report.
Some of the multilateral sessions were followed by bilateral meetings including some discussions with EC Regional Staff (Program and/or Enforcement). Various industry representatives also submitted written comments and position papers on the discussion paper. This report summarizes those submissions.
The Canadian Environmental Network (CEN), a network of hundreds of environmental nongovernmental organizations across the country, coordinated ENGO input to this process. Members of the CEN Toxics Caucus attended 4 of the 5 sessions and produced a position paper on the issues raised in the discussion paper. This paper also summarizes points raised in the ENGO discussion paper have also been synthesized into this report. A copy of the CEN Discussion Paper is posted on the CEN website.
Stratos distributed questionnaires at all five sessions to solicit feedback from participants on the consultations and the associated discussion paper. In addition, some of the written submissions provided comments on the process. Most feedback was positive, with many participants expressing their appreciation for being given an opportunity to provide input at this early stage. However, others felt that EC should have waited until it was able to consult on specific proposals. The comments below provide a reflective sampling of some of the more critical comments received from the participants:
- The format for the consultations was too limited in scope (focusing on specified key new policy issues). There is a need for a broader discussion on the nature of Canadian policy in this area, and its relationship to Canadian needs and priorities, in particular within the waste management and recycling sectors;
- The Minster of the Environment should establish a permanent Advisory Council on this issue;
- Environment Canada should post overhead slides, comments from previous workshops, participant lists, and written submissions on its web site;
- Environment Canada should ensure that the EIHWR reform process is more explicitly linked to the CCME.