This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Skip booklet index and go to page content

Reply to Comments Received in Submissions on the Proposed Export and Import of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material Regulations

Comments and Reply: Interprovincial Comments

A number of stakeholders had comments with respect to theInterprovincial Movement of Hazardous Wastes Regulations and any modifications to those Regulations that may occur as a result of the proposed Regulations.


Because of the change in manifest in this proposed regulation, the IMHWR will have to be amended to maintain the requirement for the manifest that has been in use since 1985 across Canada. This is an additional future cost to the industry-not disclosed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Assessment).

Definition of Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Recyclable Material

The following comments assume that this definition will be adopted for the IMHWR as a change in definition might trigger NAFTA challenges.

  • How is the addition of a new quantity number for mercury going to affect the management of traps for dental amalgam? Why has this number been introduced in this particular regulation at this time? How will this number affect the transport of normal household waste as any one "garbage truck" traveling between Canada-US could have in its total load a few thermostats or thermometers or other items that could trigger the 50 ml limit? For that matter, how will any normal "garbage truck" ensure that the total limit of 5 kg or 5 L is not exceeded now that you have removed the waste that are household in origin exemption? Since it is customary for the general public to always lobby for the more stringent regulations to be adopted provincially, how will HHW be managed if the exemption is taken away? Most homeowners making a trip to the HHW depot carry more than 5 kg or 5 L? Environment Canada has expressed a fear that there is or would be abuse of the exemption for waste that are household in origin. Since provinces are deal with waste handlers directly, were the provincial authorities consulted before removing this exemption? Why has years of input from hazardous waste managers at the provincial level been totally ignored in this decision to remove the exemption for household waste?
  • What has happened to the exemption for chrome (blue) trimmings waste from leather tanning and finishing industry? This exemption has received the support of all of the provinces and was to be included in this regulation as per the public consultation documentation distributed previously. Why is it not in this regulation?

The lists in Schedules 3 to 6 appear to have been derived from the TDGR and the U.S. RCRA. There will be some challenges if these lists are used for the Interprovincial Regulations. TMB should ensure that the tables are structured so that only one code is required for any one constituent as there are overlaps, duplications and differences.

In previous consultations about EIHWHRMR reference to the definition was always made in the context of the Interprovincial Movement of Hazardous Waste Regulation (IMHWR) and there was in fact very little discussion during the information workshops about the new definition of waste and its potential impact on the regulated community. If consultation about the definition of hazardous waste is to be at all meaningful, Environment Canada should be ready to suspend the work with EIHWHRMR and put forward the definition in the IMHWR as originally proposed.

One of the stated purposes of the proposal is to harmonize the definitions of the transboundary waste regulations with the interprovincial regulations being developed for hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable materials. There are some 1.13 billion cubic feet of treated wood in use in Canada. If post-use treated wood is designated as hazardous, the cost of disposal could exceed $5 billion, according to a recent estimate by the Canadian Institute of Treated Wood.

With regard to the inclusion of treated wood in Schedule 3, there is considerable concern that by listing and/or defining treated wood as a hazardous waste or recyclable the definition may be applied within other Federal or Provincial legislation.

Response: Environment Canada will take these comments into consideration when addressing the Interprovincial Movement of Hazardous Waste Regulations.

Page 28
Date modified: