Changing the Mandate of the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority

What we heard

We considered all feedback received during the comment period for this posting. We received comments from a wide range of interested parties, including:

• individual members of the public
• businesses
• industry and industry associations
• not-for-profits
• municipalities and their boards

Businesses, industry and municipalities were primarily supportive of the proposal to change the mandate of RPRA to include digital reporting services through its registry for a wider range of waste and resource recovery programs. Industry and municipalities were supportive of submitting information electronically through a modern registry because this will reduce administrative burden.

The public was also generally supportive of the proposal because of the benefits from moving to electronic, modern reporting services.

Industry had concerns regarding program fees for the reporting services that will transition to RPRA. Industry also had concerns with expanding RPRA’s mandate, and that we could assign future duties and powers to RPRA, including new programs, through regulation.

We also received recommendations for how the Hazardous Waste program reporting service should be designed and what features should be included in the service. These recommendations will be considered when we begin working on the design of the new reporting service in 2020.

We have made one change from our original proposal under the theme of protecting commercially sensitive information, because of what we heard through our consultation. Below is a summary of the comments received and how we considered them in our decision. The comments are grouped into five themes:

1. Concerns with expanding the scope of RPRA 
2. Concerns with how we transition programs to RPRA
3. Concerns with costs and fees
4. Protecting commercially sensitive information
5. Administrative burden

1. Concerns with expanding the scope of RPRA

Our original proposal recommended we change the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority’s mandate to include digital reporting services through its registry for a wider range of waste and resource recovery programs. We heard concerns from industry about allowing RPRA to take on additional programs. Industry recommended the resource recovery programs already assigned to RPRA be up and running before transitioning additional programs.

Our response

A modern digital reporting service with mobile capability provided by RPRA will make it easier and faster for the regulated community to meet their reporting requirements, reducing administrative burden. RPRA currently has a registry in operation (the Used Tires program registry); they have the ability and expertise to build and run a registry with online registration and payment functionality.

Allowing RPRA to offer digital reporting services for additional waste and resource recovery programs will save businesses time and money. Combining digital services will see a larger group of users sharing common costs and benefiting from a streamlined digital service.

2. Concerns with how we transition programs to RPRA

Our original proposal recommended we transition digital reporting services for new or existing programs to RPRA through a Minister’s letter or regulation that would provide direction to RPRA on the program being transitioned. We heard concerns from industry that transitioning programs should proceed through the legislature to ensure the merits of transitioning proposed programs are well understood through debate. Industry would like programs transitioned to RPRA to be mentioned directly in the RRCEA (e.g. directly in the legislation).

Our response

Using a Minister’s directive letter or regulation ensures we can efficiently transition program reporting services to RPRA. This method also provides flexibility for the ministry to resume the delivery of registry services if issues were to arise. Amending the RRCEA can be a lengthy process in comparison to drafting a Minister’s directive letter or regulation.

Stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide input regarding regulations that transition reporting services to RPRA, during the public consultation of these new regulations. For instance, we will consult on specific regulatory changes related to Hazardous Waste in 2020.

3. Cost and fee concerns

In our proposal we mentioned making changes to allow RPRA to be able to set and collect fees for the digital reporting services they will be providing for any new programs they take on. We also mentioned that these fees will include costs incurred by the ministry for program oversight, policy and program development, compliance and enforcement. We heard concerns from industry about the costs we intend to recover from RPRA. Industry felt some of these costs, including policy and program development, should not be recovered by the ministry.

We also heard concerns from industry around the increasing costs of RPRA and RPRA’s value for money.

Our response

RPRA is required to consult on their fees, which helps ensure that fee setting is transparent for industry.

Changing RPRA’s mandate allows RPRA to take on additional waste and resource recovery programs. Increasing the number of RPRA stakeholders will lead to a larger group of users sharing common costs, which is expected to reduce fees and save businesses money. While common costs of the registry platform will be shared, fees for each program will remain separate and distinct, ensuring producers only pay their relevant share (e.g. only tire producers would continue to pay for tire specific registry costs). 

The Hazardous Waste program has been a full cost recovery program since 2017. We are intending that it will remain a full cost recovery program even when digital reporting services are transitioned to RPRA. The fees will include costs for both RPRA and the ministry to deliver, manage, oversee, and continuously improve the program. Stakeholders will have an opportunity during future regulatory consultations to provide input on costs and fees.

4. Protecting commercially sensitive information

We heard from industry that there are concerns with data privacy, given that a third-party authority outside of government will be collecting and managing data.

Our response

We have made changes in response to this concern. We have made an additional amendment to the RRCEA to clarify that commercially sensitive information that is submitted through the registry cannot be publicly released by RPRA. If needed, commercially sensitive information can be defined through a future regulation.

This change will provide greater fairness and protection to business by building on the existing privacy requirements already in place. RPRA’s ability to release confidential business information is already limited under the RRCEA. Also, RPRA has publicly available bylaws and policies in place to protect sensitive confidential information.

5. Administrative burden

Industry, individual members of the public and non-governmental organizations were supportive of the transition to a modernized, digital reporting system with anticipated reduced administrative burden as a result of this transition. There were some concerns that the reporting service would not be user friendly and may cause increased burden.

Regarding hazardous waste program reporting, we also received recommendations from industry to harmonize with federal and municipal hazardous waste reporting systems to reduce overlap and duplication, as well as recommendations to build a system that meets user needs.

Our response

Modernized digital reporting services will be designed with user needs and stakeholder feedback in mind. We will work with RPRA to engage stakeholders throughout the implementation of all new digital reporting services to ensure services are user friendly and easy to navigate to report information.

We intend on working with other jurisdictions to find reporting solutions that minimize the effort required to report by stakeholders.