This Act revises key definitions in the Yukon Environment Act and creates clearer authority for the Commissioner in Executive Council to assign responsibility for collection and recovery of designated materials to stewards. The bill replaces the steward definition with a two-part test (involvement in design/marketing/manufacturing/importation/supply and designation by regulation), adjusts the language governing who counts as a producer, repeals section 109.01, and replaces section 109.02 to explicitly permit assigning responsibilities and granting exemptions to classes of stewards.
For regulated entities and compliance officers, the practical effect is to enable formal extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs under Yukon law: the government can designate which businesses are stewards, require each steward to run or finance collection and recovery systems, and carve out exemptions by class. That creates a pathway to shift operational and financial burdens for waste diversion from the territory and municipalities onto producers and their programs, while leaving many program details to future regulations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Act amends definitions for “producer” and replaces the definition of “steward” with a regulatory designation test. It repeals section 109.01, replaces section 109.02 to let the Commissioner assign collection and recovery duties to each steward and to exempt classes of stewards, and updates section 144 language to incorporate stewards into existing regulatory lists.
Who It Affects
Manufacturers, importers and suppliers who design, market, import or supply designated materials; stewardship organizations that already run or may be required to run collection/recovery programs; retailers and waste management service providers who interact with such programs; and Yukon regulators responsible for writing and enforcing implementing regulations.
Why It Matters
The bill creates the statutory architecture Yukon needs to implement EPR schemes: legal clarity on who can be designated a steward and explicit power to allocate collection/recovery obligations and exemptions. That changes how costs and operational responsibility for waste diversion can be distributed across supply chains, with regulatory detail to follow.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act tightens and expands the Environment Act’s language so the territory can implement extended producer responsibility programs. First, it changes the producer wording from “in Yukon” to “to a person who is located in Yukon,” which shifts the focus from where a producer is based to where the product is sold or supplied — a drafting choice that reaches suppliers who deliver products to Yukon residents regardless of the supplier’s physical location.
Second, the steward definition is rewritten as a two-part rule: a steward is someone involved in design, marketing, manufacture, importation or supply of a designated material and who is formally designated as a steward under regulations. That moves the status of steward from a purely descriptive category to a regulatory determination, giving the government control to name who must participate in programs.
The Act removes section 109.01 and replaces section 109.02 with a clearer delegation of power: the Commissioner in Executive Council may assign the responsibility for collection and recovery of designated materials to each steward and may exempt specific classes of stewards from all or part of that responsibility. In practice, that means future regulations can require every designated steward to operate or fund a take-back or recycling system, while also allowing the government to carve out classes (for example very small suppliers or certain product types) from those duties.
The statutory change makes assignment to “each steward” explicit, which could be read to push toward individual accountability rather than leaving responsibility solely to collective or voluntary schemes.Finally, the Act tweaks section 144’s terminology so obligations, enforcement provisions, or regulatory lists that previously referenced a single steward or retailers now explicitly include “each steward” or “stewards.” That is a drafting clean-up with practical effect: stewards are now integrated into the Act’s existing enforcement and regulatory apparatus. Importantly, the bill supplies enabling language but leaves program design—what materials qualify as designated, registration processes, reporting requirements, financial assurance, performance targets, and enforcement mechanisms—to regulations that have yet to be written.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act replaces the steward definition so a steward must both participate in the product lifecycle (design, marketing, manufacture, importation or supply) and be designated as a steward by regulation.
The phrase describing a producer is changed from “in Yukon” to “to a person who is located in Yukon,” broadening reach to suppliers who provide goods to Yukon-based persons regardless of the supplier’s location.
Section 109.01 is repealed and section 109.02 is replaced to give the Commissioner authority to assign collection and recovery responsibilities to each steward of a designated material.
The Commissioner may exempt specific classes of stewards from all or part of assigned collection and recovery responsibilities, creating a statutory basis for targeted carve-outs.
Section 144’s wording is amended to insert stewards into existing lists and references, so statutory enforcement and regulatory mechanisms now explicitly contemplate stewards alongside manufacturers, distributors and retailers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Revises who counts as a producer and defines steward as a regulatory designation
This provision swaps the phrase “in Yukon” for “to a person who is located in Yukon” in the producer definition, shifting the focal point to where goods are supplied rather than where the supplier is established. It also replaces the steward definition with a two-part rule tying steward status both to business activities (design, marketing, manufacture, importation or supply) and to being designated under regulations. Practically, this gives the government a gatekeeping role: entities that meet the activity test are not automatically stewards unless the regulations say so.
Establishes explicit authority to assign collection and recovery duties and create exemptions
The Act removes the old section 109.01 and substitutes a new 109.02 that explicitly authorizes the Commissioner in Executive Council to assign collection and recovery responsibilities to each steward and to exempt classes of stewards from those duties. This is the core operational change: it creates the statutory hook to require individual or collective stewardship programs, to allocate duties across supply-chain actors, and to issue targeted exemptions—tools regulators will use when designing EPR schemes.
Integrates stewards into enforcement and regulatory lists
Amendments to section 144 change references from singular or generic steward language to explicit plurals and insert stewards into enumerated categories alongside manufacturers, distributors and retailers. This amendment ensures that any regulatory powers, penalties, or compliance pathways that rely on section 144 will unambiguously apply to stewards and clarifies drafting inconsistencies that could have been exploited in enforcement or compliance disputes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Yukon government — gains clearer statutory tools to implement EPR programs and shift operational responsibility for collection and recovery away from territorial or municipal services.
- Stewardship organizations — can be formally designated and tasked with operating collection/recovery systems (or be authorized to coordinate such systems), creating a legal basis for stable program funding and structure.
- Municipalities and territorial waste managers — stand to benefit from reduced direct operational burden and cost if producers are required to fund or run diversion systems.
Who Bears the Cost
- Producers, importers and suppliers who are designated as stewards — will face new compliance obligations and likely financial responsibility for collection and recovery programs.
- Retailers and small suppliers (especially out-of-territory sellers) — may face compliance complexity, registration requirements, and pass-through costs if suppliers are required to fund stewardship systems.
- Yukon regulatory bodies — must design, administer and enforce the implementing regulations, creating administrative workload and potential need for new resources or fees.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits two legitimate goals: shifting environmental and financial responsibility for waste diversion onto producers (to incentivize design changes and relieve public budgets) versus the legal and administrative complexity of imposing and enforcing obligations across diverse in-province and out-of-province actors; solving one problem by delegating responsibility risks creating regulatory burdens, enforcement headaches, and inequitable carve-outs if the implementing regulations are not tightly drafted.
The Act provides enabling language for EPR but defers almost all program design to regulations. That creates a period of regulatory uncertainty: critical details such as which materials are designated, how stewards are identified and registered, the allocation of financial responsibility between producers and retailers, performance targets, reporting obligations, and enforcement mechanisms are unspecified in the statute.
Compliance officers and businesses will need to monitor the regulatory process closely because implementation choices—fee structures, thresholds for exemption, or whether responsibility is assigned to every steward individually—will determine cost and operational impact.
Another implementation challenge is cross‑jurisdictional reach. By changing the producer test to focus on supply to persons located in Yukon, the statute appears to target out-of-territory sellers; enforcing obligations against non-resident suppliers raises legal and practical questions about service, cooperation with federal/customs regimes, and the mechanism to collect fees from entities without presence in the territory.
Finally, the power to exempt classes of stewards is useful administratively but creates lobbying and equity risks: broad or poorly justified exemptions could undermine diversion objectives or shift burdens unevenly within supply chains.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.