Friday, July 23, 2010
Eco fees will make sense when bugs are worked out
The eco fees program launched in Ontario on July 1 got off to a bad start. They were introduced on the same day as the HST, and nobody seemed to know what was going on. Then, the media, faced with a lull between burning cars at the G20 and Lindsay Lohan’s jail time, went looking for blood.
All of which is too bad, because the eco fees are definitely a good idea. Philosophically, we need to take the next step in both diverting waste from our landfills and reducing the amount of waste that gets created.
The retail sector has had some of its best people working on eco fees for the past several years: CHHMA, Retail Council of Canada, Canadian Tire and Sobeys, were among the companies represented on the board of Stewardship Ontario, an industry-funded organization (IFO) formed to respond to the provincial government waste management regulations created under the Provincial Conservative Government in 2002. (Stewardship Ontario, by the way, is not a government body and not a tax collection agency.)
Two key things went wrong. First, a government-imposed deadline to launch the program forced Stewardship Ontario to rush the thing. While sound in principle and in many aspects of its mechanics, it nevertheless needed more time in which to work out the bugs. Second, whoever was supposed to communicate the results of all their hard work, to deliver the message to retailers and consumers alike of how eco fees would work, was asleep at the switch.
So the Ontario Government’s decision to pull eco fees back for 90 days and “revamp” it may be the best solution under the circumstances.
The eco fees program is going to have its growing pains, without question. And it’s going to take time to deliver a cohesive message about the efficacy of the program long-term to consumers. Just look at the blue box program. It had its detractors and its skeptics when first launched. And like eco fees, the infrastructure was not completely sound at the beginning. Now, blue boxes are an accepted part of life in Ontario homes.
Given time, so will eco fees — once the bugs are worked out — as long as they’re not killed or undermined, and as long as 90 days doesn’t drag into the next provincial election and they become some sacrificial lamb for political posturing.
All of which is too bad, because the eco fees are definitely a good idea. Philosophically, we need to take the next step in both diverting waste from our landfills and reducing the amount of waste that gets created.
The retail sector has had some of its best people working on eco fees for the past several years: CHHMA, Retail Council of Canada, Canadian Tire and Sobeys, were among the companies represented on the board of Stewardship Ontario, an industry-funded organization (IFO) formed to respond to the provincial government waste management regulations created under the Provincial Conservative Government in 2002. (Stewardship Ontario, by the way, is not a government body and not a tax collection agency.)
Two key things went wrong. First, a government-imposed deadline to launch the program forced Stewardship Ontario to rush the thing. While sound in principle and in many aspects of its mechanics, it nevertheless needed more time in which to work out the bugs. Second, whoever was supposed to communicate the results of all their hard work, to deliver the message to retailers and consumers alike of how eco fees would work, was asleep at the switch.
So the Ontario Government’s decision to pull eco fees back for 90 days and “revamp” it may be the best solution under the circumstances.
The eco fees program is going to have its growing pains, without question. And it’s going to take time to deliver a cohesive message about the efficacy of the program long-term to consumers. Just look at the blue box program. It had its detractors and its skeptics when first launched. And like eco fees, the infrastructure was not completely sound at the beginning. Now, blue boxes are an accepted part of life in Ontario homes.
Given time, so will eco fees — once the bugs are worked out — as long as they’re not killed or undermined, and as long as 90 days doesn’t drag into the next provincial election and they become some sacrificial lamb for political posturing.
Labels: Canadian Tire, CHHMA, eco fees, Stewardship Ontario
2 Comments:
In response to your July 19th article on Eco Fees you should be aware Stewardship Ontario has done a poor job of representing themselves and the reasoning for eco fees.
Our company, as a "Brand Owner" and Manufacturer have been paying "eco fees" on our packaging that Stewardship Ontario said ends up in landfills in the province.
Fair enough, we have been paying into the program since 2004.
But Stewardship Ontario is now collecting fees at the retail sale end which is "double dipping" for brands that were already paying into the MHSW.
Certainly an unfair playing field and a tax grab because there is no accountablilty from a consumers perspective.
That, and Stewardship Ontario screwed up on "cement products" when they considered them "corrosive" according to their definition.
In actual fact our premixed cement products are inert in dry form that they are sold in. They are inert again when set up as a slab or post hold application. They are only corrosive for the time they are wet and are being mixed. Which does not happen at ANY point of the sales proccess.
Now we are close to a border town. Many products that have been added to Stewardship Ontario's lists are purchased at retail in NY State and brought over by consumers. The question should be asked, is CBSA, (Canada Border Services Agency) collecting eco fees?
I can tell you they are not, so there is another un level playing field.
I can only hope the majority of Ontario residents can remember this garbage when it comes to ellection time!
Steven Young
Kwik Mix Materials Ltd.
This is simply a "stealth tax." whatever happened to waste management being paid for with our property taxes? The government has found a way to bury the cost of waste management into the retail price of products. (And if you believe that companies are "eating" the cost, I've got some land in Florida you may be interested in.)
I think that the government's plan all along was to keep this stealth tax out of sight from the consumer and Canadian Tire had the vision to bring it out into the open. Dalton was caught with his pants down.
Lets call this what it is; a tax. Pure and simple. Rather than control costs and look for better ways of doing things, the Liberals tend to spend time trying to look for creative ways of increasing taxes.
Post a Comment
<< Back to Mike's Rant