February 26, 2016
Ministry of Environment and Climate Change
Re: Proposed Waste-Free Ontario
I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association (CESA) to make you aware of our member’s feedback regarding the proposed recycling and waste reduction strategies outlined in the draft Waste Free Ontario Act and the associated Policy Proposal, Draft Strategy for a Waste-Free Ontario: Building the Circular Economy.
Background on CESA
CESA is a national non-profit agency, formed in 2010 in response to BC’s EPR legislation which in its first phase, included small kitchen countertop appliances. The founding industry trade associations of CESA were the Canadian Appliance Manufacturers Association (CAMA), Canadian Hardware & Housewares Manufacturers Association (CHHMA) and the Retail Council of Canada (RCC). CAMA no longer exists as an organization but appliance manufacturers have transitioned to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Canada (AHAM Canada), and they, along with CHHMA and the RCC, remain active in the association. CESA has over 350 active members, including manufacturers, first importers, brand owners and retailers, many of whom operate nationally. For a complete listing of CESA’s members, please visit /app/uploads/2016/01/List-of-CESA-Members-January-5-2016.pdf.
CESA is organized and structured with the intention of being able to provide the same or similar services to our members as EPR legislation is introduced across Canada. Our members support the harmonization of programs and platforms, to ease the burden of reporting and remitting for programs, and the transparency of fees throughout the supply chain.
Regulation Overview
Now that the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change is proposing new legislation to address opportunities in the existing legislative framework around waste and recycling, CESA would like to provide additional feedback on the broad ideas presented in the many dialogues with the MOECC in 2015. The proposed Waste Free Ontario Act and associated strategy suggest that new EPR programming may include products identified in Phase 2 of the CCME’s Canada-Wide Action Plan on EPR. It is the hope of CESA’s members that continued and extensive consultation prior to finalizing the regulations will be a priority to ensure the decision Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association 15 Allstate Parkway, Suite 601, Markham, ON L3R 5B4 Tel 905-752-2575 Ext. 2611 • Fax 905-415-0332 • www.cesarecycling.ca
to include small appliances is based on evidence to support the need for and ability to undertake such a program.
CESA would like to point out two key opportunities related to EPR in general and small appliance EPR specifically:
- National harmonization and the use of existing frameworks to reduce duplication of efforts and
- Adequate time for program development and implementation.
1. Existing Frameworks
CESA has a well-established small appliance, power tools and sports equipment recycling program in BC. CESA has been successful in diverting an increasing volume of these program products every year since the program began in 2011 while at the same time decreasing the fees remitted by CESA members. There are many stewardship programs in BC, and each operates as a stand-alone association, and yet work cooperatively across many levels to increase efficiencies, collect higher volumes, undertake shared research and partner with the Recycling Council of BC to further advance the recycling agenda across the province.
The draft strategy suggests that producers will have the option to decide how their requirements under the new act would be met, including meeting those obligations individually, or through a collective which operates in one or more provinces. CESA strongly encourages the government to ensure that this provision remains in the legislation. It is CESA’s position that individual brand owners, first importers or retailers should be allowed and not precluded from carrying out their EPR obligations individually, using existing market forces or through the collective stewardship organization of their choosing. Stewards require the freedom and flexibility to determine how they wish to carry out their regulatory obligations.
While CESA applauds the MOECC for the recognition that the programs can benefit from shared resources which in turn can reduce the overall cost, we wish to point out that not all programs are created equal. CESA wishes to caution that small appliances are indeed different from electronics and the large appliance (white goods) product categories. CESA strongly recommends that the producers, brand owners, first importers and retailers of the products captured under a small appliance EPR expansion, are provided the opportunity and ability to choose the manner in which to fulfill their obligations whether individually or collectively such as within the existing CESA framework, as established in BC. If mandated to join an existing framework for electronics, for example, the voice of the stewards of small appliances would be lost and associated costs would be driven by a different agenda with differing priorities.
2. Adequate time for program development and implementation
The draft strategy does not specifically speak to timelines for program implementation, but rather that the next steps in EPR may include Phase 2 products. CESA would like to encourage Ontario MOECC to allow the necessary time to phase in programs over an extended period, rather that Canadian Electrical Stewardship Association 15 Allstate Parkway, Suite 601, Markham, ON L3R 5B4 Tel 905-752-2575 Ext. 2611 • Fax 905-415-0332 • www.cesarecycling.ca
introduce multiple programs in a short time frame. There are currently multiple programs in Ontario that will require sufficient time to transition into the new framework, and then additional time during which the effectiveness of the existing programs under the new regime will need to be evaluated. CESA strongly encourages the Ontario MOECC to limit the introduction of any new EPR programs or categories until such evaluations are complete the transitions considered successful.
At whatever time in the future that Phase 2 products might be introduced, CESA’s members encourage the Ontario MOECC to consider an 18-24 month window for development and implementation, regardless of the governance structure. Many times the supply chain and products within it are selected, ordered and financed many months in advance of delivery. Retailers and manufacturers need to know external costs that will apply upon receipt of goods with sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments.
Summary
CESA is very grateful for your consideration of our concerns and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter in greater detail with you and/or your staff. With the voice of industry involved at all developmental stages of this important legislation, the provincial government and any delegated authority will benefit from the wisdom and experience of the impacted stakeholders, the manufacturers, importers and retailers of small appliances.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me directly via email or phone.
Sincerely,
Laura J Selanders
President
lselanders@cesarecycling.ca
(c) 647-529-6925
