BC is looking a little less superior as milk stewards keep a low profile

By Jay Arthur


In every corner of British Columbia there are executives from the marketers and packagers of milk products hiding under tables.
While this may not seem the most dignified of positions, the executives are hoping the folks in Victoria who have given them a free ride for all these years will not see them.
Because if they do see them they may be reminded what is happening next door in Alberta.
What is happening next door is that the government has finally recognized, after much prodding and prompting, that producer responsibility does not necessary exclude those who make stuff that is good for you (see page 4/8--editor).
Packaged milk is good for you--well for most people, up to a point. But so is red wine and we as consumers have cheerfully been covering the cost of recovering wine bottles for donkeys' years. Heck, even Ontario is doing that now.
But for some reason, makers of BC milk products have been able to guilt successive governments into leaving out their products from stewardship legislation, letting the taxpayer pick up the tab.
And of course the irony here is that Ontario has had a private deposit program in place forever for its corner store milk jugs.
If you ask me, there are strange things happening in that storied soon-to-be have-not province to the east. Maybe there's something in the milk. Or the red wine.
It began when the latest minister of the environment, one John Gerretsen, started dusting off the stewardship files left over from the previous occupant of the MOE chair.
In a matter of weeks, it seemed, we had media releases coming out of the Queen's Park wire services every five minutes. And many of them were actually news.
Given the commitment of successive Ontario governments to the 3Rs, we have seen the recycling of many announcements over the years. Occasionally, these announcements were followed by actions.

Following his appointment as minister, Mr. Gerretsen made all the usual noises about the importance of his portfolio. But then he shocked everyone by actually doing something.
There was a request for a phased-in program plan on household hazardous waste (HHW). Then it was e-waste. Then it was tires.
(And judging by the wording of his tire letter, the spirit of recycling is still alive and well and we will watch with interest to see if the resulting plan from the recycled industry funding organization is recycled, too. Stay tuned.)
What was interesting to observers was the wording of the other (dare we say "virgin" ?)letters he sent to the co-ordinating body--Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO).
While the Province is still a long way from producer responsibility (i.e., actual stewardship), as opposed to paying some or all of the costs of a new program or one already in place, the minister is clear who should be paying the shot. And it's not the taxpayer.
In his letter calling for the HHW second and third phases, the minister made it clear he was looking for full producer responsibility financially.
As you can imagine, that's when questions starting being asked about the blue box plan.
And then, just before the recycling markets started to tank in Ontario, the minister signalled his desire for the WDO to develop a plan for 100% funding for blue box materials.
From a distance this looks like a bit of a renege from the deal made when the original legislation was put together several years ago, but perhaps the lawyers have told him the mandated review allows this radical change.
This is all a bit scary for those in BC, who have been, with some justification, feeling rather superior to Ontario in matters of stewardship.
The pressure on municipal budgets, which is likely driving the Ontario Government's conversion to the full producer responsibility cause, surely applies in BC, too.
Hiding under the table may not be enough.