The Government of Ontario has proposed a number of changes to the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act (RRCEA), 2016, and Magazines Canada is lobbying on this important topic. Over the next two weeks, there is an opportunity for members like you to add your voice to the public consultation process to make sure that magazines have a seat at the table now and going forward.
The RRCEA is Ontario’s framework for reducing waste and increasing the reuse and recycling of products and packaging through producer responsibility. Under this law, producers—including many magazine publishers—are required to cover the full cost of recycling the printed paper and packaging materials they supply into the market, which has imposed new financial and administrative burdens on magazine publishers. The Government of Ontario is proposing changes that would improve data collection and system oversight, improve transparency for producers like you by requiring Producer Responsibility Organizations to disclose more detailing and operational data for easier comparison, and is separately delaying the enforcement of mandatory recovery targets by five years (from 2026 to 2031).
Magazines Canada is supporting these changes and also asking for targeted financial relief for magazine publishers by extending the newspaper exemption, advocating for opportunities for public education partnerships through agreements with magazine publishers, and calling for a small publisher impact study to ensure cultural media producers are brought into long-term conversations about the impacts of legislation and patchwork legislation across the country.
Now through July 21, members of the public can submit comments on the proposed RRCRA changes directly on the Environmental Registry of Ontario at this link. This is your opportunity to get your concerns about Ontario’s End Producer Responsibility (EPR) program on the record, including:
- How have EPR costs and administrative requirements impacted your business and ability to serve the Ontario market?
- Do you feel that magazine publishers’ concerns are being adequately considered in legislation?
- Do you believe that magazines should be treated like packaging or, like newspapers, given an exemption?
- Note: Do note include any identifying information, like names, addresses or phone numbers in your comments.
We have now had multiple meetings with various officials, including the office of the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. Encouragingly, we heard as recently as last week that we are the only organization representing publishers that has been in touch with the Minister’s Office and we are now clearly on the radar at both the political and government administrative levels as a key stakeholder going forward.
For reference, we are including a few sample statements below for the kinds of feedback that could be helpful in underlining the interests of magazine publishers in Ontario. Please make sure that your submission is in your own words.
Example 1
As a small magazine publisher in Ontario, the current Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) framework has placed significant financial and administrative pressure on our operations. Unlike large corporations, we don’t have in-house compliance teams or the capacity to absorb rising stewardship fees. Every dollar redirected to EPR costs is a dollar taken away from content creation, community engagement, and the sustainability of our publication.
It’s difficult not to feel that the unique concerns of magazine publishers have been historically sidelined in policy. Our publications contribute to local culture, education, and civic awareness—but are being treated no differently than packaging waste. Meanwhile, newspapers have rightly been given an exemption, acknowledging their role in public discourse and their structural differences from product packaging.
The current approach risks reducing the diversity and availability of Canadian content, particularly in smaller communities where independent publishers still play a vital role. We urge the government to reconsider how magazines are classified and to work directly with our sector to develop fair, sustainable solutions going forward.
Example 2
Magazines—especially small, independent, and culturally focused ones—play a vital role in communities across Ontario, offering trusted voices and locally relevant content. Yet rising costs and regulatory changes are creating serious headwinds for our industry. This needs to be addressed if publishers like us are to survive and thrive again.
One important step would be to exempt magazines from EPR costs. Magazines are not packaging and treating them as such undermines their cultural and civic value. With the right support, we could also serve as effective partners in public education—helping to promote recycling, climate action, waste reduction, and other government priorities through paid content agreements that benefit both public awareness and our industry’s sustainability.
Ontario’s shifting regulatory landscape—combined with a patchwork of inconsistent rules across provinces—is creating real uncertainty for small publishers. To think ahead and plan for future changes and policies, we would also like to see a small publisher impact study as part of this process, to ensure cultural media producers are included in long-term planning. Sustainable environmental policy must go hand-in-hand with sustainable cultural policy. That means involving small publishers not just as obligated producers, but as collaborators and stakeholders in building a more informed and resilient province.