While not wishing to enter into a debate in your editorial pages, the letter in your June/July issue from R. Beukers (in response to the April/May editorial) is so fanciful that it should not go unremarked.
Firstly, the “we” in the letter is unidentified but purports to “know” many things. One assertion is that Encorp submitted “false” information to the arbitrator. In fact, the arbitrator’s report states,”…I found the information supplied by Encorp to be reliable for my purposes.” In his summary the arbitrator states, “In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the competent advocacy of Counsel, the careful preparation of the experts, and the helpful assistance of Encorp executives and depot operators.”
The assertion that Encorp had a net profit of $7.3-million in 1997 is false. Encorp Pacific (Canada), which took over the recovery system in 1998, is a not-for-profit corporation prohibited by its bylaws and by the Income Tax Act from accumulating surpluses or paying them to shareholders.
The assertion that Encorp’s mandate is to destroy the deposit-refund system is nonsense. With a visible, use-pay funding mechanism in place, the system had never been in a better position to fulfill its mandate of recovering containers and our increasing recovery rates from consumers are clear proof of that.
Encorp Pacific (Canada)
Burnaby, British Columbia