Charging for the life cycle cost of waste management is contentious. The recent example of some retailers charging “eco-fees” in Ontario, with respect to sales of household products such as detergent, batteries and fluorescent light bulbs, is a case in point. However, the Ontario program for municipal waste, which the provincial government has partially abandoned, is just one example of the movement known as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which is spreading across the country and to many products. As in numerous other jurisdictions, Canadian provinces have imposed, or are considering, similar EPR programs for products such as tires, electronics and countless other goods. This Commentary uses lessons from Ontario’s waste programs to examine EPR’s potential attractions – when such programs are properly designed. Policymakers in Ontario and other provinces that are considering implementing EPR programs should implement systems that impose responsibility for dealing with waste on individual producers, and allow for a range of contractual arrangements to undertake these responsibilities. The underlying governance structures are central to the effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness of EPR programs, but are often neglected or poorly designed. EPR programs need not suffer the fate of the failed Ontario hazardous waste program. Policymakers can make these programs work through better institutional design, such as by setting realistic waste diversion targets, increasing competition among individual and collective waste diversion systems set up by producers, ensuring balanced representation between industry, environmental groups, and the public on the boards of waste diversion programs, and providing inducements to consumers to participate in the EPR program. Failure on these criteria may lead to unnecessary costs for consumers, with perhaps little environmental benefit.