June 04, 2025 Marc Peverini…

June 04, 2025

Marc Peverini
Resource Recovery Policy Branch
40 St. Clair Avenue West
8th floor
Toronto, ON
M4V 1M2
Canada

Re: Proposed amendments to the Blue Box Regulation (O.Reg. 391/21) made under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 (RRCEA).

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft amendments to the Blue Box Regulation. The following are the City’s comments:

ITEM 1: Delay Recovery Targets for Select Material Categories
• Hamilton disagrees that the targets should be delayed five years. Our feeling is that the lower the targets the more recycling that will end up in garbage and end up in the municipally owned landfill. Producers have had sufficient time to plan for the targets included in the Blue Box regulation and the proposed delay is not rightfully justified. Municipalities have had effective recycling programs for decades. There are no details included in the proposed changes to justify this delay except to say that this would “allow producers more time to plan and make the appropriate investments needed for collection and recycling.” And that costs increases were not anticipated. There are no further details on what the investments are for. Contracts should be in place for the collection of recycling as this service is set begin in a little more than six months. In addition, there are no details on what investment in infrastructure is needed. Is there a capacity issue with the current Material Recycling Facilities? In consideration of the costs of the program increasing, costs may drastically increase for the program over the next couple of years, would this be justification for another delay in targets?
• Why is a five-year delay required? Municipalities might be more agreeable to a delay with greater justification and / or if the delay was for a lesser amount of time, e.g. two years instead of five years.
• Municipalities have disagreed with the requirement of only having producers make “best efforts” to achieve recycling targets since the province proposed this in the Blue Box regulation. Producers should be held to targets in the Blue Box regulation.

ITEM 2: Remove Planned Expansion for Multi Residential Buildings, Schools, and Specified Long-Term Care Homes and Retirement Homes
• Hamilton disagrees with the amendment change. Equal access to recycling services for all residents, including those in multi-residential buildings and long-term care homes, and schools is essential. By not expanding, new multi-res buildings will be an additional non-eligible property required to be serviced by the municipality, or not receive recycling collection.
• Hamilton disagrees with amendment change because if new Multi residential buildings do not receive recycling collection from producers, municipalities may require buildings to retain private recycling collection if they want to receive municipal garbage collection. Because if it is not, then the recycling will most likely be included in the garbage stream and taken to the municipal landfill. If new multi-residential buildings retain private recycling services, then residents will have to pay for this service meaning costs are being downloaded from producers to residents which is not the intent of the Blue Box regulation. If municipalities have to provide this service to ensure recycling is diverted from landfill, then costs are being downloaded from producers to municipalities which is not the intent of the Blue Box regulation.
• Hamilton disagrees with amendment change because by not providing service to multi residential buildings the regulation is being selective on who receives service which is the opposite of the purpose of the regulation. The Regulation stipulated that all residential properties would be included in continued recycling programs.
• Hamilton disagrees with removing the requirements to expand to schools. Municipalities spend significant effort communicating with schools to educate on diversion programs as often students are the best audience.
• Hamilton disagrees with the proposed amendments would potentially lower costs for producers but runs counter to making recycling accessible to all Ontarians. It would create a situation where some residents have access to recycling while others do not, leading to inequities and undermining municipal plans.

ITEM 3: Remove requirement to collect beverage containers “away from home.”
• Hamilton does not support this amendment. We urge the provincial government to reconsider its stance on deposit return systems and address concerns raised by the Auditor General regarding non-hazardous waste reduction and diversion.
• Excluding away-from-home containers will have a major impact on the number of materials currently targeted and will not reduce costs but only relocate them to other producers.

ITEM: 4 Remove Expansion of Public Space Collection
• Hamilton disagrees with this amendment. The proposed approach creates an inequitable situation where some municipalities would have public space costs funded by producers while most would not.
• Hamilton disagrees with this amendment because Municipal governments have made plans for the management of public recycling bins based on established timelines and formulas. The City did not expand our own containers in advance of April 1st as we were advised that the Producers would be responsible for approximately 1500 in Hamilton. Removing this expansion would undermine these plans and create inconsistencies in public space recycling levels.

ITEM: 5: Reduce and Delay Flexible Plastic Recovery Target Current Requirement
• Hamilton disagrees with this amendment. The proposal undermines the regulation's intent to drive innovation and investment, leading to more materials ending up in the disposal stream and increased pressure on landfill capacity.
• Hamilton disagrees with this amendment because it is understood that there are some challenges with capturing and recycling flexible plastic. The Blue Box regulation is supposed to drive innovation by having targets. If targets are set at current recovery rates until 2031, no innovations will be made by producers to improve the system and increase recycling rates. Reduced targets will mean more materials in the disposal stream and less incentive for producers to improve outcomes over time.

ITEM 6: Allow energy recovery to count toward diversion targets Current Requirement
• Hamilton disagrees with this amendment. Reduction, reuse, and recycling should be the only activities that count towards diversion. Energy recovery does not have a place in a circular economy as there is no circularity with using energy from waste. It is an endpoint and should only be used for residue / garbage streams. Increasing the allowance for energy recovery is counterproductive to a circular economy.

ITEM 7: Consider the best ways to ensure collected materials are sent for processing.
• Hamilton disagrees with the delay of targets for five years. Regulated and enforceable targets are necessary to achieve meaningful environmental outcomes. Delaying targets would lead to a common collection system focused on the bare minimum, resulting in more waste being disposed of and less investment in recycling infrastructure.

ITEM 8: Clarify definition of a facility
• Hamilton supports defining multi-residential buildings as those with six or more units to create consistency.
• Hamilton supports the clarification that multi-residential buildings should not be included as part of “facilities” and should be included with residential buildings the same as single-family homes. Differentiating between the two leads to a double standard among residents based on where they live. The Blue Box regulation should ensure that all homes have the same level of service..

ITEM 9: Clarify collection requirements for schools.
• The City of Hamilton supports producers being required to collect recycling from all uses within a school.

ITEM 10: Maintain depot access for residents in unorganized territories.
• Hamilton is supports producers being required to provide recycling service to residents in unorganized territories. All residents in the province should be provided with the ability to recycle as per the Blue Box regulation.

ITEM 11: Update Timelines for Providing Blue Box Services
• Hamilton supports having a consistent timeline for providing recycling service to newly built residences, facilities registered after 2026 (including multi-residential buildings) and First Nation communities, however, the start of recycling service should align with the start of municipal collection services.

ITEM 12: Provide More Flexibility on Printed Promotion and Education Materials

• Hamilton supports this amendment with provisions for clear and transparent processes. Print materials should be required to reach each residence in advance of changes to collection receptacles or the frequency/timing of regular collection.
• Hamilton supports aligning the provision of print materials with the practices of each municipality. There are numerous municipalities that only provide educational materials in electronic form and other municipalities that still provide printed materials. These decisions have been made by elected officials or staff that have intimate knowledge of their residents.

ITEM 13: Provide Flexibility on French Language Requirements
• Hamilton supports this amendment, ensuring materials are available in both languages by request. The provincial government should also consider requiring educational materials in other prevalent languages spoken in Ontario communities to ensure greater accessibility.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions on the provided comments, please contact:

Ryan Kent,
Manager of Waste Policy and Planning,
Waste Management Division,
City of Hamilton
ryan.kent@hamilton.ca