Upon reviewing the available…

Upon reviewing the available information, it is understood that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to avoid unanticipated cost increases and make the system more responsive, accountable, and transparent to the businesses that fund the blue box.

In general, the proposed amendments are baffling as they do not appear to be supporting efforts for increasing recovery targets in Ontario but rather appear to be only benefitting the bottom of line of the producers. The proposed amendments offer little to no incentive for producers to make appropriate improvements to the blue box system compared to our existing system, thus making this transition to an extended producer responsibility (EPR) system a wasted effort. Producers have had since June 2021, when O. Reg. 391/21 came into effect, to start planning and implementing the appropriate investments necessary to meet their obligations under the new blue box regulation.

Ontario communities were informed that a transition to an EPR system will be more cost effective and efficient than the current blue box system, but here we are with proposed amendments to the new blue box regulation due to unanticipated cost increases hurting the bottom line of the producers for a program they wanted full responsibility over.

Many of the proposed amendments contradict the goals and objectives that have been promoted for transitioning to an EPR system. It is stated in the proposed amendments that… “The ministry has heard from producers that now is not the right time to expand – more time is needed to provide cost relief and more time to plan for increased recycling.”. If costs continue to increase year after year, when will be the right time? The proposed amendments basically move the “goal posts” of the targets so that it looks like the producers are meeting their regulatory requirements.

The Ontario government should maintain the recovery targets and proceed with the planned expansions as stipulated in the current blue box regulation, and wait to see actual results post-transition before deciding to make amendments to the blue box regulation.

Item #1: Delay Recovery Targets for Select Material Categories
The recovery targets that are stipulated in the current blue box regulation should remain. Delaying targets only contradicts the intended purpose of implementing this EPR system. Recovery targets could be better achieved if recyclable material was expanded to include all sources.

Item #2: Remove Planned Expansion for Multi Residential Buildings, Schools, and Specified Long-Term Care Homes and Retirement Homes
Firstly, removing the specified long-term (LTC) care and retirement homes (RH) as well as multi-residential buildings (MR) from the planned expansion contradicts the stated goal of focusing on residential materials at home under a common collection system. LTC, RH and MR buildings are all residential property classes and should be included regardless of being for profit or not-for-profit. Secondly, schools are the best return on investment for future recovery results and success of a circular economy by instilling and practicing good recycling habits at an early age. By removing schools from the planned expansion, this will be sending the wrong message to our future generations about recycling and a circular economy.

Item #3: Remove Requirement to collect beverage containers “away from home”
A beverage container is the same recyclable product regardless of the generator source. There should be no delineation between at home and away from home for beverage containers, or any other recyclable material for that matter. The Ontario government needs to decide sooner than later how they wish to manage the recovery of beverage containers whether through a deposit return system or through the common collection system. Otherwise, more beverage containers will end up in landfills.

Item #4: Remove Expansion of Public Space Collection
Did the Ontario government consult Ontario communities on how they manage public space collection prior to drafting the blue box regulation? It seems the per-capita formula stipulated in the blue box regulation is a “one size fits all” approach that does not reflect the uniqueness of each Ontario community’s demand for public space collection. Since municipal sources are considered non-eligible for recovery of recyclable material, many communities do not use source separated receptacles which leads to recyclable material being landfilled, thus a missed opportunity to increase waste diversion in Ontario. Additionally, many Ontario communities have seasonal population fluctuations (tourism, post-secondary, etc.) and likely have more public space receptacles than calculated by the stipulated per-capita formula, with many receptacles placed in high pedestrian traffic locations which may not be located along curbside collection routes. Perhaps instead of removing the public space collection requirement, the Ontario government should consider amendments that permit the producers to work with Ontario communities for the collection of public spaces with a focus on recovering beverage containers. Ontario communities could be compensated for the collection of public spaces by producers or their PROs through agreements, similar to the agreements for P&E. Municipalities know their community the best so why not have them manage public space collection on behalf of the producers?

Item #5: Reduce and Delay Flexible Plastic Recovery Target
The recovery targets that are stipulated in the current blue box regulation should remain. Delaying targets only contradicts the intended purpose of implementing this EPR system. Could incentives be offered to producers where progress is demonstrated in advancing methods for the collection and processing of flexible plastic?

Item #6: Allow energy recovery to count toward diversion targets
The Ontario government should undertake further consultation and outreach with producers, their PROs and Ontario communities to determine appropriate and achievable investments that producers and/or municipalities can implement in energy recovery. There are opportunities to permit reasonable energy recovery targets but a further understanding is needed before setting any realistic targets.

Item #7: Consider the best ways to ensure collected materials are sent for processing
The term “best efforts” does create some ambiguity. It should be stipulated that all collected materials must be sent to a registered processor and not directly to a landfill. Additionally, a reporting and auditing system should be established to ensure that collected material is being sent to registered processors.

Item #8: Clarify definition of a facility
In general, the Ontario government should have a definition for multi-residential (MR) buildings that is applied consistently in all applicable acts and regulations. For the purposes of the proposed amendments to the blue box regulation, clarity is welcomed. Multi-residential building(s) should be a separate definition rather than being part of the facility definition.

Item #9: Clarify collection requirements for schools
Although this will eliminate the challenge of delineating eligible source recyclable material from non-eligible source recyclable material for producers, it will create inequity for other same non-eligible source generators that are not located on a school property. The Ontario government and producers need to consider expanding to include more non-eligible sources.

Item #10: Maintain depot access for residents in unorganized territories
Any and all efforts should be made to encourage more recycling.

Item #11: Update Timelines for Providing Blue Box Services
Realistically, most residents and residents of multi-residential buildings will begin their waste disposal and recycling upon their occupancy and follow the methods and frequency that is used by their neighbours. Timelines should align with the date of occupancy which typically triggers the start of waste collection or depot drop-off service under municipally managed programs.

Item #12: Provide More Flexibility on Printed Promotion and Education Materials
Printed P&E content is key for various parts of the population including seniors, newcomers, seasonal residents, and those without reliable internet access. The P&E format provided by the producers should match the P&E format that is provided by the Ontario community for the other waste streams and not be based on a “where requested” approach. Until Ontario residents have adapted to another player in the waste management industry, they will continue to consult and contact their local municipality for all waste management related information and inquiries.

Item #13: Provide More Flexibility on French Language Requirements
This requirement should recognize that English and French are official languages, however it is reasonable to expect producers to match the language policies that is provided in the Ontario community.