Comments on the Blue Box…

Comments on the Blue Box Regulation – Proposed Changes

Canada ranks 34th out of 38 (Global Waste Index 2025 - https://sensoneo.com/global-waste-index/) nations in terms of waste management. We generate more waste per capita and recycle a smaller proportion of it than many other countries—including some with significantly lower GDPs. For example, Ontario alone has a higher per capita GDP than many nations that outperform us in waste reduction. The argument that we cannot afford to reduce waste or improve diversion from landfills is fundamentally flawed.

Ontario’s Blue Box program has been a cornerstone of community-based recycling, fostering a generational shift in how residents manage waste. Similarly, the 2016 Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act holds the potential to transform Ontario’s waste management system. Positive changes in the handling of batteries, tires, and electronic waste are already reshaping public behavior and improving reuse and recycling outcomes.

However, despite being nearly a decade old, the Act’s implementation has been slow. While regulatory change is complex and costly, the long-term environmental and economic benefits should not be compromised. Some proposed amendments risk undermining the progress made through the Blue Box program.

Currently, municipal control over recycling leads to inconsistent access and standards across communities. A centralized, province-wide system would improve efficiency, consistency, and cost-effectiveness. While rising fuel and vehicle costs are real concerns, these pressures exist regardless of regulatory changes and should not justify weakening environmental commitments.

The upcoming 2026 changes are neither sudden nor unanticipated. They’ve been in development for nearly a decade, with a four-year transition period already underway. The circular economy model is not new—it has been implemented to varying degrees in multiple countries, large and small and other Canadian provinces. The infrastructure and planning time are in place; delaying implementation for cost reasons is short-sighted.

Finally, shifting the cost and responsibility of waste to producers is a powerful incentive to reduce non-recyclable materials. This is one of the most promising aspects of the proposed changes—and one that must not be diluted.

Itemized Feedback

Item 1: Recovery Targets Timeline

The removal of the 'best effort' clause introduces welcome clarity. While delays in achieving recovery targets are not ideal, this change creates space for producers to reduce waste and for recycling markets to develop. However, the current timeline (2031–2034) lacks specificity. For example, is the 80% paper recovery target expected by 2031 or by 2034?

Recommendation: Include both a 2031 interim target and a 2035 final target in the regulation to provide clear benchmarks.

Item 2: Multi-Residential and Other Excluded Properties

The difficulty of expanding services to certain residential property types is acknowledged. However, these buildings represent a growing share of Ontario’s housing stock, and their exclusion would significantly undermine the program’s effectiveness. Under the producer responsibility model, residents in these buildings may end up paying twice—once through increased product prices and again for private waste collection—without guaranteed access to responsible recycling services.

Recommendation: Do not exclude these buildings from the regulation. If changes are necessary, limit them to large multi-residential buildings and introduce a phased implementation period of up to five years.

Note: significant clarity will be required in implementation; do multi unit condo’s (such as row or townhouses) receive collection? Do cooperative housing units receive collection? Do group homes receive collection? Many of these types of residence will current receive municipal collection.

Item 3: ‘Away from Home’ Collection

Excluding these containers from producer obligations in non-residential settings creates a fragmented system, risks increasing municipal waste management costs, contributes to the likelihood of these materials ending up in the waste stream, and ultimately reduces overall recovery performance. Beverage containers, regardless of where they are consumed, constitute a highly recoverable material stream.

Recommendation: No change to existing regulation until such time as an alternative source of Away from Home recycling can be identified.

Item 4: Public Space Collection

The expansion of public space collection was a major benefit, and many communities have planned accordingly. While contamination and logistical challenges are real, this change is reluctantly supported given those constraints.

Recommendation: Ideally, no change to the existing regulation. Alternative mechanisms for public open space collection and recycling should be investigated as a priority if these are unable to be addressed by the current system.

Item 5: Flexible Plastics

Many municipalities—including Niagara, Peel, Waterloo, Toronto, Ottawa, and Owen Sound—already collect various flexible plastics such as milk bags, carrier bags, and bread bags. These materials are commonly recycled and should remain within the scope of the regulation. Removing flexible plastics from the program would reduce recycling rates in many communities and weaken the incentive for producers to shift toward sustainable alternatives. The producer responsibility model is designed to internalize the full lifecycle cost of materials. Excluding flexible plastics undermines this principle and diminishes the program’s value.

Recommendation: Retain flexible plastics in the regulation and encourage expansion of their collection as quickly as possible.

Item 6: Energy from Waste

Energy From Waste has traditionally processed garbage destined for landfill, not residential recycling streams. If energy recovery is permitted to contribute toward recycling diversion targets, the regulation should then include a receding cap or declining allowance over time. This would prevent over-reliance on energy recovery as a convenient alternative and reinforce the need for producers and service providers to invest in innovation and improve packaging design and recyclability.

Item 7: Registered Processors

This change is supported. The regulation should clearly require that all collected recyclable materials be sent to registered processors to ensure accountability and transparency.

Item 8: Definition of Residence

Clarifying the definition of a residence (e.g., five or fewer units) is helpful. However, as noted in Item 2, the exclusion of large multi-residential buildings from collection requirements is not supported.

Item 9: School Collection

This change is supported. However, the exclusion of schools from collection requirements is not supported and should be reconsidered.

Additional Recommendations

1. Timelines for Eliminating Household Organics from Landfills

The Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act references organic waste, and successive governments have expressed a desire to eliminate household organics from landfills. However, no clear timeline has been established. Across Ontario, an increasing number of facilities are capable of processing organic material outside the landfill stream. Given that municipal waste contracts often span 5 to 10 years, a long-term transition plan is essential.

Recommendation: Establish clear timelines for phasing out household organics from landfills to support municipal planning and infrastructure development.

2. Transparency and Accountability in Recycling Processing

Transparency is critical to building public trust and ensuring program integrity.

Recommendations:
- Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) should publicly list the designated processing facilities they use.
- These facilities should disclose how materials are processed and where they are sent.
- A 'track and trace' system should be implemented to allow producers and the public to follow materials from collection to final processing.
- Safeguards must be in place to prevent recyclable materials from being exported or redirected to landfill under the guise of recycling.

3. Public Access to Contract and Collection Information

Recommendation: The Ontario government should maintain a publicly accessible map and database showing:
- Regional collection zones
- Transfer and processing facilities
- Companies responsible for collection and processing
- Details of contracts, tenders, and RFPs

4. Clarification on Farm Waste

Many family farms do not separate residential and farm waste.

Recommendation: Regulations should clearly state that recycling collection services apply to residential waste generated on farms, ensuring these households are not excluded from the system.

5. Inclusion of Home-Based Occupations and Small Businesses

Home-based businesses and small residential enterprises often generate waste similar to that of households.

Recommendation: These entities should not be excluded from recycling collection services under the regulation.

6. Clarification of Eligibility

The terms currently used to describe Eligibility are vague and difficult to consistently interpret.

Recommendation: Municipalities rely on MPAC data for property assessment and classification. Utilize the same Property Use Type and Property Code that MPAC uses to define eligibility.

7. Oversight of Private Waste Collectors

Where PROs are not responsible for collection, private contractors must still meet high standards.

Recommendation: Strengthen the regulation to ensure:
- Private collectors are required to collect and process recyclables appropriately.
- Access to receiving and processing facilities is available for materials collected outside the PRO system, to ensure diversion from landfill.