The Honourable Todd J…

The Honourable Todd J. McCarthy, MPP
Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks
5th Floor, 777 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3

July 4, 2025

Submission on Proposed Amendments to the Blue Box Regulation
Amendments to the Blue Box Regulation | Environmental Registry of Ontario
ERO Number: 025-0009

Introduction

As Ontario’s largest manufacturing sector by employment, the food and beverage processing industry plays a vital role in the province’s economy and food security. Our businesses operate in every region of Ontario - from urban centres to rural and remote communities.

We recognize the importance of improving environmental stewardship and support efforts to build a circular economy. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation. The Blue Box Regulation, as currently implemented and proposed for amendment under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act (ERO #025-0009), places disproportionate cost and compliance burdens on our sector. We believe the program must be streamlined, made more cost-effective, and better aligned with measurable environmental outcomes to succeed.

This submission presents current challenges and offers recommendations to help improve the effectiveness, fairness, and workability of the program.

A. Learnings from the Recycle British Columbia Program

To enhance the effectiveness and workability of Ontario’s Blue Box system, we encourage the government to draw on lessons from other Canadian jurisdictions—particularly British Columbia. The Recycle BC program offers a more centralized, producer-led model that has demonstrated measurable improvements in cost-efficiency, transparency, and packaging recovery, especially for the food and beverage sector.

Key features of the British Columbia system that Ontario should consider include:

• Centralized, Single-PRO Model:
Recycle BC operates as the sole Producer Responsibility Organization (PRO), creating uniformity in material collection, program administration, and stakeholder accountability. Ontario’s current system, involving multiple PROs and decentralized delivery, introduces unnecessary complexity, drives up costs, and creates confusion for both consumers and producers.

• Broader Material Acceptance with Complementary Depots:
British Columbia accepts a wider range of food-related packaging—including flexible plastics, multilayer materials, and polystyrene—by using both curbside collection and depot-based drop-off programs. This approach provides greater flexibility and improves diversion rates for difficult-to-recycle food packaging formats, while reducing landfill dependence.

• Greater Transparency and Public Reporting:
Recycle BC produces detailed recovery and performance reports that help producers make informed packaging decisions and assess environmental impact. Ontario’s Blue Box system should establish standardized public reporting by material type and end-market destination to support data-driven improvements.

• Pilot Programs and Eco-Modulated Fees:
British Columbia is actively testing fee modulation strategies to reward more recyclable and circular packaging designs. Ontario should accelerate the adoption of eco-modulated fees to incentivize design-for-recycling and reduce costs for processors that prioritize sustainable materials.

• Recognition of Energy Recovery Pathways:
B.C. integrates energy-from-waste as a legitimate and environmentally defensible option for non-recyclable materials only. Ontario should align with this approach by recognizing energy recovery as a valid diversion method where recycling is not feasible - consistent with a modern circular economy framework.

B. Sector Concerns and Operational Challenges with the Ontario Blue Box System

1. High Administrative Burden and Reporting Complexity
Food and beverage processors face significant administrative overhead when complying with Blue Box reporting requirements. The effort to gather and verify material data is compounded by the need to interpret shifting guidance and meet inconsistent standards across jurisdictions. Many processors- especially small and mid-sized firms - have had to hire costly consultants to comply, which diverts financial and human resources from core operations and sustainability innovation.

2. Rising and Unbalanced Compliance Costs
The costs associated with Blue Box compliance have increased sharply, and the burden is falling unevenly on companies that are compliant. Stewardship fees have increased sharply since transitioning to 100% EPR. We understand that this consultation is to try to control these costs and find solutions for producers who are already seeing higher costs in many other parts of their businesses. The lack of transparency why these fees have increase so drastically since Stewardship Ontario operated the Blue Box has led to a perception of unfairness and a lack of trust. We hope to see better collaboration between producers, PRO’s, and regulators as we work to build a system that works for everyone.

3. Lack of Accountability for Non-Compliant Producers
Processors who report accurately and pay their full obligations are subsidizing companies that do not comply. Without effective enforcement, "free riders" distort the system. This undermines confidence in the regulation and creates market distortions. The sector strongly supports better oversight and a system that does not inadvertently penalize those who are compliant.

4. Fragmentation Across Federal and Provincial Regulatory Frameworks
Food and beverage companies must comply with both provincial and federal packaging obligations, including the federal plastics registry. However, differences in reporting categories, deadlines, and definitions make it extremely difficult to comply efficiently. This disjointed framework adds layers of complexity and administrative cost, while offering no clear benefit in terms of improved outcomes.

5. Insufficient Support for Energy Recovery and Alternative Solutions
Some waste streams, such as food-contaminated packaging, are potentially difficult to recycle but can be processed via energy recovery solutions. The current regulation does not sufficiently support these pathways, despite their use in jurisdictions with successful diversion outcomes. A more inclusive approach would support innovation and reflect the real-world challenges of managing complex materials in food processing.

6. Reduced Access to Collection in Multi-Residential Buildings
Reduced collection access in these settings is likely to lead to increased landfill waste and undermine public trust. Maintaining broad and equitable access, using a phased-in approach to collection is critical to building an effective circular economy.

7. Low Recycling Rates and Consumer Confusion
Despite regulatory changes, actual recycling rates remain low. One contributing factor is consumer misunderstanding of how to properly sort and dispose of packaging. Recycling rates need to improve. One of the contributing factors to lower recycling rates is consumer misunderstanding of how to properly sort and dispose of packaging. Effective, harmonized public education, that is the same across the province, is essential to support the system’s success.

8. Engagement with Federal and Municipal Stakeholders
Processors need more engagement with provincial and federal officials on this issue and the associated complexity. At the same time, municipalities often have unclear or shifting roles in program delivery. Ontario needs a collaborative model where government and industry work together to manage extended producer responsibility effectively.

9. Economic Pressure from Layered Costs and Inflation
Rising Blue Box costs are occurring during a period of broad inflationary pressure, including increased costs for energy, transport, and packaging inputs. Food processors operate in a commodity-driven industry where cost increases are difficult to pass on. The combined effect of inflation and regulatory costs is forcing businesses to scale back investments in innovation, hiring, and sustainability initiatives.

C. Recommendations from the Food and Beverage Processing Sector

1. Streamline Reporting Requirements
• Simplify reporting, align federally and provincially to reduce duplication.
• Harmonize definitions and timelines.

2. Lower Compliance Costs Through Fair Contribution Models
• Standardize deduction studies under RPRA oversight, with methodology developed by an independent third party.
• Ensure that non-compliance does not inadvertently penalize those who are compliant through higher fees.

3. Ensure Transparency in Fees and Outcomes
• Clearly disclose how fees are calculated and how costs are allocated throughout the common collection system and the PRO’s, while also showing how producer fees contribute to measurable environmental outcomes.

4. Maintain Collection Services Across Residential Settings
• Protect access to collection for multi-residential buildings to avoid drops in diversion. Consider a phased-in approach.

5. Harmonizing Provide-Wide Consumer Education
• Support province-wide campaigns to reduce contamination and improve household recycling practices.

6. Foster Federal-Provincial-Municipal-Industry Collaboration
• Create working groups with consistent engagement to ensure alignment and practical implementation.

7. Phase-in Target Requirements
• Introduce new targets over time to allow for necessary investment and adaptation.

8. Energy-from-Waste and Alternative Recovery Pathways
• We suggest treating this as a complementary option as in the BC system. Allow for energy recovery and similar alternatives to count toward diversion goals only when there is no pathway for recycling materials. Adjust the regulation to increase allowable targets for energy recovery from non-recyclable materials. This provides a practical and environmentally sound diversion strategy for food-contaminated packaging and supports circular economy outcomes.

9. Adopt a Centralized Administrative Model:
• Consider transitioning to a single-producer responsibility organization or coordinated framework to reduce duplication, administrative burden, and fragmentation.

10. Expand Material Acceptance and Infrastructure Innovation:
• Pilot depot-based programs or special collection initiatives to capture more complex packaging materials, as seen in the B.C. system.

11. Advance Transparency and Reporting Standards
• Mandate standardized, detailed reporting on recovery rates and environmental outcomes by material type to drive continuous improvement and accountability.

12. Accelerate Eco-Modulated Fee Implementation
• Introduce eco-modulated fees that reward recyclable packaging formats and reduce the burden on companies investing in sustainable innovation.

Conclusion

The food and beverage processing sector is committed to doing its part in building a sustainable and circular economy. We support the intent behind the Blue Box program, but as it currently stands, the system imposes unsustainable costs and administrative burdens on essential businesses without sufficient evidence that its environmental goals are being met.

Ontario has an opportunity to strengthen the Blue Box system by learning from successful models such as British Columbia’s Recycle BC. A more centralized, transparent, and innovation-oriented approach would provide better value for producers, higher diversion rates, and stronger public confidence. We urge the Ontario government to work with industry to create a system that is cost-effective, streamlined, and outcome driven.

Sincerely,

Chris Conway
Chief Executive Officer
Food and Beverage Ontario

cc: Policy Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Government of Ontario