July 2, 2025 Marc Peverini…

July 2, 2025

Marc Peverini
Resource Recovery Policy Branch
40 St. Clair Avenue West, 8th floor
Toronto, ON M4V 1M2
RE: ERO 025-0009 – Proposed Amendments to Ontario Regulation 391/21 (Blue Box Regulation)
Dear Mr. Peverini,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to the Blue Box Regulation under Ontario Regulation 391/21, as posted on the Environmental Registry of Ontario.

We recognize and appreciate the Ministry’s efforts to address concerns related to escalating program costs and the long-term sustainability of Ontario’s residential recycling system. It is clear that thoughtful consideration has been given to the challenges facing producers, municipalities, and service providers during the transition to full extended producer responsibility (EPR). We commend the Ministry’s commitment to ensuring that the system remains viable and adaptable to Ontario’s evolving waste management landscape.

That said, we would like to express several significant concerns regarding specific proposed changes that we believe risk undermining the equity, accessibility, and effectiveness of the new Blue Box program.

Exclusion of Certain Residential Sources (Item 2)

We are particularly concerned by the proposed removal of the planned expansion of Blue Box services to non-municipally serviced and new multi-residential buildings, schools, and specified long-term care and retirement homes.
Residents of multi-residential buildings already face disproportionate barriers to effective waste diversion. Similarly, schools and care facilities are not only high-occupancy environments but also critical spaces for environmental education and community leadership in sustainability.

A key objective of transitioning to a producer-led Blue Box system is to provide consistent and equitable recycling services across the province, ensuring that all Ontarians, regardless of housing type, can recycle the same materials through a harmonized program. The proposed removal of the planned expansion to these sectors risks undermining that objective and may result in an inequitable patchwork of access to recycling services across communities, especially as we see an increase in multi-residential densification to meet Ontario’s growing housing needs.

Furthermore, this change would shift responsibility for managing recyclable materials, materials that should rightly fall under producer responsibility, away from producers. This risks creating inconsistent service levels and may impose significant cost pressures on local institutions left without the same level of equitable service provision.

We respectfully encourage the Ministry to consider a phased or gradual inclusion of these locations into the Blue Box system, bringing a set number of facilities online each year. This approach would allow producers and service providers the time needed to build capacity while upholding the broader goals of accessibility, fairness, and a robust, province-wide recycling system.

Removal of “Away From Home” Beverage Container Requirements (Item 3)

While we recognize the Ministry’s concerns regarding the cost and logistical challenges of establishing away-from-home beverage container collection, we are concerned that the proposed amendments represent a departure from the foundational principles of extended producer responsibility. Beverage containers, regardless of where they are consumed, constitute a highly recoverable material stream.

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 garbage stream, and ultimately reduces overall recovery performance.

To help mitigate these impacts and ensure producer accountability remains central to Ontario’s circular economy framework, we respectfully recommend the following:

1. Introduce mandatory reporting requirements. Producers should be required to report on the volume of beverage containers supplied to non-residential sectors and disclose any recovery efforts undertaken outside of the Blue Box system. This would enhance transparency, support evidence-based policy development, and allow municipalities and the Ministry to better understand material flows and recovery gaps.
2. Explore the implementation of a province-wide deposit return system (DRS). A DRS would provide a proven and effective mechanism to capture beverage containers consumed outside the home, reduce litter in public spaces, and significantly improve recovery rates. Such a system would also alleviate cost burdens currently borne by municipalities and reinforce the principle that producers remain responsible for managing the end-of-life impacts of their packaging. Furthermore, DRS programs in several Canadian jurisdictions, such as Alberta, British Columbia, and Québec, have demonstrated high recovery rates and strong public participation, offering a clear precedent for success.

Together, these measures would help strengthen the regulatory framework, safeguard municipal resources, and support a more consistent, equitable, and effective recycling system across Ontario.

Removal of Public Space Collection Requirements (Item 4)

The proposal to eliminate the planned expansion of Blue Box collection in public spaces, such as parks, downtown cores, transit hubs, and recreational facilities, is a significant concern. These spaces are widely used by residents and visitors and generate a significant volume of recyclable materials, much of it indistinguishable from household packaging.

Removing this obligation from the regulation represents a missed opportunity to:

1. Capture producer-supplied recyclables in high-traffic areas.
2. Reinforce consistent environmental messaging and public participation in waste diversion.
3. Alleviate the cost burden on municipalities, which will otherwise remain responsible for collection and disposal.

Public-space recycling serves as a visible extension of residential waste diversion efforts. Its exclusion from t undermines the principle of a consistent, province-wide producer responsibility system.

Should this service be removed from producer obligations, municipalities should be compensated for continuing to manage this material. Moreover, with the transition of the Blue Box program, municipalities now face more limited processing options, which will likely result in increased costs to manage these materials independently.

Allowing Energy Recovery to Count Toward Diversion Targets (Item 6)

While we acknowledge the Ministry’s intent to introduce greater flexibility by allowing energy recovery to count toward diversion targets, we have concerns that warrant careful consideration.

First, the proposal does not clearly define what constitutes “non-recyclable” material eligible for energy recovery. Without clear definitions, there is a risk that materials that could be recyclable with sufficient innovation or improved processing might instead be diverted to energy recovery, undermining recycling advancements.

We strongly recommend that if energy recovery is permitted to contribute toward diversion targets, the regulation 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. A phased approach would better align with circular economy principles.

Additionally, energy-from-waste (EFW) facilities have traditionally processed garbage destined for landfill, not residential recycling streams. This raises concerns about accountability, oversight, and transparency.

We believe the following questions must be addressed:

1. How will the system ensure only appropriate, non-recyclable Blue Box materials are sent to energy recovery?
2. What tracking, auditing, and verification mechanisms will prevent misclassification or misuse?
3. What safeguards will prevent an increase in the allowable energy recovery threshold beyond the proposed 15%, which could undermine recycling goals?

Given these risks, we urge the Ministry to clearly define eligibility criteria, establish robust oversight protocols, and commit to regular, transparent reviews and audits to ensure energy recovery complements, not replaces, core recycling efforts.
While energy recovery can play a limited role in managing certain materials, it must be implemented with robust oversight and positioned strictly as a transitional, last-resort measure; one that complements, rather than replaces, efforts to reduce waste and drive recycling innovation.

Service Expansion Inconsistency (Item 11)

We support the Ministry’s proposal to establish clear timelines for servicing newly built residences and other facilities. This is a welcome step toward consistency and predictability.

However, we are concerned by the inconsistency between this proposal and the removal of multi-residential buildings, schools, and specified long-term care and retirement homes from the regulation’s scope. These sectors are essential components of residential and institutional landscapes, and many municipalities already support waste services in these locations.
Excluding them undermines the goal of consistent province-wide Blue Box service and will places undue pressure on municipalities to provide this service outside producer responsibility. This fragments the system and compromises equity.
We urge the Ministry to consider reinstating these sectors in alignment with the timelines and goals outlined in Item 11.

Promotion and Education Requirements (Item 12)

We recognize the Ministry’s intent to modernize communication by shifting toward digital-first promotion and education (P&E) materials. While this approach offers cost savings and reflects changing communication preferences, we urge caution to ensure that the reach and effectiveness of public education efforts are not compromised. Printed materials remain a vital communication tool for many residents, including seniors, newcomers, and individuals without internet access.
To maintain equitable access and sustained program performance, we recommend:

1. Establish clear and accessible mechanisms for residents and municipalities to request printed materials, with requirements for proactive communication by producers or PROs.

2. Require consultation with municipalities to assess local needs and digital access limitations, ensuring that outreach strategies reflect community-specific circumstances.

3. Ensure producers demonstrate that their education and communication strategies (whether digital or print) effectively meet established awareness and participation benchmarks.

4. Mandate ongoing monitoring and reporting by RPRA on the effectiveness of promotion and education efforts, with a mechanism for course correction if engagement or program performance declines.

Effective diversion relies on informed and engaged public participation; any shift in communication methods must continue to support all residents in accessing and understanding recycling services.

Exploring Efficiencies Through Integration of Small Business Collection

We appreciate the Ministry’s recognition of operational challenges associated with small business collection and support efforts to provide regulatory flexibility for municipalities to maintain Blue Box service to these sites.

In addition to small businesses, we encourage the Ministry to also consider including other community-serving organizations that operate similarly and face comparable logistical barriers, such as daycares, not-for-profits, and places of worship, especially those located along residential collection routes. These sites generate waste streams comparable to households and often lack the space, resources, or infrastructure to secure private collection.

While we recognize that the proposed regulatory amendment includes daycares located within schools, extending this consideration to similar standalone operations would promote fairness, consistency, and equitable access to recycling services.
Historically, municipalities have included these sites in their collection programs where feasible, especially when located along established residential routes. However, under the current framework, municipalities wishing to maintain this service must negotiate and fund these arrangements directly. In the absence of adequate flexibility and safeguards, this approach is becoming increasingly cost-prohibitive and operationally challenging.

To support ongoing service continuity and efficiency, the regulatory framework should ensure the following:

1. Flexibility in service delivery, enabling municipalities to adopt alternative or shared collection models (e.g., in-ground bins, communal containers, or coordinated on-demand pickups, etc.) tailored to local operational needs and infrastructure.

2. Fair and transparent pricing structures, to ensure municipalities are not forced to discontinue services due to uncompetitive or inflexible cost arrangements.

3. Voluntary participation and adaptable service terms, rather than prescriptive, one-size-fits-all offers that may limit innovation or responsiveness to local context.

4. Robust monitoring and feedback mechanisms, to evaluate service effectiveness, ensure accountability, and support continuous improvement in negotiated agreements.

Without these safeguards, municipalities may face significant barriers to continuing small business and community-based collection due to pricing constraints or operational limitations.

A responsive, locally adaptable model would help maintain service continuity, improve overall system efficiency, and ensure that small businesses and community-serving organizations are not left behind in Ontario’s transition to extended producer responsibility.

We welcome continued dialogue and collaboration on the design and implementation of this important provision.
Potential Cost Shifts to Municipalities

Taken together, the proposed amendments signal a shift away from the foundational goals of Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation. Rather than simplifying and consolidating the system under full producer responsibility, the changes appear to reintroduce fragmented service models and transfer long-term financial and operational responsibilities back to municipalities.

As a result, municipalities will face:

• Continued responsibility for public-space recycling infrastructure and service delivery.

• Increased volumes of Blue Box materials entering the garbage stream, leading to decreased diversion performance.

• Rising waste management costs borne by municipal budgets and, ultimately, local taxpayers.

The progressive narrowing of eligible sources (beginning with the earlier exclusion of small businesses within Business Improvement Areas and now extending to the proposed removal of planned service expansions) risks undermining the long-term sustainability and fairness of the Blue Box program.

Without full producer accountability for the materials they place on the market, municipalities will continue to bear both the financial and environmental costs of managing these materials.

Conclusion

While we respect the Ministry’s rationale and recognize the importance of prudent financial and operational planning, we urge reconsideration of the proposed exclusion of key residential and public settings from producer responsibility.

We strongly recommend that the Ministry:

1. Reinstate the planned expansion of Blue Box services to multi-residential buildings, schools, and specified long-term care and retirement homes.
2. Maintain or gradually phases in public-space recycling requirements, particularly in high-traffic urban and community areas.
3. Ensure future amendments support equitable access to recycling and uphold the core principles of extended producer responsibility.

We appreciate the Ministry’s continued leadership in advancing circular economy objectives and welcome the opportunity to collaborate in building a more efficient, inclusive, and sustainable recycling system across Ontario.
Please do not hesitate to reach out should you require any further information or clarification.
Sincerely,

Amanda Romano
Waste Program Coordinator, Town of Newmarket