Ontario weighs dropping flexible plastic from the Blue Box and would make PROs publish fees; comments close 26 November

How Ontario's Blue Box is run and paid for

Ontario completed its move to a fully producer-run Blue Box on 1 January 2026, the ERO notice says. Under the legacy system, the ministry’s consultation paper notes, producers funded 50% of residential collection costs; they now carry all of them².

Each producer has its own recovery duty. Producers must meet resource recovery targets for six categories of materials, the paper says, and the SPI Regulation Tracker sets out those targets under record PR-CA-003. Most producers meet the duty by contracting with a PRO.

Four PROs share one collection system. RPRA’s PRO page, updated on 26 October 2026, lists Circular Materials, EnvironFocus Inc., Landbell Canada and Ryse Solutions Ontario Inc., and says they share a System Access Agreement that sets administrative, operational and procurement practice⁶. Circular Materials is the System Administrator.

The structure dates from the Blue Box Regulation of 2021 and the 2025 amendments, which the notice says extended recovery target timelines, refocused the program on residential material, removed some planned expansions and added flexibility for hard-to-recycle materials.

Day-to-day running sits one layer down. The consultation paper says Circular Materials hired RLG as a third-party System Operator, which oversees collection, allocates collected material to each PRO and invoices the PROs. Producers see none of that chain directly: they see the fee their own PRO charges.

The ministry says that fee has become the problem. The notice reports that producers and PROs told it the Blue Box is costing more than anticipated, citing inflation, labour shortages and supply chain issues for infrastructure, and that producers describe rising fees and a lack of transparency.

The ministry says in its consultation paper that more needs to be done to create the conditions for cost stability.

What changed between 23 and 31 October

23 October: the outline. The ministry announced it would seek power to regulate contract terms and fees between PROs and producers, and would consult on fee reporting, service levels and flexible plastic. It gave no bill number or ERO notice at the time, as SPI reported on 26 October¹⁰.

27 October: the notice and the bill. The ministry posted ERO 026-1058 with a 30-day comment period to 26 November 2026¹. The consultation paper says the statute amendments were introduced in the Legislature the same day in the Building Ontario Faster Act, 2026.

Schedule 22 of Bill 140. The Legislative Assembly’s page for Bill 140 shows the bill sponsored by the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, with Schedule 22 amending the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act³. Its explanatory note says the schedule amends Part IV, adds regulation-making powers on providing information and entering into agreements, and allows a regulation to apply to agreements made before it is filed, if it says so.

Commencement on several dates. The same note says some provisions take effect on Royal Assent, some on a day named by order, and some are deemed to have taken effect on the bill’s first reading. On 31 October the bill page listed Bill 140 at second reading, with closure moved.

28 October: the government bulletin. The Ministry of Red Tape Reduction posted ERO bulletin 026-1114, which says Bill 140 amends 26 Acts and proposes two new ones, and lists the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act among them⁴. The bulletin carries no comment period of its own and points to 026-1058 for the Blue Box changes.

27 October: a parallel waste notice. On the same day the ministry posted ERO 026-1056 on landfill capacity, also closing on 26 November⁵. It says Ontario relies on U.S. facilities for about 25% of its waste and proposes to modernise IC&I recycling rules under O. Reg. 102/94 and 103/94.

The flexible plastic question. The consultation paper’s section 2A asks whether flexible plastic belongs in the province-wide system at all. It lists exemption and an end to collection as one route, and collection matched to regional sorting capacity, or at local depots, as another. The ministry says it would decide as soon as possible if it pursues the change.

28 October: first outside reaction. Environmental Defence, a Canadian environmental group, said the proposal would remove obligations for companies to manage 80,000 tonnes of flexible plastic packaging they put on the market⁸. The figure is Environmental Defence’s own; neither the notice nor the paper gives a tonnage, and the statement does not say whether it is an annual figure.

What the proposed rules would require

The paper’s fee section has five parts. PROs would post proposed and final fee schedules on a public website, on timelines the government sets, and any information that lets a producer compare costs across PROs would count as a fee schedule. The ministry says this would align with or build on RPRA’s existing fee methodology reporting, and PROs would keep discretion over the fees themselves².

Invoices would carry the cost build-up. Quotes, invoices and receipts would itemise each producer’s share of common collection costs, broken into collection, consolidation and transfer, promotion and education, administration and reserve funds. Each PRO would also report yearly on its own processing and administration costs, aligned with cost-per-tonne reporting it already makes.

Contracts would follow set principles. The paper lists five: fees reflect full compliance costs net of revenues, differ by material, reflect recyclability, avoid cross-subsidy between materials and recognise the different capacities of large, medium and small producers. The ministry says it does not intend to prescribe how PROs set costs or fees.

The new statute powers reach further than fees. Under proposal 1B, regulations could govern Part IV contracts entered into by any person, including PRO and producer, PRO and service provider, and inter-PRO contracts such as those for the System Administrator and System Operator. They could set payment limits, contract terms on services, notice, termination, dispute resolution, exclusivity and renewal, eligibility to contract and when parties must contract, for existing and future agreements².

The governance rules target the System Access Agreement. Any inter-PRO agreement for the common collection system would need an Operating Committee open to all PROs regardless of market share, at least 90 days’ notice and consultation before material cost changes, and independent audit, review and dispute processes with prescribed timelines.

The service rules change what households can leave out. The paper proposes to phase out the duty to collect bagged or baled overflow set beside a receptacle where alternatives exist, such as extra or larger free receptacles or depot access. PROs would always deliver carts, and could be required to deliver extra boxes to residents with accessibility needs, without depot access, or who have not already received more than two.

Small business material could count. Under proposal 3A, Blue Box material collected from small industrial, commercial and institutional (IC&I) sites would count toward producer targets without separate reporting or audit, where collection runs under an agreement with a municipality or First Nation community.

The paper poses 17 consultation questions across the seven proposals, by SPI’s count. The PRO collaboration section carries the most, four, including whether safeguards are needed where PROs are owned by or linked to waste service providers.

Who gains and who pays under the proposal

Flexible packaging producers. Brand owners using film, pouches and wraps carry a flexible plastic management requirement of 10% for 2026 and 2027, rising to 15% for 2028 to 2031 and 25% from 2032, RPRA said in November 2025⁷. An exemption could remove that duty and its fee line. The paper asks whether exempted producers should still pay toward collection costs, so as not to reward greater use of flexible plastic.

Producers of other materials. The paper says any flexible plastic change should avoid raising costs for producers of other materials or creating free riders. Its fee principles, including no cross-subsidy between materials, point the same way. Paper, rigid plastic, glass and metal producers would see their own costs itemised rather than blended.

Circular Materials. As System Administrator of the shared system, Circular Materials would operate under an agreement that must include an Operating Committee open to all PROs and independent audit and dispute processes. The paper also proposes independent adjudication of disputes between the System Administrator and PROs.

EnvironFocus, Landbell Canada and Ryse Solutions. The three other registered PROs would gain committee seats regardless of market share, at least 90 days’ notice and consultation before material cost changes, and information on performance, cost drivers and procurement⁶.

RLG. The System Operator would report to RPRA each year on prescribed costs and performance under its agreement, which the paper calls an independent reporting relationship. It would give the ministry direct sight of operating costs.

Waste and recycling service providers. Contracts between PROs and service providers fall within the new statute powers, the paper says, covering fees, terms such as notice, termination, exclusivity and renewal, and eligibility to contract. It also says any flexible plastic change should minimise impacts on existing PRO and service provider contracts and on planned sorting and processing investment.

Municipalities and First Nation communities. Overflow collection would phase out where alternatives exist, a change Environmental Defence says shifts cost to municipalities. Their agreements would also become the route by which small IC&I material counts toward producer targets.

Producer profiles by market and packaging format are in the SPI Buyers Database. SPI has not yet confirmed how many Ontario producers report flexible plastic supply, or the share of PRO fees it represents.

The fee data producers cannot yet see

Ontario is the largest Canadian market and the least transparent on price, SPI’s Canada Ledger on provincial EPR found: Circular Materials shares Ontario fees with registered producers through its WeRecycle Portal and a producer advisory group, not a public schedule¹². Producers can see their own bill but cannot compare it with what another PRO would charge.

That is the gap proposal 1A aims to close, and the paper’s first question shows the tension. It asks how to balance transparency with protecting commercially sensitive information among competing PROs. Four PROs share one collection system, so posting the shared cost lines publicly also reveals much of each competitor’s base cost.

Timing adds pressure. Producers are already answering RPRA’s consultation on supply reporting and audits, which closes on 16 November, as SPI reported on 28 October¹¹. The fee rules would not apply until 2027, after 2027 fees have been set; the Ledger notes Ontario’s 2027 fees have already gone to producers through the advisory group and portal.

The paper also limits how far the ministry will go. It says the government does not intend to prescribe how PROs set costs or fees, and that the new statute powers are enabling, so each requirement needs its own regulation, enforced by RPRA. The notice adds that business impacts, including cost and burden, are still being assessed and gives no figures.

That leaves the conflict of interest question open. The paper asks whether safeguards are needed where a PRO is owned by or associated with a waste service provider. A producer reading an itemised invoice would know what it pays for collection and transfer, but not whether the contracts behind those lines were let at arm’s length.

How Ontario's fee openness compares with other provinces

Other provinces already publish producer fees, on their own bases. Recycle BC publishes cents per kilogram for 23 material lines and SK Recycles for 19, Éco Entreprises Québec publishes dollars per tonne, and Circular Materials posts fee budgets and average rates for Alberta, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Yukon, SPI’s Ledger found¹². Ontario’s proposal would bring it toward that practice without moving to a single body.

Flexible plastic is a weak point everywhere. The Ledger records Recycle BC’s 2025 recovery for flexible plastic at 23%, against 92% for paper, and Circular Materials New Brunswick’s at 2% against a 4% baseline target. Québec’s ministry page lists a 50% recovery rate for flexible plastics in 2027, though SPI has not yet confirmed whether that rate still applies after Québec announced lower rates.

Ontario’s alternative routes, regional collection matched to sorting capacity or depot drop-off, would leave it with a narrower flexible plastic service than British Columbia’s.

The size of the regulator’s own fee shows how small the visible part of Ontario’s bill is. RPRA proposes a 2027 revenue requirement of CAD 9,549,539 on about 867 million kg of supply, the Ledger records, while PRO fees for collection sit on top and are not public¹². The ERO 026-1058 rules would put the larger number, the PRO fee, on the record for the first time.