City of Orillia a G E N

CITY OF ORILLIA Council Committee Meeting Monday, February 1, 2021 2:45 p.m. - Closed Session 4:00 p.m. - Open Session

A G E N D A

Notice: This meeting will be held electronically. Residents are encouraged to watch the meeting on Rogers TV or online beginning at 4:00 p.m. The portion of the meeting occurring prior to 4:00 p.m., with the exception of Closed Session, will be recorded and available for public viewing on the City's website at orillia.ca. Page

Open Session

Chair - Mayor S. Clarke

Call to Order

Approval of Agenda

Disclosure of Interest

Minutes

- January 11, 2021 Council Committee

Closed Session

Motion to move into Closed Session

"THAT, pursuant to Section 239(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, notice is hereby given that Council Committee intends to hold a closed session meeting to deal with matters pursuant to Section 239(2) (b) and (d) of the said Act (Personal and Personnel Matters)."

Closed Session Items

1. Union Negotiations Working Group - re IBEW Environment and Infrastructure Services Union Negotiations Update. File: L04-I- (Personnel)

2. Boards and Committees Selection Panel - re Committee Appointments. File: C13-GEN (Personal)

Page 1 of 78 Page

Motion to Rise to Open Session

Open Session - 4:00 p.m.

Motions Arising from Closed Session Discussions

Consent Agenda

Board Reports

5 - 10 1. Boards and Committees Selection Panel - re Composition of the Active Transportation Committee. File: C12-ATCXC01-2021-

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that as recommended in Report SEL-21-02 dated January 22, 2021 from the Boards and Committees Selection Panel, Chapter 118 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code - Active Transportation Committee be amended to reduce the composition of the Committee from eleven members to nine members, including an amendment to reduce the maximum number of non-resident local representatives from four to three members;

AND THAT staff be directed to prepare the appropriate by-law.

Council Referrals

11 - 20 1. County of Simcoe - re County Orillia Campus Development Request for City of Orillia Affordable Housing Incentives. File: A16-COS

a) Report - Development Services and Engineering Department.

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that Report DSE-21-05 dated January 22, 2021 from the Development Services and Engineering Department regarding the County of Simcoe's financial incentives request for the County Orillia Campus development at 2 Borland Street be received as information.

21 - 49 2. Deputy Clerk - re Banning Single-Use Plastics. File: E07-GEN

a) Report - Environment and Infrastructure Services Department.

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that as recommended in Report EIS-21-01 dated January 27, 2021 from the Environment and Infrastructure Services Department, the Government of Canada’s proposed plan to ban or restrict certain single-use plastics across Canada as reported in its discussion paper entitled “A proposed integrated management approach to plastic products to prevent waste and pollution" be supported in principle;

Page 2 of 78 Page

AND THAT the Government of Canada be encouraged to support full extended producer responsibility, and where single-use products and packaging items cannot be managed properly and where alternatives can be utilized, the City supports the use of restrictions, bans or requirements that reduce the risk of plastic pollution;

AND THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

Departmental Reports

51 - 53 1. Environment and Infrastructure Services Department - re Outstanding Waste Minimization Plan Items. File: E07-GEN

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that as recommended in Report EIS-21-02 dated January 27, 2021 from the Environment and Infrastructure Services Department, Recommendations 6b, 12b, 12c, 13c, 13d and 22 of the City of Orillia’s 2016 Waste Minimization Plan be referred to and included as recommendations within the City’s 2021 Waste Minimization Plan for further consideration.

55 - 72 2. Environment and Infrastructure Services Department - re Clear Plastic Garbage Bag Collection Program. File: E07-GEN

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that as recommended in Report EIS-21-03 dated January 27, 2021 from the Environment and Infrastructure Services Department, Chapter 877 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code - Solid Waste Management be amended as set out in Schedule "A" of the report effective February 7, 2022.

73 - 78 3. Economic Recovery Task Force - re Economic Recovery Funding. File: D02-GEN

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that as recommended in Report ERTF-21-01 dated January 27, 2021 from the Economic Recovery Task Force, the allocation of $60,000 be authorized from the Social Assistance and Economic Recovery COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund to the Economic Recovery Task Force, subject to use of these funds being approved by the City of Orillia Emergency Management Committee for economic recovery projects which align with the Economic Recovery Task Force's mandate.

Enquiries

1. Councillor Cipolla will introduce the following enquiry:

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that staff be directed to prepare a report with respect to the following:

Page 3 of 78 Page

The current budget and expenditures with respect to tree planting in the City of Orillia, including the feasibility of increasing funding.

2. Councillor Emond will introduce the following enquiry:

THAT this Committee recommends to Council that staff be directed to prepare a report with respect to the following:

The feasibility of developing a Strategic Initiatives/Business Development Decision Matrix that would help guide Council when deliberating on proposed community, economic and/or business development initiatives.

Announcements

Open Public Forum

Members of the public wishing to speak during Open Public Forum must pre-register by Monday, February 1, 2021 at 12:00 p.m. To pre-register, please contact the Corporate Services/Legal Department, Clerk's Division, at 705-325-1311 or at [email protected].

Please note that the Open Public Forum period is limited to a maximum of 30 minutes, with each speaker allotted a maximum of 5 minutes. The first six registrants will be guaranteed the opportunity to speak.

Adjournment

Page 4 of 78 CITY OF ORILLIA

TO: Council Committee – February 1, 2021 FROM: Boards and Committees Selection Panel DATE: January 22, 2021 REPORT NO: SEL-21-02 SUBJECT: Composition of the Active Transportation Committee

Recommended Motion

THAT Chapter 118 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code – Active Transportation Committee be amended to reduce the composition of the Committee from eleven (11) members to nine (9) members, including an amendment to reduce the maximum number of non-resident local representatives from four (4) to three (3);

AND THAT staff be directed to prepare the appropriate by-law.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide the recommendations of the Selection Panel to Council Committee regarding the composition of the Active Transportation Committee.

Background and Key Facts

• The Selection Panel provides appointment recommendations in accordance with City Policy 1.3.1.3. - Procedures for Appointment of Members - Selection Panel Guidelines.

• Vacancies on City Boards and Committees occur as a result of: o a member having served the maximum term o a member resigning for various reasons mid-term o a member not wishing to serve for an additional consecutive term o a member being deemed to have resigned for attendance below 50%

• Advertising in the City’s Bulletin Board and on the City’s website has been ongoing since the fall of 2020 and is updated regularly as additional vacancy information is received in accordance with City Policy 1.3.1.1. - Procedures for Appointment of Members - Advertising Vacancies.

Options & Analysis

The Selection Panel reviewed all memberships and applications as part of the annual review starting in November 2020, and again on January 22, 2021 resulting in public appointment recommendations being made to Council Committee in Closed Session along with the following additional motion:

Page 5 of 78 Page 2 of 3

AND THAT staff be directed to prepare the appropriate by-law.

The Active Transportation Committee has experienced a significant changeover in membership, and over recent years, it has been a challenge to keep the eleven (11) member committee fully appointed. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the numbers of applications being received generally.

To assist the Active Transportation Committee in continuing its work through pandemic and membership challenges, it is suggested that a nine (9) member Committee will more easily achieve quorum while continuing to provide a sufficient number of citizen volunteers for initiatives undertaken (such as: preparing an application for a Bicycle Friendly Community Award; reviewing transportation matters with staff resources for active transportation opportunities; and most recently, looking to find synergies with the Health and Wellness sector of Sustainable Orillia). The current qualifications also allow for up to four (4) members to be appointed from the neighbouring townships, and it is proposed that the amendment reduce that number to three (3) so that no more than one-third of the membership is made up of non-residents.

Schedule “A” provides the proposed amendments to Chapter 118 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code – Active Transportation Committee.

Financial Impact

Remuneration applies to members appointed to these Committees in accordance with Schedule ‘B’ of Chapter 493 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code – Remuneration – Expenses resulting in payments that total approximately $26,000 per year. The proposed amendment would reduce the annual total by $600 ($300 per member).

Consultation

Comments from other agencies or staff were not solicited or received.

Economic Development Impact

Citizen engagement in Council research, community activities and decisions can be interpreted as demonstrating a more positive local government image, which in turn would benefit the community overall in attracting new residents and businesses.

Communications Plan

Communication requirements have not been identified at this time.

Relation to Formal Plans, City of Orillia Policy Manual and/or Guiding Legislation

• City Policy 1.3.1.1. – Procedures for Appointment of Members – Advertising Vacancies

H:\COUNSERV\TOMRMS DIRECTORY\C - Council, Boards and By-laws\C12 - Boards, Commissions and Committees\C12-SELPage Selection 6 ofPanel 78\SEL Reports\SEL-21-02 Composition of the Active Transportation Committee.docx File: C13-APP

Page 3 of 3

• City Policy 1.3.1.3. – Procedures for Appointment of Members – Selection Panel Guidelines

• Chapter 105 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code – Local Board – Procedure

• Appointments are considered and made in accordance with a variety of guiding Provincial Legislation: Municipal Act, Municipal Elections Act, Police Services Act Planning Act, Building Code Act, Public Libraries Act, Statutory Powers Act, Ontario Heritage Act, Ministry of Environment Regulations for Landfill Approvals

Conclusion

The Selection Panel respectfully submits this recommendation for amending the composition of the Active Transportation Committee.

Prepared by: Robin Cadeau, Assistant Clerk

On behalf of the Boards and Committees Selection Panel: Councillor Ted Emond Councillor Pat Hehn Councillor Rob Kloostra

Schedules

• Schedule “A” – Draft - Chapter 118 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code – Active Transportation Committee

H:\COUNSERV\TOMRMS DIRECTORY\C - Council, Boards and By-laws\C12 - Boards, Commissions and Committees\C12-SELPage Selection 7 ofPanel 78\SEL Reports\SEL-21-02 Composition of the Active Transportation Committee.docx File: C13-APP

Schedule "A"

BOARD - COMMITTEE

Chapter 118 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

CHAPTER INDEX

Article 1 ESTABLISHMENT

118.1.1 Established - Active Transportation Committee 118.1.2 Composition - eleven nine - ten eight non-Council 118.1.3 Qualifications - exception

Article 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS

118.2.1 Advisory nature – no legislative authority 118.2.2 Meetings - accordance - Chapter 105 - Municipal Code 118.2.3 Staff Support and Resources

Article 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE

118.3.1 Committee - objectives 118.3.2 Committee Terms of Reference

Article 4 FINANCIAL

118.4.1 Donations - submission to the Treasurer 118.4.2 Treasurer - designated responsibility

Article 5 ENACTMENT

118.5.1 Effective date

______

ORILLIA 118.1 FEBRUARY 20172021 Page 8 of 78 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 118

Article 1 ESTABLISHMENT

118.1.1 Established The Active Transportation Committee is hereby established.

118.1.2 Composition - eleven nine - ten eight non-Council The Committee shall be composed of eleven nine members, one of whom shall be a member of Council, and one of whom shall be a representative of the Simcoe Muskoka District Health Unit.

118.1.3 Qualifications - exception Each member of the Committee who is not a member of Council or representative of an outside agency shall be an eligible elector of the City of Orillia with the exception that a maximum of four three of the nine seven citizen members may be non-residents from a neighbouring municipality, provided those non-residents bring particular qualities and skills to the Committee.

Article 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS

118.2.1 Advisory nature – no legislative authority The Committee shall be advisory in nature, shall not be legislative and shall report to Council through Council Committee on all matters required by it to do so pursuant to the terms of reference contained herein.

118.2.2 Meetings - accordance - Chapter 105 - Municipal Code All meetings of the Committee shall be held in accordance with Chapter 105 of the City of Orillia Municipal Code, being the City’s procedural by-law for local boards, commissions and committees.

118.2.3 Staff Support and Resources City staff resources for the Committee shall be coordinated by the Engineering and Transportation Department. The Committee may invite other resources from time to time. A Committee Secretary shall be provided by the City Clerk’s Department to coordinate the proceedings of the Committee, including the preparation of agendas and taking of minutes.

Article 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE

118.3.1 Objectives The Active Transportation Committee objectives shall be those as outlined by the Vision and Objectives contained within the City of Orillia Active Transportation Plan dated July 2012.

118.3.2 Terms of Reference The Committee shall meet as required to deal with matters within the following terms of reference: a) To promote and educate regarding the Active Transportation Plan; b) To review and provide input on development of Active Transportation infrastructure and the associated trail system in Orillia; c) To review and provide input regarding the use of the trail system including special event permits; d) To review and provide input on the installation of signage related to the connectivity of the active transportation network;

ORILLIA 118.2 FEBRUARY 2017

Page 9 of 78 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE 118

e) To advocate with outside trail committees to form linkages (Ramara, Severn and Oro- Medonte); f) To research and report on specific matters referred to the Committee by Council; and, g) To review and advise on priorities in capital budget projects related to the Active Transportation network.

Article 4 FINANCIAL

118.4.1 Donations - submission to the Treasurer The Active Transportation Committee may accept donations for the trail system and/or Scout Valley. All donations received by the Committee must be submitted to the Treasurer.

118.4.2 Treasurer - designated responsibility The Treasurer of the Active Transportation Committee shall be the Treasurer of The Corporation of the City of Orillia.

Article 5 ENACTMENT

118.5.1 Effective date This Chapter shall come into force and effect on the date of the passing of the enabling by-law.

Adopting By-law: By-law 2007-65, 23 April 2007.

By-law Amendments: By-law 2012-117, 13 August 2012.

By-law Repealed and Replaced: By-law 2015-86, 28 September 2015; By-law 2017-14, 13 February 2017.

By-law Amendments: By-law 2021-xx, xx February 2021.

ORILLIA 118.3 FEBRUARY 2017

Page 10 of 78 Corporate Services/Legal Department Clerk's Division MEMO

To: Ian Sugden, General Manager of Development Services and Engineering Copy to: Clerk's Division (Council Referrals) From: Megan Williams, Deputy Cler~-~ .\ 1 Date: December 11, 2020 \\\J"' Subject: County Ori Ilia Campus Development Request for City of Ori Ilia Affordable Housing Incentives

The attached correspondence from the County of Simcoe regarding the above was presented to a meeting of Council held on December 10, 2020.

At that time, Council referred the correspondence to Council Committee and requested a report from the Development Services and Engineering Department.

Please prepare a report to Council Committee.

MW:hl

H:ICOUNSERVITOMRMS DIRECTORYIC - Council, Boards and By-laws\C00 - Council, Boards and By-laws\C00- Council\Correspondence\2020\201210 CC, BC & C\Consent\201210-Consent 1 re County of Simcoe.docx File:C13- APP Page 11 of 78 October 29, 2020

Mayor and Council City of Orillia 50 Andrew Street South Orillia, ON L3V 7T5

Dear Mayor Clarke and Council,

RE: County Orillia Campus Development Request for City of Orillia Affordable Housing Incentives

On behalf of Warden and County Council, I am writing to thank you for presenting the County the opportunity to work in partnership with the City in the creation of affordable housing, and for considering the County’s request for financial incentives. The proposed development will result in an increase in rental affordable housing in the community, through the creation of 130 units, as well as offer integrated service delivery and partnership opportunities with community agencies intended to increase access to several multi-generational community services in a campus-like setting.

It is understood, the City may consider offering financial assistance for new affordable housing projects provided specific eligibility criteria are met. The County’s proposed Campus development, at the intersection of West Street North and Borland Street East, meet the City’s the eligibility criteria as summarized below:

1. Affordable housing project is located within the City of Orillia. The proposed affordable housing project is located at the intersection of West Street North and Borland Street East. The subject property is the former site of the Orillia District Collegiate and Vocational Institute (ODCVI) secondary school. 2. Must be a government or not-for-profit organization managing the affordable housing project. The property is owned by the Corporation of the County of Simcoe and the building and property will be managed and operated by the Simcoe County Housing Corporation (SCHC). 3. Must provide affordable housing for a minimum of 20 years. The County as the direct owner and manager of the Simcoe County Housing Corporation (SCHC) ensures the units remain affordable in perpetuity. 4. For rental housing, the affordable housing project must also be approved to receive funds from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and/or the County of Simcoe by way of Federal and/or Provincial and/or County funding. County Council has approved costs to proceed with the development, as well as allocating Federal/Provincial affordable housing development funds through the Ontario Priorities Housing Initiative (OPHI). 5. The affordable housing project proponent / financial assistance applicant shall not be involved in litigation or other legal actions against the City of Orillia There are no litigation or legal actions against the City.

Page 1 of 2 Page 12 of 78 6. For rental housing, the affordable housing project must offer all units at rents which will not exceed 80% of the Average Market Rent for a unit in Orillia based on CMHC’s most recent Rental Market Report. SCHC rents will be capped at an average of 80% of Average Market Rent (AMR) as posted by CMHC’s rental market report for the area, for new affordable housing units.

In the spirit of partnership with the City of Orillia, the County requests the following incentives:  Grant in the amount equal to all of the applicable Building, Planning and Engineering Review Fees and deposits  Offer to absorb the legal fees associated with the registration of deeds and agreements;  Grant for payment towards the cost of the Building Permit Fees;  Waive the fees for service connections and road occupancy permits;  Requirement for Letter of Credit be waived; and  Property tax grant for twenty years levied at the single residential tax rate as permitted under Section 110(3) and Section 110(9) of the Municipal Act.

Similar to affordable housing partnerships between the County and the Town of Collingwood, Town of Wasaga Beach, and the Township of Tay, the fulfillment of the County’s request has demonstrated cost savings directly toward the completion of a publicly-funded project. Figure 1 below provides a summary of the project cost estimates, associated with the Orillia Campus development.

Figure1: Project Cost Estimates

Hard Costs (construction) $58,776,000 Site Costs $ 7,197,000 Soft Costs $13,468,000 Total Project Costs $79,441,000

As a regional municipality, the County is committed to its responsibilities in ensuring all of the terms and conditions, as required in a pending Site Plan Control Agreement, are completed to the City’s satisfaction. Being a partnership between municipal governments, ultimately the costs are borne by the taxpayers of both the County and the City, therefore the removal of fees, deposits, and securities saves time and additional expenses.

Thank you again for this opportunity to leverage our mutual resources for the purpose of creating much- needed affordable housing. If you would like to discuss further, or have additional questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely, The Corporation of the County of Simcoe

Greg Bishop General Manager, Social and Community Services cc. Mark Aitken, CAO, County of Simcoe John Daly, County Clerk, County of Simcoe Arfona Zwiers, Director, Social Housing, County of Simcoe

Page 13 of 78 Page 14 of 78 CITY OF ORILLIA

TO: Council Committee – February 1, 2021 FROM: Development Services and Engineering Department DATE: January 22, 2021 REPORT NO: DSE-21-05 SUBJECT: County of Simcoe’s Request for Affordable Housing Incentives

Recommended Motion

THAT Report No. DSE-21-05 be received as information.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to respond to Council’s request for a staff report with respect to the County of Simcoe’s letter dated October 29, 2020. The County of Simcoe is requesting financial incentives for the County Orillia Campus development at 2 Borland Street East in excess of the financial incentives offered by the City of Orillia.

Background & Key Facts

The following are key points for consideration with respect to this report:

• On November 9, 2020 Council approved a policy for offering financial incentives for affordable housing. The eligibility criteria, municipal incentives, and evaluation process approved by Council is outlined in Report DSE-20-26. • Including the 2021 budgeted contribution, there is currently $200,000 in the Affordable Housing Reserve. • The County of Simcoe is in the planning process for building 130 affordable housing units together with community and social service space for Ontario Works, Children and Community Services, Social Housing, Victorian Order of Nurses, Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions, EarlyON Child and Family Centre and Licensed Child Care Centre to be located at 2 Borland Street East. • On November 16, 2020 the City received a letter from the County of Simcoe requesting financial relief with respect to: o All applicable Building, Planning & Engineering Review Fees including service connections and road occupancy permits o Legal fees o Property taxes for 20 years levied at the single residential tax rate o Waive the requirement for securities to be posted. • Staff reached out to the Township of Tay, Town of Wasaga Beach and Town of Collingwood to find out what degree of financial assistance they offered the County

H:\PLANNING\C12 Committees\Affordable Housing Committee\Municipal Incentives\County's Request for Funding for 2 Borland St E\DSE-21-05 County Request for Financial Assistance.doc Page 15 of 78 2

for their affordable housing projects. The Town of Collingwood provided the following assistance for 147-unit affordable housing development: o Waived planning application fees o Waived engineering review fees o Waived Building Permit Fees o Waived fees associated with preparing the Site Plan Agreement o Waived Town Development Charges o Did not require any securities to be posted. The Township of Tay provided the following assistance for a 41-unit affordable housing development: o Donated the land o Pre-designated and pre-zoned the land o Grant for Township Development Charges o Property taxes for 20 years levied at the single residential tax rate instead of the multi-residential tax rate o Waived the Site Plan Application fee o Waived the Building Permit fees o Grant for the service connection fees o Grant for the legal fees for agreements and surveys. Note: Neither the Township of Tay nor the Town of Collingwood had a policy in place for offering financial incentives to affordable housing unlike Orillia which has a policy in place. Another important distinction from Orillia is these are both lower tier municipalities which are subject to a county-levied tax which Orillia is not.

Options & Analysis

The Committee presents the following options for consideration:

Option 1 - Recommended

THAT Report No. DSE-21-05 be received as information.

Although the County of Simcoe complies with the eligibility criteria for affordable housing financial incentives, it is requesting financial assistance beyond the parameters of the Council-approved policy in the following respects: • Seeking relief from all Building, Planning & Engineering Review Fees; whereas the Council-approved policy only provides financial assistance up to $25,000 depending on how the application scores. • Seeking financial assistance with respect to the legal fees associated with the planning process; whereas the City doesn’t offer any financial assistance for legal fees incurred during the planning process. • Seeking relief from the service connections, entrance permits, and road occupancy permits; whereas the City doesn’t offer any financial assistance for these fees. • Requesting no securities be posted for the development; whereas the Council- approved policy permits securities in the amount of 30% to be posted.

H:\PLANNING\C12 Committees\Affordable Housing Committee\Municipal Incentives\County's Request for Funding for 2 Borland St E\DSE-21-05 County Request for Financial Assistance.doc Page 16 of 78

• Seeking a property tax grant for 20 years levied at the single residential tax rate; whereas the City doesn’t offer property tax relief.

It is recommended that the Council-approved policy be adhered to and that the County of Simcoe submit an application for review and evaluation by the Affordable Housing Committee with ultimately Council’s approval.

Option 2

THAT Council waive Policy 4.2.1.4 and provide financial assistance to the County of Simcoe in the form of: • All applicable Building, Planning & Engineering Review Fees and deposits including service connections, entrance permits, and road occupancy permits • Legal Fees associated with the planning process • No securities be required to be posted • Property tax grant for 20 years levied at the single residential tax rate

AND THAT the Affordable Housing Reserve and the Major Capital Facilities Reserve fund these financial incentives.

This option is not recommended.

The total estimated value of the Building, Planning & Engineering Review Fees and deposits including service connections, entrance permits, and road occupancy permits is $347,187, which is significant and will exceed the amount available in the Affordable Housing Reserve.

The legal fees are expenses invoiced to the City from Russell Christie LLP which are paid for by the developer. It is estimated these fees will cost approximately $15,000; however, the actual costs won’t be known until the development agreement has been executed as there can be legal complexities associated with a development of this scale. These are not City fees; these are third party fees. It is not an appropriate use of the funds from the Affordable Housing Reserve to fund such legal fees.

Staff does not recommend waiving the requirement to post any construction-related securities as deficiencies, which will need to be rectified, invariably occur in any new development project. Without securities, the City would have a difficult time achieving compliance from the developer. It is therefore recommended that securities be posted for this development. At minimum, 30% of the total security should be posted to ensure compliance.

The City’s affordable housing policy does not offer a tax grant. If Council were to grant property tax relief, it would be precedent setting and other property owners would make similar requests. If taxes are waived through a Municipal Capital Facilities Grant, it erodes the tax base and shifts the burden of taxes to others.

H:\PLANNING\C12 Committees\Affordable Housing Committee\Municipal Incentives\County's Request for Funding for 2 Borland St E\DSE-21-05 County Request for Financial Assistance.doc Page 17 of 78

It would not be appropriate to use the Major Capital Facilities Reserve to provide financial assistance to the County, as the Major Capital Facilities Reserve has a negative balance in the amount of $32.4 million and the reserve would not be used for its intended purpose.

Option 3

THAT Council waive Policy 4.2.1.4 and provide financial assistance to the County of Simcoe in the form of: • Building Permit Fees up to a value of $200,000 to be funded from the Affordable Housing Reserve • Post securities at 30% of the total value of securities required to be posted with the City

This option is not recommended. It will completely exhaust the Affordable Housing Reserve leaving no funds available to support other affordable housing projects for the balance of 2021. Council is advised to adhere to the City’s policy for affordable housing incentives rather than arbitrarily providing financial assistance to a project.

Financial Impact

The financial value of each of the relief items requested by the County has been calculated as follows: Request Estimated Value Comment Building Permit Fees including Plumbing $322,322 Estimate Only and Occupancy Fees Planning Fees $16,245 • Preconsultation $500 • OPA $4,885 • ZBLA $3,540 • Site Plan Control $6,500 • Deeming By-law $820

Engineering Review Fees $7,470 SWM Recovery Fee is • Development Control Fee $725 an estimate based on • Lot Grading Fees $145 similar developments • SWM Recovery Approx. $6000 • Entrance Permit $200 • Service Connections $400 (1 sani, 1 water, 2 storm) Service Connections - $137.50 ea. x 4 $550 Road Occupancy Permits & Entrance $600 The number of Road Permits - 2 Entrance Permits at $100 ea. Occupancy Permits and up to 4 Occupancy Permits at $100 required is unknown at ea.) this time. The highest value has been assumed.

H:\PLANNING\C12 Committees\Affordable Housing Committee\Municipal Incentives\County's Request for Funding for 2 Borland St E\DSE-21-05 County Request for Financial Assistance.doc Page 18 of 78

Legal Fees $15,000 Estimate Only Property tax relief for 20 years at the The multi-residential The assessed value of single residential tax rate tax rate is $1,234 per the proposed $1 million worth of development is assessment more than unknown, so the exact the residential tax rate. cost of the request cannot quantified at this time. No security to be posted Nil Although there’s no direct cost to the City for not requiring securities to be posted, there is a risk that the site will have deficiencies that never get rectified or costs to resolve are borne by City taxpayers.

Also, the County will be vacating its offices in the Orillia City Centre. This will result in a loss of approximately $117,000 in rental income on an annual basis.

The County of Simcoe is the Service Manager responsible for providing affordable housing, including Social Housing, to the City of Orillia. The City currently provides $1.862 million in funding to the County for housing.

It should also be noted that residents of this affordable housing development may not be Orillia residents and, rather, they may reside in other municipalities within Simcoe County.

Consultation

Consultation requirements have not been identified at this time.

Economic Development Impact

The County of Simcoe will be investing $79,441,000 into the City of Orillia with the proposed County Orillia Campus development at 2 Borland Street East. This is a significant social and economic investment for the City that will provide a range of affordable housing and services to support the development of a complete community.

Communications Plan

Communication requirements have not been identified at this time.

H:\PLANNING\C12 Committees\Affordable Housing Committee\Municipal Incentives\County's Request for Funding for 2 Borland St E\DSE-21-05 County Request for Financial Assistance.doc Page 19 of 78

Relation to Formal Plans, City of Orillia Policy Manual and/or Guiding Legislation

The recommendation included in this report is related to the following formal plans, City policies and guiding legislation: • 2010 Affordable Housing Action Plan • Simcoe County’s “Our Community 10-Year Affordable Housing and Homelessness Prevention Strategy” • Policy 4.2.1.4 – Guidelines – Affordable Housing Incentives

The recommendations included in this report support the following strategic goal identified in Council’s 2018 – 2022 Strategic Plan Realizing Our Potential:

1. Quality of Life

o 1.5 Provide supports and services for vulnerable citizens including strong partnership with the County and other levels of government

Conclusion

Council recently approved a policy with an evaluation process for offering affordable housing financial incentives. It is staff’s opinion that this policy should be adhered to, which means not all of the County of Simcoe’s requested financial assistance can be given.

Prepared by & Key Contact: Jill Lewis, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner

Approved by: Ian Sugden, MCIP, RPP General Manager of Development Services and

Engineering

H:\PLANNING\C12 Committees\Affordable Housing Committee\Municipal Incentives\County's Request for Funding for 2 Borland St E\DSE-21-05 County Request for Financial Assistance.doc Page 20 of 78

to// %\ J CIeri<’sDepartment ORILLIA MEMO

To: Andrew Schell, Director of Environmental Services and Operations Copy To: Greg Preston, Manager of Water and Waste Management Ashley Stafford, Executive Assistant to Mayor and Council Clerk's Department (Referrals) From: Megan Williams, Deputy Cler

Date: January 21, 2020

Subject? Enquiry - Banning Single-Use Plastics

The following recommendation was adopted by Council at its meeting held on January 20, 2020:

"THATstaff be directed to prepare a report with respect to the following:

The feasibility of banning single-use plastics."

Please prepare a report to Council Committee.

Ifyou require further information regarding this enquiry, please contact Mayor Clarke and Councillor Cipolla.

MW:|k

H:\COUNSERV\TOMRMSD|RECTORY\C » Council, Boards and By-lEws\C0O- Council.Boards and By-|aws\COD—Counci|\Curre3pundence\2020\2DD1200\200120 - CC7 ENQ - Single Use Plaslicsnocx File: ES04 Page 21 of 78 Page 22 of 78 CITY OF ORILLIA

TO: Council Committee – February 1, 2021 FROM: Environment and Infrastructure Services Department DATE: January 27, 2021 REPORT NO: EIS-21-01 SUBJECT: Feasibility of Banning Single-Use Plastics

Recommended Motion

THAT the City of Orillia supports, in principle, the Government of Canada’s proposed plan to ban or restrict certain single-use plastics across Canada as reported in its discussion paper entitled “A proposed integrated management approach to plastic products to prevent waste and pollution”;

AND THAT the federal government be encouraged to support full extended producer responsibility, and where single-use products and packaging items cannot be managed properly and where alternatives can be utilized, the City supports the use of restrictions, bans or requirements that reduce the risk of plastic pollution;

AND THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to discuss the feasibility of potentially banning single-use plastics. At its meeting held on January 20, 2020, Council requested a report from the Environmental Services and Operations Department (now known as the Environment and Infrastructure Services Department) as follows:

“THAT staff be directed to prepare a report with respect to the following: The feasibility of banning single-use plastics.”

Background & Key Facts

This report discusses the banning of single-use plastics and the Government of Canada’s recently released discussion paper on their proposed integrated management approach to plastic products to prevent waste and pollution. Staff delayed preparing this report to better understand what actions the federal government was taking on this issue to ensure efforts would not be duplicated.

Related to the discussion in this report is Recommendation 11 of the 2016 Waste Minimization Plan, which states to: “Consider re-establishing a charge for distributing plastic shopping bags in Orillia.” This issue is also discussed in this report.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-01 – Feasibility of Banning Single-Use Plastics – File: E07-GEN Page 23 of 78

The following key facts are presented: • The City instituted a by-law on January 1, 2010 that required local retailers to charge a five-cent fee on each plastic shopping bag distributed in Orillia, and it was rescinded on May 28, 2012. • Difficult to recycle single-use plastics, including plastic film and expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam), currently represent approximately 2.1% (by weight) of the City’s residential garbage stream – or almost 130 tonnes – that ends up in the City’s landfill according to 2019/2020 waste composition data. • There are no strong recycling markets in Ontario or around the world for plastic film, expanded polystyrene or even low value mixed plastics with recycling codes numbered 3 to 7. Since China closed its market to recycling these types of items in 2018, recycling costs have increased significantly. • In the past two years, a large number of municipalities across Canada have enacted their own bans on certain single-use plastics as recycling costs have increased. The Retail Council of Canada has summarized this information on the following website - https://www.retailcouncil.org/regulations-and-bylaws-on- shopping-bags-in-canada/ • Based on the bans the Retail Council of Canada has summarized: o The targets of bans are generally with respect to: . Single-use plastic bags (by far the most common item banned). . Plastic straws and stir sticks. . Expanded polystyrene cups and food containers. o Items exempted from most bans include bags used for packaging bulk items (like produce, nuts and candies), sale of multiple, prepackaged single-use bags, take a bag/leave a bag programs, laundry dry cleaning bags, transporting live fish, items used by hospitals, community care facilities and non-profits. o Alternative options in place for single-use plastic bags normally include reusable bags and paper bags. In some cases, paper bags require a fee charged per unit supplied. • There is generally a one-year phase-in period for a mandatory ban to allow retailers to adjust to the new by-law. • The Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University released a report in August 2020 noting that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted Canadian consumers’ attitudes towards single-use plastic food packaging. They found that in 2020, support for stronger regulations on single-use plastics has declined by 11 percentage points to 79% from 2019, and support for a ban is down 12 points to 58% from 2019. • In October 2020, the Government of Canada released a discussion paper entitled “A proposed integrated management approach to plastic products to prevent waste and pollution” hereafter referred to as the “Discussion Paper” and is included in Schedule “A” of this report.

Options & Analysis

Staff present the following options for consideration:

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-01 – Feasibility of BanningPage Single 24 -Useof 78 Plastics – File: E07-GEN 3

Option 1 - Recommended

AND THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

In October 2020, the Government of Canada through Environment and Climate Change Canada released a Discussion Paper where it is noted that:

• The Government of Canada has committed to banning or restricting certain harmful single-use plastics, where warranted and supported by science. • Single-use plastics were measured against the following criteria to determine if a ban was appropriate including: o Environmentally problematic – Prevalent in the environment and known to cause harm to wildlife. o Value recovery problematic – Not easily recycled. o Considerations for exemptions – Does it perform a vital function, are there viable alternatives? • Based on an evaluation against this criteria, the following six single-use plastic items are poised to be banned by the end of 2021: o Plastic checkout bags o Stir sticks o Six-pack rings o Straws o Plastic cutlery o Food takeout containers made from hard-to-recycle plastics • The Government of Canada has adopted a target of at least 50% recycled content in plastic products by 2030.

The Province of Ontario is moving forward with a proposed new blue box regulation to transfer the responsibility of end-of-life management of packaging plastics and other blue box materials to the industries that generate this material – a process called full extended producer responsibility. Although single-use plastics targeted by the federal government would be accepted in the blue box program under the newly proposed provincial blue box regulation, initiating a ban will further force industry to select more recyclable packaging alternatives leading to a decline in the amount of low value plastics ending up in the blue box to begin with.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-01 – Feasibility of BanningPage Single 25 -Useof 78 Plastics – File: E07-GEN 4

This option of supporting the Discussion Paper in principle, is recommended for the following reasons: • The City and its recycling collection service provider (Mid Ontario Disposal) have had significant challenges recycling plastic film and expanded polystyrene since recycling programs for these items were initiated in 1993. • Collecting plastics film and expanded polystyrene in the municipal recycling collection stream easily leads to contamination of these items when they mix with other items, which renders them residue destined for landfill. Recycling markets must have a clean source. • Should the federal government issue a ban, it would be nationwide. Implementing a single-use plastics ban would have much more impact if implemented on a provincial or national scale versus a local scale. • The City could not be challenged in court on its authority to enact its own local mandatory ban. • The federal government is conducting the scientific legwork on the impact of plastics in the environment.

As noted in their submission by the Municipal Resource Recovery & Research Collaborative, which is made up of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario and the Municipal Waste Association: • Packaging producers are in the best position to know how to collect and recycle their products and packaging, to invest in the recycling collection and processing system necessary and to create markets to support their end use. • This means that making producers directly responsible for their products through extended producer responsibility is the best way to ensure the products do not end up in landfill. • Where single-use products and packaging items cannot be managed properly and where alternatives are available, the use of restrictions, bans or requirements that reduce the risk of plastic pollution should be pursued (e.g., requiring tethered lids). These tools tend to be strong levers so they should be used cautiously to avoid unintended consequences or create new challenges (i.e., do not want alternatives that result in greater harm).

Staff will keep Council posted on the Federal Government’s progress through CIPs.

Option 2

THAT staff be directed to consult with the public on a potential voluntary or mandatory local ban on plastic shopping bags, plastic straws and stir sticks and expanded polystyrene cups and food containers, and report back to Council on options and opportunities.

A voluntary ban could be implemented in Orillia whereby local retailers would be encouraged not to distribute single-use plastic items, such as plastic shopping bags, plastic straws and stir sticks and expanded polystyrene cups and food containers. Other

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-01 – Feasibility of BanningPage Single 26 -Useof 78 Plastics – File: E07-GEN 5

items could be considered. Depending on the level of participation in a voluntary ban, a mandatory ban could be further considered and phased in at a later date.

A mandatory ban could be implemented whereby local retailers would be required not to distribute these same items. Section 10(2) on the Municipal Act allows single tier municipalities, like Orillia, to enact by-laws with respect to environmental well-being of the municipality, and a ban on single-use plastics could be considered within this authority. The environmental well-being aspect of this section would be the ongoing landfilling of approximately 130 tonnes per year of these items in the City’s landfill, and not to mention the littering impact, which has not been assessed in Orillia. Many of the current bans across Canada are only going into effect in 2021 so there is limited data on the effectiveness of the local bans. Should Council wish to implement a ban, soliciting public feedback is recommended.

This option is not recommended over Option 1 because: • The federal government may institute its own ban on a national scale making the local initiative redundant, • Although the Municipal Act appears to provide the City authority to ban single-use plastics, such a by-law could potentially be legally challenged by the plastics industry.

On a related issue, re-establishing a charge for the distribution of plastic shopping bags is not recommended because many local retailers already charge at least a five-cent fee per bag, and have done so since the City discontinued the mandatory plastic bag fee bylaw in 2012.

Option 3

THAT this report be received.

This option involves no action. It is not recommended as single-use plastics are having an impact on filling up the City’s landfill and are challenging to market and recycle.

Financial Impact

There are no financial impacts associated with the options presented.

Consultation

Input was sought from Derek Rynard, a local plastics manufacturer, on a potential local ban on single-use plastics. A summary of his paraphrased comments are included below:

• A lot of packaging related decisions seem to be motivated by public opinion rather than facts. • Products his company sells (compostable products, biodegradable products, collection and recycling, thinner gauges and renewable resins) have positive

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-01 – Feasibility of BanningPage Single 27 -Useof 78 Plastics – File: E07-GEN 6

carbon footprint impacts and are recommended as solutions on a case by case basis. • What the City decides to do will have a negative overall environmental impact in the long-term when examining a full carbon footprint analysis. • Here are some comments on common single-use plastics: o Straws - plastic straws are very easy to recycle, paper straws cost much more, are single use, carry a carbon footprint of 3-5 times higher than a plastic straw, most are wrapped in a plastic outer when used for individual dispensing. The total global volume of plastic used in straws is insignificant and eliminating plastic straws has essentially zero impact in reducing plastics use. If the purpose is to help the environment then a ban will fail; emissions on freight alone make any proper analysis point towards continuing to use plastic. o Cutlery, stir sticks, cups, lids, gloves - All of the information provided above on straws applies to these items as well. From a sanitary, cleanliness, and Covid-19 standpoint, plastic cannot be beat. In fact, reusable bags have been banned in several areas due to the unsanitary condition of the bags. o Single-use bags - A paper bag is not environmentally positive versus plastic. Recycling paper is difficult, expensive, toxic and uses a large amount of fresh water. It carries a massive carbon footprint when compared to plastic. Council is urged to go to www.allaboutbags.ca/papervplastic.html • It has been shown that overall plastic use goes up when shopping bags are banned; kitchen sized trash bag sales increase exponentially since one of the largest uses of the shopping bag is for trash. • Mr. Rynard suggested that his sales will actually increase if shopping bags are banned as we sell trash bags and we do not sell shopping bags. • In Mr. Rynard’s opinion, the restaurants, like Tim Horton's, should provide bins for collection of these plastics, return them to their distribution centres who would then pick-up the used items, recycle them and deliver new products, made from recycled plastic to the distribution centres. This needs to happen outside of the municipal collection system, which is too expensive and it contaminates the items beyond their usable state. Mr. Rynard’s company is doing this now in Greece and is ready to start this in Canada with Tim Horton's. A circular economy is the solution but it cannot work with traditional collection and sorting companies.

At its meeting held on January 13, 2021, the Waste Management Advisory Committee endorsed staff’s recommendation.

Economic Development Impact

There is no direct economic development impact associated with the recommended motion.

Communications Plan

Communication requirements have not been identified at this time.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-01 – Feasibility of BanningPage Single 28 -Useof 78 Plastics – File: E07-GEN 7

Relation to Formal Plans, City of Orillia Policy Manual and/or Guiding Legislation

The City’s new 2018-2022 Strategic Plan calls for a “Healthy Environment” as part of its mission. The recommendation of this report helps to support a sustainable recycling program for the residents of Orillia in that hard to recycle plastic items would not be distributed locally if a federal ban is enacted. This will assist with increasing the lifespan of the City’s landfill.

This report is also related to Recommendation 11 of the 2016 Waste Minimization Plan.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the City support, in principle, the Government of Canada’s proposed plan entitled “A proposed integrated management approach to plastic products to prevent waste and pollution” and that a copy of this report be forwarded to The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Where single-use products and packaging items cannot be managed properly and where alternatives are available, the use of restrictions, bans or requirements that reduce the risk of plastic pollution should be pursued. Implementing a single-use plastics ban is better suited and would have much more impact if implemented on a provincial or national scale.

Schedules

 Schedule “A” – Discussion Paper: A proposed integrated management approach to plastic products to prevent waste and pollution

Prepared by & Key Contact: Greg Preston, Manager of Environmental Services Approved by: Andrew Schell, General Manager of Environment and Infrastructure Services Department

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-01 – Feasibility of BanningPage Single 29 -Useof 78 Plastics – File: E07-GEN Schedule "A"

A proposed integrated management approach to plastic products to prevent waste and pollution DISCUSSION PAPER

Page 30 of 78

Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce materials in this publication, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from Environment and Climate Change Canada's copyright administrator. To obtain permission to reproduce Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes, apply for Crown Copyright Clearance by contacting:

Environment and Climate Change Canada Public Inquiries Centre 12th Floor, Fontaine Building 200 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard Gatineau QC K1A 0H3 Telephone: 819-938-3860 Toll Free: 1-800-668-6767 (in Canada only) Email: [email protected]

Photos: © Environment and Climate Change Canada

Aussi disponible en français

Page 31 of 78

Table of Contents

Purpose ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Achieving zero plastic waste ...... 1 Science assessment of plastic pollution ...... 2 Managing plastics using CEPA ...... 3 Rationale and objectives for an integrated management approach to plastics ...... 3 Choosing the best instruments ...... 4 Roles and responsibilities ...... 5 Working with provinces and territories ...... 5 Managing single-use plastics ...... 6 Scope ...... 6 Banning or restricting certain harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021 ...... 7 Step 1: Characterizing single-use plastics ...... 9 Step 2: setting management objectives ...... 10 Step 3: instrument choice ...... 10 Establishing performance standards ...... 12 Recycled content requirements ...... 12 Ensuring end-of-life responsibility ...... 14 Improving and expanding extended producer responsibility in Canada ...... 14 Next steps and sending comments ...... 15 Questions for discussion ...... 16 Managing single-use plastics ...... 16 Establishing performance standards ...... 16 Ensuring end-of-life responsibility ...... 16

iii Page 32 of 78

Purpose The Government of Canada is taking steps toward eliminating plastic pollution in Canada, including potentially banning or restricting certain harmful single-use plastic products, where warranted and supported by science. This discussion paper is seeking input on a proposed integrated management approach to plastics to take a number of actions, including regulations which would be developed under the provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). Introduction Plastic plays an important part in the lives of Canadians and in the Canadian economy, including in helping Canadians protect themselves from the spread of COVID-19. Plastic is low-cost, durable, and useful in a wide range of applications, including packaging, clothing, medical and personal protective equipment (PPE) and construction materials. However, the way plastic waste is managed in Canada is an issue of growing concern. According to a recent study conducted by Deloitte,1 over 3 million tonnes of plastics were discarded as waste in Canada in 2016, and only 9% was recycled. Plastic waste burdens our economy, representing a $7.8B lost opportunity. When leaked into the natural environment, plastic threatens the health of our wildlife, ecosystems, rivers, lakes and oceans. In 2016, 29,000 tonnes of plastic waste entered the Canadian environment as pollution.

Achieving zero plastic waste Action is needed to eliminate plastic pollution at its source by reducing the amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills or the environment. This can be achieved through greater prevention, collection, innovation and value recovery of plastic waste and transitioning to a more circular economy for plastics. The development and scaling up of new forms of plastic and new technologies provides opportunities to incentivize and support improved recovery of resources from products and packaging at the end of their useful life. Retaining materials and products in a circular economy not only reduces greenhouse gases emissions and pressure on the environment, but also has significant economic benefits. The transition to a more circular economy would save costs, increase competitiveness, stimulate innovation, support prosperity by creating new jobs and reduce the amount of plastic entering the environment. Under Canada’s G7 presidency in 2018, the Government of Canada championed the development of the Ocean Plastics Charter,2 which commits to a more resource-efficient and lifecycle approach to plastics stewardship, on land and at sea. The Charter establishes targets to improve management of plastics, including:

 working with industry towards 100% reusable, recyclable, or, where viable alternatives do not exist, recoverable, plastics by 2030;

1 Economic Study of the Canadian Plastic Industry, Markets and Waste (2019), available at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/eccc/En4-366-1-2019-eng.pdf 2 Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/managing-reducing- waste/international-commitments/ocean-plastics-charter.html.

1 Page 33 of 78  working with industry towards increasing recycled content by at least 50% in plastic products where applicable by 2030;  working with industry and other levels of government, to reuse and/or recycle at least 55% of plastic packaging by 2030 and recover 100% of all plastics by 2040; and  working with industry towards reducing the use of microbeads in personal care products, and addressing other sources of microplastics.

In November 2018, through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), the federal, provincial and territorial governments approved in principle a Canada-wide Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste.3 Building on the Ocean Plastics Charter, the strategy takes a circular economy approach to plastics and provides a framework for action in Canada. Federal, provincial and territorial governments are collaborating on implementing the Strategy via an Action Plan4 by developing, among other things:

 guidance to facilitate consistent extended producer responsibility policies for plastics;  national performance requirements and standards for plastics, including targets and timelines for increasing recycled content; and  assessing infrastructure needs for improved plastic lifecycle management.

Science assessment of plastic pollution In October 2020, the Government of Canada released a Science Assessment of Plastic Pollution.5 The Science Assessment presents a thorough scientific review of the occurrence and potential impacts of plastic pollution on human health and the environment. Information included in this assessment indicates that:

 plastic pollution, in both macroplastic and microplastic form, is everywhere in the environment;  macroplastics have been shown to cause physical harm to individual animals and to have the potential to negatively affect the habitat of animals;  exposure to macroplastics is not expected to be of concern for human health;  the evidence is less clear and requires more research for potential effects of microplastics on individual animals and the environment; there is also limited information about the potential human health effects of microplastics, and while a concern for human health has not been identified at this time, further research is needed in this area; and  there are a multitude of sources that contribute to plastic pollution

The Science Assessment recommends pursuing actions to reduce macroplastics and microplastics that end up in the environment, in accordance with the precautionary principle, which states that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation".6

3 Available at: https://www.ccme.ca/en/resources/waste/waste/plastic-waste.html. 4 Ibid. 5 Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing- substances/science-assessment-plastic-pollution.html 6 Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, SC 1999, c 33, preamble.

2 Page 34 of 78 Managing plastics using CEPA In order to take action as recommended in the Science Assessment, the Government of Canada has proposed using enabling authorities under CEPA to regulate certain plastic manufactured items7. This will allow the Government to enact regulations that target sources of plastic pollution and change behaviour at key stages in the lifecycle of plastic products, such as design, manufacture, use, disposal and recovery in order to reduce pollution and create the conditions for achieving a circular plastics economy.

Rationale and objectives for an integrated management approach to plastics Currently, Canada’s large, complex and important plastics economy is mostly linear, which results in a significant amount of plastics waste being landfilled or released into the environment. The report prepared by Deloitte estimates that in 2016, 86% of plastic waste ended up in landfills, while 1% or 29,000 tonnes entered the environment as pollution.8 Actions across the value chain or that promote innovation most likely will result in the systemic changes necessary to achieve zero plastic waste and eliminate plastic pollution. While various governments, industry, scientists, civil society groups and others are working hard to move towards a circular plastics economy, a number of key challenges stand in the way. These include:

 primary and secondary plastics compete: competition is difficult for the recycling industry because of inconsistent feedstock composition and a more labour-intensive cost structure compared to primary resin production which can take advantage of economies of scale;  weak end-markets for recycled plastics: in some cases, recycled resins are a cheaper alternative for product manufacturers, for example for use in less demanding applications, but overall the inconsistent supply of quality feedstock at a competitive price undermines the establishment of viable and lasting end-markets;  collection rates are low: only 25% of plastics are collected and sent to a sorting facility (e.g., through curbside collection, recycling depots, or deposit-refund systems),9 and only a fraction of collected plastics is recycled because of contamination, infrastructure deficiencies, and lack of markets;  insufficient recovery options: current near absence of high volume recovery options, losses from existing processes, and competition from low cost disposal alternatives, such as landfills, point to the need for investments in innovation and infrastructure, in particular to commercialize and scale up new technologies; and  cost of plastic pollution is shouldered by individuals and communities: the responsibility for preventing and managing land-based sources of plastic pollution, such as urban and

7 Available at: [LINK] 8 Supra note 1. 9 Ibid.

3 Page 35 of 78 roadside litter, is largely shouldered by municipalities, civil society organizations and volunteers, at great cost.

No one measure can overcome these challenges. As part of its comprehensive agenda, the Government of Canada is developing an integrated management approach to plastics, which over time would seek to achieve the following objectives:

 eliminate certain sources of plastic pollution: reduce environmental harm caused by plastic products, in particular single-use plastics, by managing or, where necessary, prohibiting their use;  strengthen domestic end-markets for recycled plastics: stimulate demand for recycled plastic that can drive the development of sustainable and resilient recycling markets and spur the investment in recovery infrastructure;  improve the value recovery of plastic products and packaging: raise collection and recycling rates of plastic products and packaging, reduce the amount of plastic waste that ends up in landfills or the environment, and incentivize investment in infrastructure that can supply secondary end-markets with sufficient quantities of high-quality recycled plastics; and  support innovation and the scaling up of new technologies: provide the incentives and regulatory space for businesses and researchers to develop, test and scale up technologies that help prevent plastic waste and pollution, such as new forms of plastic, new technologies for recovering value from plastic waste, and innovative business practices to improve the management of plastics throughout the value chain.

This integrated management approach to plastics will involve regulatory and non-regulatory actions. Non-regulatory instruments could be used by governments, industry and civil society to improve the management of plastics within their jurisdictions or control. Regulatory instruments are intended to ensure that rules are in place at key stages of the plastics lifecycle to drive the change necessary to achieve the objectives described above.

Choosing the best instruments A broad range of regulatory and non-regulatory instruments is available, allowing the government to choose the type of intervention. A number of considerations factor into the choice of instrument or mix of instruments that are best suited to help achieve the management objective on a sustained basis while supporting innovation. These include environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, health and safety, and distributional impacts across sectors, regions, and segments of the Canadian population. Regulations and voluntary instruments (for example, guidelines) will be developed using CEPA or another effective mechanism. These will seek to:

 manage single-use plastics, including banning or restricting certain single-use plastics that cause harm, where warranted and supported by scientific evidence;  establish performance standards for plastic products to reduce (or eliminate) their environmental impact and stimulate demand for recycled plastics; and  ensure end-of-life responsibility, so that companies that manufacture or import plastic products or sell items with plastic packaging are responsible for collecting and recycling them.

4 Page 36 of 78 These instruments and measures will be designed to complement each other as well as other policies, programs and actions implemented by federal, provincial, territorial and local governments. The success of one instrument will enhance the outcomes of all the others and contribute to achieving zero plastic waste. All instruments and measures are the subject of consultation and in-depth socio- economic analysis. A regulatory instrument is also always accompanied by a comprehensive Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that is posted on the Canada Gazette, and which includes a cost-benefit analysis, as well as estimates of the administrative burden on regulated entities and impacts to small businesses.

Roles and responsibilities The integrated management approach to plastics proposed in this discussion paper recognizes that everyone has a role to play in achieving zero plastic waste and eliminating plastic pollution, including:  Government of Canada: Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), as well as other federal departments and agencies, will design regulatory instruments and other measures, work with other levels of government to avoid duplication, promote and ensure compliance, monitor outcomes, and be receptive to feedback in implementing programs, as well as monitor and work with other governments to address any trade implications.  provinces and territories: the Government of Canada recognizes the leadership role provided by provinces and territories in developing, regulating and overseeing waste management systems, including recycling programs, and will support provincial and territorial governments in working to increase diversion rates for plastics, among other things.  local governments: in response to provincial and territorial regulations, waste management services in Canada have traditionally been delivered or coordinated by cities, towns and regional authorities, which includes curbside or depot collection, sorting and separation operations, disposal facilities (landfills or incinerators), plus public education and promotion. Local authorities also deal with litter issues and street cleaning. In all cases, plastics waste is present and must be managed appropriately.  indigenous Peoples: Indigenous peoples have an important role to play as traditional stewards of lands affected by plastic pollution, rights holders, and decision-makers for waste management issues in Indigenous communities, including on reserve land.  plastic producers and product manufacturers: industry leadership and innovation is essential for better management of plastics. Producers of plastic resins and manufacturers of plastic products and packaging are best-placed to innovate and develop new solutions to address plastic waste in addition to meeting obligations established by regulatory instruments.  recyclers: the Government of Canada will look to recyclers to support and enable systemic change in the plastic economy by effectively and efficiently recycling all the plastics collected and providing high-quality recyclable plastics to use as feedstock for new and innovative products.  Canadians: all Canadians can do their part by reducing the amount of plastic waste they create, correctly sorting and binning recyclable plastics, and avoiding littering.

Working with provinces and territories The integrated management approach to plastics recognizes the central role played by provinces and territories in reducing plastic waste, eliminating plastic pollution and managing waste more generally. This is why the Government of Canada worked with its provincial and territorial counterparts in the CCME to develop the Canada-wide Strategy on Zero Plastic Waste. All jurisdictions must work together

5 Page 37 of 78 to drive the change necessary to move to a more circular economy for plastics across Canada. Among other things, a circular economy for plastics will:  help businesses use resources and capital assets more efficiently;  create new revenue streams through improved value recovery, and markets for new technologies and materials; and  support the transition to a low-carbon economy by moving Canada away from linear models of resource use.

The Government of Canada will align measures developed under the integrated management approach to plastics with the guidance, standards and targets being developed in support of the CCME Strategy and Action Plan on Zero Plastic Waste.

Consideration of measures and programs already in place and complementarity with the roles of provincial, territorial and municipal governments will also be an important factor in the choice and design of instruments. The Government will work with its partners and stakeholders in Northern, remote and Indigenous communities to take into account their unique circumstances. Where appropriate, the Government of Canada will also seek agreements with provincial and territorial governments to minimize or eliminate duplication or overlapping rules.

Managing single-use plastics Canadians and businesses rely on single-use plastics and packaging for various purposes, from convenience to essential health and safety applications, and their use is increasing. Many of these plastic products are poorly managed at their end-of-life and have low recycling rates. Some single-use plastics that end up in the environment cause harm to ecosystems and wildlife, and those that are not recycled are a lost resource for the economy. The Government of Canada has committed to banning or restricting certain harmful single-use plastics, where warranted and supported by science.

Scope Single-use plastics have been be defined in recent work as “designed to be thrown away after being used only once”.10 These items include, among others:

 packaging: primary packaging (for example, food wrappers, retail product packaging, beverage and shampoo bottles), secondary or short lived packaging (for example, shopping bags, fruit & vegetable bags, containers), and sanitary packaging for sterile items (for example, syringes);  convenience items: utensils, hot and cold drink cups and lids, straws, stir sticks, disposable wipes, and quick-serve containers; and  essential items: masks and latex gloves in the dental and medical field, sterile packaging.

10 United Nations Environment Programme, Single-use Plastics: a Roadmap for Sustainability: Fact-sheet for Policymakers (2018), https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/25523/singleUsePlastic_sustainability_factsheet_EN.pdf

6 Page 38 of 78 In addition to single-use plastics, there is a category of short-lived disposable products or their components, which includes pens, toothbrushes and their parts such as cotton swabs stems, cigarette butts and bottle caps. The growing use of these items can present different challenges, such as:

 pollution in the environment and harm to wildlife through litter or accidental releases from commercial and industrial facilities or during transport;  hampering of recycling, composting or wastewater treatment processes, due to small format, material choice and contamination; and  inefficient use of material resources when cost-effective and low-impact alternatives are available.

Management of single-use plastics should also reflect the vital functions some single-use plastics play in keeping Canadians safe and healthy, assisting people with accessibility needs, and preserving food. For example, personal protective equipment includes some single-use plastics, such as masks and gloves. These are necessary to keep Canadians safe from the transmission of disease, in particular COVID-19. The Government of Canada will consider whether products that play vital roles such as these should be exempted from management measures, or whether measures should be designed to avoid limiting supply and accessibility (for example, by focusing on areas such as end-of-life management or litter prevention and clean-up) or stipulate acceptable alternatives. The Government also recognizes the potential for new and innovative technologies to improve the environmental outcomes of some single-use products. For example, the use of compostable, bio-based or biodegradable plastics may in some cases improve a product’s environmental footprint or increase recovery rates of single-use items when they become waste. The Government will consider how the ban or the restriction on certain harmful single-use plastics might be designed to support the growth of new and innovative technologies that further the goals of environmental protection and the transition to a circular economy.

Banning or restricting certain harmful single-use plastics as early as 2021 ECCC has conducted an analysis of available data to determine which items meet the requirements for a proposed ban or restriction. Sources of data include:

 Canadian citizen science and civil society data on which single-use plastics are most commonly found on Canadian beaches and shorelines;11  ECCC-commissioned reports, Single-use Plastics in Canada (Cheminfo, 2018) and Economic Study of Canada’s Plastics Industry, Markets and Waste (Deloitte, 2019);  sector-specific research on commonly used single-use plastics in Canada;  work on single-use plastics prioritized for reduction actions by other jurisdictions within Canada; and  work on single-use plastics prioritized for reduction by international organizations.

11 https://www.shorelinecleanup.ca/impact-visualized-data

7 Page 39 of 78 In addition, while there is little data currently available on the plastic waste impacts of COVID-19, ECCC is aware of the potential increase in plastic waste and pollution caused by essential personal protective equipment. Items were identified using the information sources above to provide a preliminary list of products that may be environmentally or value-recovery problematic, and which merited further analysis through a Management Framework for Single-use Plastics:

 Bags, including  Food packaging and service ware (for o checkout bags, example., takeout containers and lids, o produce and bulk food barrier bags, plates, bowls and cups) made from o garbage bags, and problematic plastics, including: o dry cleaning bags o foamed plastics,  Packaging not necessary for the protection of o black plastic, food or goods, including: o polyvinyl chloride (PVC), o multi-packaging, o oxo-degradable plastic, or o produce stickers, and o multiple (composite) materials o some films including one or more plastics  Cosmetic and personal care products and  Coffee pods packaging, including  Plastics used in medical applications, o cotton swab sticks including personal protective equipment o flushable wipes, and such as: o disposable personal care items o masks,  Plastic packaging used in aquaculture and o gowns, and coastal industries (for example., strapping o gloves bands)  Cigarette filters  Food packaging, including:  Contact lenses and packaging o beverage bottles and caps,  Food service ware, including: o snack food wrappers, and o hot and cold drink cups and lids o some films o straws o stir sticks o cutlery, and o condiment portion cups and sachets

The Management Framework for Single-use Plastics establishes a three-step process to determine if management is needed, and identifies the options for meeting management objectives: Management framework approach for single-use plastics Steps Details Group single-use plastic items into categories and identify considerations for exemptions: 1. Categorize: 1. environmentally problematic 2. value recovery problematic

2. Set For priority categories, determine which objective in the waste management management hierarchy should be pursued: (1) eliminate or reduce from the Canadian market, objectives: or (2) increase recycling or recovery rate.

8 Page 40 of 78 Steps Details

3. Choose an Based on the objective chosen for each product, choose the appropriate instrument to achieve the goal informed by the Instrument Choice Framework for instrument: Risk Management under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Step 1: Characterizing single-use plastics The first step is to categorize single-use plastics as environmentally problematic, value-recovery problematic, or both. In addition, considerations should be identified for possible exemptions to management action. This is done using the following criteria: Table 1: Criteria for the characterization of single-use plastics

Categories of Criteria single-use plastics  Prevalent in natural and/or urban environments, according to 1) Environmentally citizen science, civil society and/or municipal litter audit data problematic  Known or suspected to cause environmental harm (for example.,

ingestion by wildlife or entanglement risk to wildlife, etc.)  Hampers recycling systems or wastewater treatment (nutrient or additive contamination, material or size/shape incompatible with 2) Value recovery recycling technology, etc.) problematic  Low to very low recycling rate (lower than average recycling rate

for packaging, from 0-22%)  Barriers to increasing their recycling rate exist  Perform an essential function (for example., accessibility, health Considerations for and safety, security) exemptions  No viable alternative exists that can serve the same function  Specification of acceptable & available alternative material

A single-use plastic can be considered environmentally problematic and/or value-recovery problematic if it meets the criteria in the above table. Table 2 illustrates how ECCC categorized select single-use plastics, drawing from the best available information listed above: Table 2: Analysis of information of selected single-use plastic products

Exemption Environmentally problematic Value recovery problematic considerations Non- Known or Hampers recyclable, Barriers to suspected to recycling Performs Prevalent in low or increasing No viable cause and/or essential environment very low recycling alternatives environmental wastewater function recycling rate harm treatment rate

Plastic checkout      bags Stir sticks      Six-pack      rings

9 Page 41 of 78 Exemption Environmentally problematic Value recovery problematic considerations Non- Known or Hampers recyclable, Barriers to suspected to recycling Performs Prevalent in low or increasing No viable cause and/or essential environment very low recycling alternatives environmental wastewater function recycling rate harm treatment rate In some Cutlery      cases, for security In some Straws      cases, for accessibility Food packaging and service ware made      from problematic plastics

Other bags (for    example., garbage) Some kinds Snack food (for Some kinds    wrappers example., bioplastics) Multi-    packaging Disposable personal    care items Beverage bottles and   caps Contact lenses and      packaging Hot and cold drink cups     and lids Cigarette      filters

Step 2: Setting management objectives The proposed environmental objectives of the Management Framework for Single-use Plastics are to: 1) eliminate or significantly reduce single-use plastics entering Canada’s environment; 2) reduce the environmental impact of plastic products overall; and 3) conserve material resources by increasing the value recovery of plastics.

Step 3: Instrument choice When there are multiple possible actions to achieve the management objectives, the Instrument Choice Framework for Risk Management under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act will inform the

10 Page 42 of 78 selection of appropriate instruments. The Instrument Choice Framework uses several criteria to guide these decisions: 1. environmental effectiveness and the achievement of the management objective; 2. economic efficiency including minimizing costs and maximizing benefits; 3. distributional impacts on groups and segments of society; 4. acceptability and compatibility, including stakeholder acceptability and compatibility with other programs in Canadian jurisdictions; and 5. international obligations, with a focus on international protocols and agreements as well as trade obligations.

The Government of Canada has committed to ban or restrict certain harmful single-use plastic items, where warranted and supported by science. This means that:

 for products to be considered “harmful” and for a ban or a restriction to be considered “warranted”, the criteria for both environmentally problematic and value recovery must be met;  assessing a single-use plastic item using these criteria requires scientific evidence of both environmental prevalence and value recovery challenges; and  in cases where a product meets all criteria but performs an essential function, exemptions to a ban or a restriction may be recommended in some cases.

Table 3 illustrates how the Management Framework for Single-use Plastics can be applied to choose instruments appropriate to meeting management objectives. Table 3: Proposed instruments and the scope of their potential application

Management Objective: Management Objective: Eliminate or reduce from the Increase recycling / recovery rate of Canadian market, or restrict use single-use plastics and packaging Instruments: Instruments: CEPA Instruments: Extended producer Incentives to instruments: Material responsibility or encourage reusable Ban, restrictions specifications (for other collection, products or in use example., recyclable) recycling systems requirements  Plastic  Beverage bottles Environmentally  Food service  Hot and cold drink Checkout Bags and caps problematic ware cups and lids  Stir sticks  Cigarette filters  Six-pack rings  Food service  Personal care ware made from  Food wrappers  Disposable product bottles Value recovery problematic  Other bags (for personal care  Hot and cold problematic plastics example., garbage) items drink cups and  Straws  Multi-packaging lids  Cutlery

The analysis above generated six plastic items that meet the requirements of a ban or a restriction, supported by sufficient scientific evidence, data gathered from the Great Canadian Shoreline Cleanup and socio-economic considerations:

11 Page 43 of 78 Table 4: Single-use plastic items that meet the requirements for a ban

Certain single-use plastic items being considered for a ban or a restriction:  plastic checkout bags  stir sticks  six-pack rings  cutlery  straws  food service ware made from problematic plastics

For other single-use plastics, currently available data on the use, management and prevalence in the environment do not support a recommendation for a ban or a restriction at this time. The results of additional information gathering and consultations, as well as further analysis using the proposed Management Framework for Single-use Plastics, will indicate whether management action is needed and which measure should be considered. The Government of Canada will continue to work with provinces, territories, industry and other stakeholders to implement this framework over time. How measures are chosen, designed and implemented will take into account factors such as best-placed jurisdiction, the potential for voluntary agreements and other industry-led actions, and the Instrument Choice Framework for Risk Management under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. They will also be the subject of consultation and in-depth socio-economic analysis. A regulatory instrument is also always accompanied by a comprehensive Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that is posted on the Canada Gazette. As a first step in this process, ECCC welcomes comments on the categorization and the proposed management approach described here. Establishing performance standards The proliferation of different types of plastics, formats, labelling, collection schemes and processing technologies together impede the transformation of waste plastics into materials that are cost- competitive with primary materials. This, in turn, hampers the establishment of viable markets for secondary and alternative materials. The introduction of new products across value-chains outpaces the deployment of regulations or programs to ensure collection and new technologies to process the growing variety of plastic products on the market. Recyclers need certainty that there will be buyers for the plastic they recycle to secure investments. To begin addressing some of these issues, the Government of Canada is considering how product performance standards for plastic products and packaging can contribute to generating a sufficient, stable and predictable supply of materials in order to support viable secondary plastics markets and investments in the recovery infrastructure in Canada.

Recycled content requirements Recycled content requirements establish a market demand for recycled plastics which lessens the pressures for recyclers to compete with the cost of virgin resin. Robust domestic demand for recycled plastics would also drive investments in recycling operations, innovations in material separation and technologies, and opportunities to scale up emerging technologies. Recycled content requirements can also spur companies to reconsider the design of their products. The use of recycled plastics delivers

12 Page 44 of 78 environmental benefits, such as extending the life of some resins and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and contributes to the transition to a circular economy. Recognizing the importance of recycled content requirements to drive demand for these markets, the Government of Canada has adopted a target of at least 50% recycled content in plastic products by 2030. As part of Phase 1 of the Canada-wide Action Plan on Zero Plastic Waste, the CCME supported this objective and further committed to establishing targets and timelines for increasing recycled content.12 Many leading companies are including recycled content in their plastic products and have made voluntary commitments to recycled content performance targets. To further support the development of secondary markets for recycled plastics, the Government of Canada is proposing regulations using CEPA to require recycled content in plastic products and packaging. Regulations and accompanying guidance will establish:

 a minimum percentage of recycled content as an outcome-based requirement that producers would need to meet to comply with the regulations;  rules for measuring and reporting to evaluate a product’s conformity with claims of recycled content; and  technical guidelines and related tools to help companies meet their requirements, such as standards, specifications and terminologies.

The approach for requiring recycled content is under development. Options considered could be based on:

 resin: establish recycled content targets and requirements by resin type;  product or sector grouping: establish recycled content targets and requirements by product category (for example., rigid containers, film packaging) or sector (for example., packaging, electronics); or  economy-wide: establish an economy-wide recycled content target/requirements for plastic products without differentiating between sectors, products or resin types.

In addition, the approach as well as the selection of interim targets and timelines for recycled content requirements will recognize the current technical and regulatory barriers that must be considered when incorporating recycled plastics into new products and packaging. For example, food chemical safety is a consideration when using recycled plastics in food packaging. The use of recycled plastics, as with any other plastic material, in food packaging applications must comply with the safety provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and associated regulations. Any other existing requirements in laws and regulations related to product performance (for example., energy efficiency or consumer safety) would also still apply. Factors affecting the ability of recycled plastics to meet performance requirements include the quality of the feedstock, technologies and processing methods, and appropriate performance standards and test methods. The approach for measuring and reporting on recycled content in products is also under development. Voluntary standards are currently used by industry and some new ones are being developed. Key issues to consider for measurement and reporting include, among others:

12 Supra note 3.

13 Page 45 of 78  definitions of recycled content, and the potential applicability of different types (for example., post-consumer resin, pre-consumer resin) in meeting performance standards;  method of tracking chain-of-custody, for example., certifications generated by recyclers based on the mass-balance of material flowing through recycling facilities; and  flexibility in meeting performance standards, for example., applying recycled content requirements on an individual product basis or on an average across a company’s product line.

Regulatory approaches to ensuring recycled content performance standards are met, such as reporting protocols and open data rules to create accountability and ensure compliance through transparent information, will be considered. Ensuring end-of-life responsibility As part of the integrated management approach to plastics, the Government of Canada is working to extend the life and improve the value recovery of plastic products and packaging. This means

 raising collection, repair and recycling rates;  minimizing the amount of plastic sent to landfill;  bringing more product categories under management frameworks across the country; and  establishing the conditions for innovation and greater capacity throughout Canada to create a circular economy for plastics and stimulate investments in critical collection and recovery infrastructure.

Improving and expanding extended producer responsibility in Canada The Government of Canada has committed to working with provinces and territories to develop consistent, national targets, standards and regulations that will make companies that manufacture plastic products or sell items with plastic packaging responsible for collecting and recycling them. This is known as extended producer responsibility. Federal, provincial and territorial governments agree that extended producer responsibility is one of the most effective and efficient ways of increasing collection and recycling rates and is a cornerstone to achieving our Canada-wide objective of zero plastic waste. Provinces and territories are taking the lead by developing and implementing extended producer responsibility systems within their jurisdictions. To maximize the recovery of plastic products and packaging, the Government of Canada will work with provinces, territories and industry to advance extended producer responsibility across Canada that is:

 consistent: rules need to be consistent across jurisdictions to create a level playing field, reduce administrative burden and allow companies to take advantage of the efficiencies and economies of scale possible in larger markets that transcend provincial and territorial borders;  comprehensive: to help achieve zero plastic waste, extended producer responsibility should extend to all major sectors of the Canadian plastics economy that generate large amounts of plastic waste; and

14 Page 46 of 78  transparent: companies are made responsible for meeting outcomes such as collection targets, but are given the freedom to decide how best to meet those targets, making accountability dependent on the transparent reporting of key data.

As part of Phase 1 of the CCME’s Action Plan on Zero Plastic Waste,13 the Government of Canada is working with provincial and territorial governments to develop national guidance that will facilitate consistent, comprehensive and transparent extended producer responsibility policies for plastics. This guidance will include:

 common material categories and product definitions;  performance standards to guide reuse and recycling programs;  options to encourage innovation and reduce costs; and  standard monitoring and verification approaches.

The Government of Canada will support provincial and territorial governments as they work to harmonize their extended producer responsibility systems. This will include exploring with provinces and territories how gaps and inconsistencies can be addressed, including through national actions. Next steps and sending comments The Government recognizes the importance of balancing environmental protection and clean growth with the economic importance of plastic and its role in protecting human health, in particular during this COVID-19 public health emergency. Taking into account lessons from the current pandemic and mindful of continued constraints brought about by the pandemic, Canadians and Canadian businesses will be given the opportunity to participate meaningfully in informing any measures taken.

Next steps for ECCC will include engagement with provincial and territorial governments, Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders on the design of the regulatory instruments and the approaches outlined in this discussion paper.

Parties wishing to comment on any aspect of this paper, including the categorization of single-use plastics and proposed management approaches, are invited to provide written comments to the Director of the Plastics and Marine Litter Division of ECCC by December 9, 2020 at ec.plastiques- [email protected].

13 Supra note 3.

15 Page 47 of 78 Questions for discussion The Government is seeking input to inform the design and implementation of the proposals described in this discussion paper. Businesses, civil society groups, jurisdictions, Indigenous Peoples, and all Canadians are invited to provide their perspectives, expertise and opinions. To help focus input, the Government invites commenters to consider the following questions. Other comments and suggestions related to anything described in this discussion paper are also welcome.

Managing single-use plastics 1. Are there any other sources of data or other evidence that could help inform the development of the regulations to ban or restrict certain harmful single-use plastics? 2. Would banning or restricting any of the six single-use plastics identified impact the health or safety of any communities or segments of Canadian society? 3. How can the Government best reflect the needs of people with disabilities in its actions to ban or restrict certain harmful single-use plastics? 4. Should innovative or non-conventional plastics, such as compostable, bio-based or biodegradable plastics be exempted from a ban or a restriction on certain harmful single-use plastics? If so, what should be considered in developing an exemption that maintains the objectives of environmental protection and fostering a circular economy for plastics?

Establishing performance standards 5. What minimum percentage of recycled content in plastic products would make a meaningful impact on secondary (recycled resin) markets? 6. For which resins, products, and/or sectors would minimum recycled content requirements make the greatest positive impact on secondary (recycled resin) markets? Why? 7. Which resins, products or sectors are best-placed to increase the use of recycled plastic and why? 8. Which plastic products are not suitable for using recycled content due to health, safety, regulatory, technical or other concerns? 9. What should be considered in developing timelines for minimum recycled content requirements in different products? 10. What would be the advantages and disadvantages to setting minimum percentage requirements that are distinct for each product grouping, sector, and/or resin? 11. How could compliance with minimum recycled content requirements be verified? How can the Government and industry take advantage of innovative technologies or business practices to improve accuracy of verification while minimizing the administrative burden on companies? 12. Besides minimum recycled content requirements, what additional actions by the government could incentivize the use of recycled content in plastic products?

Ensuring end-of-life responsibility

16 Page 48 of 78 13. How can the Government of Canada best support provinces and territories in making their extended producer responsibility policies consistent, comprehensive, and transparent?

17 Page 49 of 78 Page 50 of 78 CITY OF ORILLIA

TO: Council Committee – February 1, 2021 FROM: Environment and Infrastructure Services Department DATE: January 27, 2021 REPORT NO: EIS-21-02 SUBJECT: Outstanding Waste Minimization Plan Items

Recommended Motion

THAT Recommendations 6b, 12b, 12c, 13c, 13d and 22 of the City of Orillia’s 2016 Waste Minimization Plan be referred to and included as recommendations within the City’s 2021 Waste Minimization Plan for further consideration.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to discuss the outstanding recommendations from the 2016 Waste Minimization Plan (WMP) that have not been addressed to date. Many of these recommendations were anticipated to be assessed earlier in 2020, but with the workload additions applicable due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this was not possible. Outstanding Recommendation 4 from the 2016 WMP is being addressed in a separate concurrent Council Committee Report EIS-21-03.

Background & Key Facts

The following key facts are presented:

• Condition 11.2 of the Waste Diversion Site’s Environmental Compliance Approval requires the City to prepare a five-year WMP that is to be renewed every five years. The last plan was prepared in 2016, and a new plan will be developed in 2021 with the assistance of the Waste Management Advisory Committee. • The 2016 WMP included 22 recommendations. Almost 80% of the recommendations have been addressed or are being addressed. Outstanding recommendations include: o Recommendation 6: Ensure City facilities are leading by example when it comes to waste diversion and waste minimization. Assess the following: . b) Develop a staff training program and incentive programs to further reduce waste and increase participation. o Recommendation 12: Examine other diversion depots that could be set up at the Waste Diversion Site including, but not limited to: . b) Window glass. . c) Porcelain/ceramics. o Recommendation 13: Continue to explore the management options for:

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-02 – Outstanding Waste Minimization Plan Items – File: E07-GEN Page 51 of 78

. c) Non-accepted plastics in the recycling box (Recycling Code #3 and plastics with no code). . d) Private paper documents (paper shredding and recycling). o Recommendation 22: Consider an incentive program to encourage waste diversion including but not limited to: . a) Providing free compost. . b) Incentives for reusable diapers and feminine hygiene products (e.g., Diva Cup). . c) Special stickers or recycling boxes for residents demonstrating great diversion participation. . d) City incentives for residents demonstrating great diversion participation, such as Opera House Shows and bus passes.

Options & Analysis

There is one option that staff recommend for Council’s consideration.

Option 1 - Recommended

This option involves including Recommendations 6b, 12b, 12c, 13c, 13d and 22 from the current WMP in the next WMP being developed in 2021 for consideration. These recommendations will require further study, and with the recent challenges in the past year with COVID-19, more time is needed to adequately consider these recommendations further.

Should Council approve this recommended option, these WMP recommendations will be listed as recommendations in the 2021 WMP that will be brought forward to Council for consideration in the spring of 2021. It is noted that only the new WMP plan will be submitted for approval by Council in the spring of 2021. The actual recommendations within the 2021 WMP will be assessed over a five-year period from 2021 to 2026.

Financial Impact

There are no financial impacts associated with the option presented.

Consultation

At its meeting held on January 13, 2021, the Waste Management Advisory Committee endorsed staff’s recommendation.

Economic Development Impact

There is no direct economic development impact associated with the recommended motion.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-02 – Outstanding WastePage Minimization 52 of Plan78 Items – File: E07-GEN 3

Communications Plan

Communication requirements have not been identified at this time.

Relation to Formal Plans, City of Orillia Policy Manual and/or Guiding Legislation

The 2016 Waste Minimization Plan is in place to assist in increasing the lifespan of the City’s landfill. The City’s new 2018-2022 Strategic Plan calls for a “Healthy Environment” as part of its mission. Development of the next waste minimization plan will aid in supporting a healthy environment by helping to minimize what is landfilled at the City’s Waste Diversion Site.

Conclusion

It is recommended that the outstanding recommendations of the 2016 WMP be referred to and included with the 2021 WMP.

Prepared by & Key Contact: Greg Preston, Manager of Environmental Services Approved by: Andrew Schell, General Manager of Environment and Infrastructure Services Department

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-02 – Outstanding WastePage Minimization 53 of Plan78 Items – File: E07-GEN Page 54 of 78 CITY OF ORILLIA

TO: Council Committee – February 1, 2021 FROM: Environment and Infrastructure Services Department DATE: January 27, 2021 REPORT NO: EIS-21-03 SUBJECT: Clear Plastic Garbage Bag Collection Program

Recommended Motion

THAT Municipal Code Chapter 877 be amended as per Schedule “A” of this report effective Monday, February 7, 2022.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to discuss Recommendation 4 from the City’s 2016 Waste Minimization Plan, which states: “Assess the implementation of a clear garbage bag program with the option of small privacy bags to further encourage diversion. As a component of this, assess lowering the allowable percentage of recycling and compostable materials allowed in the garbage stream through the current source separation by-law.”

Background & Key Facts

The City initiated a mandatory source separation by-law in 2012 that stipulates that if a household places out a garbage bag for collection (tagged or not) that contains 30% by weight or volume of recycling box or green bin compostable materials, the collection driver can leave the material behind at the curb. The householder is not subject to a fine, but can call the City’s Waste Diversion Site to learn about the proper sorting needed. Enforcement of this measure is rare, and can occur once or twice a month, but is limited by the fact that residents can set out their garbage in opaque (black) garbage bags at present.

The following key facts are presented: • Clear garbage bag programs are set up to encourage residents to properly sort their recyclable and compostable materials. Residents do not typically want to show their neighbours that they are not recycling so clear bag programs initiated in other municipalities have typically seen an increase in diversion. • According to the Continuous Improvement Fund from their “Clear Bag Garbage Program Implementation Toolkit”: o Typically, municipalities allow one to three small privacy bags in a clear bag program. Items included therein may include sanitary products, diapers, incontinence products, financial information, medical/pharmaceutical objects or other personal items.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\2021\EIS-21-03 – Clear Garbage Bag Program – File: E07-GEN Page 55 of 78 2

o Municipalities typically allow a six-month notice period of a program change to a clear bag program. o Both clear plastic and opaque plastic garbage bags are manufactured from the same type of plastic resin and dyes are added to colour bags. From a sales perspective, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price should be equal (if not less) between the two products. o Overall, waste diversion rates can increase by as much as 10% when a municipality implements a clear garbage bag program. For example, the City of Markham saw an 11% increase after one year of having the clear bag program in place. o Privacy has been identified as the number one concern of residents prior to implementation of a clear bag program. • There are four known municipalities that have implemented clear bag programs in Ontario including the City of Markham, Dufferin County (which includes the Town of Orangeville), the Town of Goderich and the City of Guelph. Program details are included in Schedule “B”. • The City’s overall waste diversion rate from landfill currently stands at approximately 64%, and the goal in the 2016 Waste Minimization Plan is to reach at least 70%. Moving to 70% diversion represents an increase of approximately 1,000 tonnes of waste to be diverted from the City’s landfill each year.

Options & Analysis

Staff present the following options for consideration:

Option 1 - Recommended

THAT Municipal Code Chapter 877 be amended as per Schedule “A” of this report effective Monday, February 7, 2022.

This option involves having residents move away from using opaque plastic garbage bags and using clear plastic garbage bags instead. It is a relatively simple program change to transition to. Clear garbage bag programs discourage residents from setting out recycling and compostable materials in their garbage as it makes it more apparent who is participating in diversion programs and who is not. The proposed program is intended to increase participation from households that do not presently recycle and/or compost material by raising them to the standard of those who already participate.

This proposed option involves moving to a clear garbage bag program effective February 7, 2022. This would provide a long lead time for residents to use up their opaque garbage bags and allow time for retailers to stock their shelves with more clear plastic bags. It also accounts for the budget impact of the proposed measure related to collecting additional recycling material.

As part of this proposed program, residents could use up to two small privacy bags like a regular-sized shopping bag, and would still be able to set out garbage loose in a rigid container. If the rigid container was lined, it would need to be lined with a clear plastic bag.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-03 – Clear Garbage BagPage Program 56 of– File: 78 E07- GEN 3

It is also proposed to reduce the allowable volume/weight limit of recyclable/compostable materials in the garbage bag from 30% to 10%. The original threshold of 30% was set high because it is difficult to know how much recyclable and compostable materials are in an opaque bag of garbage so only the worst offenders have had their garbage left behind.

Should Council approve this option, promotion will occur in 2021 so that the enforcement of this measure will begin in February 2022. The program would not be enacted to send “garbage police” around to enforce diversion. The City does not have the resources for this. The measure is meant to educate residents on the City’s recycling and green bin organics collection programs should they not be found to be participating in these diversion programs. There would still not be a set fine for setting out recycling/compostable materials mixed in the garbage bag – the garbage would just be left behind.

Proposed changes to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 877 are shown in grey shading in Schedule “A” of this report.

Benefits of a clear garbage bag program include: • Increased diversion of recyclables and green bin organics from the waste stream through curbside collection. Based on the experiences of other municipalities, the City could easily reach its 70% waste diversion goal by implementing a clear garbage bag program. • The program would conserve valuable landfill space and extend the life of the landfill at least two years or more based on current fill rates. • The program would offer increased worker safety by enabling the garbage collectors to see the contents of the bags and avoid hazardous items (i.e. sharp glass, needles, etc.). • The program would greatly assist with the removal of hazardous waste items (i.e. batteries, paint, pharma, oil, etc.) from the waste stream.

The primary concern residents have with clear garbage bag programs is privacy, which is why an allowance is included for the small privacy bags. Unutilized opaque garbage bags could be used to donate used items to charity, like clothing.

This option is recommended to help the City achieve its set goal of a 70% waste diversion rate and to save valuable landfill space.

Option 2

THAT Recommendation 4 of the City of Orillia’s 2016 Waste Minimization Plan be included as a recommendation in the City’s 2021 Waste Minimization Plan for further consideration.

Should Council not wish to address a clear garbage bag program at this time, this potential program revision could be referred to and included as a recommendation in the

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-03 – Clear Garbage BagPage Program 57 of– File: 78 E07- GEN 4

City’s 2021 Waste Minimization Plan that is being developed in 2021. If this option is implemented, the issue would be addressed by the next Council.

Option 3

THAT this report be received.

This option involves no action. It is not recommended because preserving valuable landfill space is critical to supporting a healthy environment.

Financial Impact

If Option 1 is implemented, there would be no impact on the unit pricing the City pays as per the collection contract. It is expected, however, that there will be additional blue box recycling material collected, and therefore some added cost. The City pays a ‘per tonne’ fee for processing blue box recycling material and shares the costs/revenues for marketing this material. Overall, it is estimated the annual net cost increase for processing and marketing the additional recycling material collected and diverted in 2022 would be approximately $12,000 per year. It is noted that a large portion of this cost would be removed in 2024 once the City transitions its blue box program to full industry stewardship as is currently planned.

Most of the increased diversion will be with increased green bin collection, and there are no collection cost impacts associated with this because garbage and green bin collection are both fully paid for by the household. This means then that the collection service provider (Mid Ontario Disposal) is compensated whether the material is collected as garbage or as green bin material.

There are no financial impacts associated with Options 2 and 3 presented in this report.

Consultation

At its meeting held on January 13, 2021, the Waste Management Advisory Committee endorsed staff’s recommendation with the following comments: • Staff should set the effective date in the spring of 2022 as it is aligned with people’s cleaning activities and starting January 1st during a holiday season would be challenging for residents with excess materials. • Advertising should note that people can always start using clear bags sooner and use rigid cans in place of bags. • WMAC will support the development of the promotional campaign.

Based on WMAC’s feedback, staff amended the proposed effective date of the program change to February 7, 2022 so as not to make it occur right after the busy holiday season.

City of Markham staff presented to WMAC in October 2019 on their own experience with implementing a clear garbage bag program. Markham staff indicated that when they switched to a clear bag garbage collection program, there was very limited initial public support of the program, but several years after implementation, 100% of the residents surveyed indicated that they supported the program.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-03 – Clear Garbage BagPage Program 58 of– File: 78 E07- GEN 5

Economic Development Impact

There is no direct economic development impact associated with the recommended motion.

Communications Plan

Should this program proceed,

1. Communications and marketing staff will work with the Environment and Infrastructure Services (EIS) Department to develop and implement a communications plan using allocated funding from WMAC and EIS to notify residents of the program change. This would include, but not be limited to: a news release, information on the City’s website, advertising in the weekly City Bulletin, paid advertising, social media posts, notice within the garbage tag letter mail out, and truck signage.

2. As a component of the Communications Plan, an informational flyer would be prepared outlining program details, such as: • What the program entails; • Why the program is being implemented; • Why the City is pursuing this initiative; • What implementation timing will be; • What this change will mean for residents; • Answers to common questions; • Where to direct residents for additional information including staff contact information.

3. Local retailers (and their head offices) will be informed early (i.e., shortly after Council approval) of the move so they can prepare to stock their shelves with clear garbage bags accordingly.

Relation to Formal Plans, City of Orillia Policy Manual and/or Guiding Legislation

This report is related to addressing Recommendation 4 from the City’s 2016 Waste Minimization Plan.

The City’s new 2018-2022 Strategic Plan calls for a “Healthy Environment” as part of its mission. The recommendation of this report helps to support a healthy environment for the residents of Orillia in that more recyclable and compostable materials will be diverted from landfill. This will significantly assist with increasing the lifespan of the City’s landfill.

Conclusion

It is recommended that a clear garbage bag program be initiated starting at the beginning of 2022. This timeframe allows retailers to stock their shelves with clear bags and gives residents time to get ready for the simple changeover of using clear bags in place of opaque bags.

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-03 – Clear Garbage BagPage Program 59 of– File: 78 E07- GEN 6

Schedules

 Schedule “A” – Proposed Revision to Municipal Code Chapter 877 Section 877.1.4  Schedule “B” – Summary of Clear Garbage Bag Programs In Other Ontario Municipalities

Prepared by & Key Contact: Greg Preston, Manager of Environmental Services Approved by: Andrew Schell, General Manager of Environment and Infrastructure Services Department

I:\C00 Council\C11 Reports\Environment and Infrastructure Services\2021\EIS-21-03 – Clear Garbage BagPage Program 60 of– File: 78 E07- GEN Schedule “A” – Proposed Revisions to Chapter 877

PROPERTY MAINTENANCE

Chapter 877 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER INDEX

Article 1 INTERPRETATION

877.1.1 City - defined 877.1.2 Donation box - defined 877.1.3 Garbage - defined 877.1.4 Garbage lot - defined 877.1.5 Readily compostable organics - defined 877.1.6 Readily compostable organics lot - defined 877.1.7 Recycling box material - defined 877.1.8 Non-collectible waste - defined 877.1.9 Occupant - defined 877.1.10 Person - defined 877.1.11 Business - defined 877.1.12 Scavenging - defined 877.1.13 Non-portable receptacle - defined 877.1.14 Garbage tag - defined 877.1.15 Small vehicles - defined 877.1.16 Multi-unit residential building - defined 877.1.17 Land - defined 877.1.18 Waste generator - defined

Article 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS

877.2.1 Materials - prohibited 877.2.2 Material - containers, bags, bundles

ORILLIA 877.1 MAY 2020 Page 61 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

877.2.3 Collection - cardboard boxes 877.2.4 Material - readily compostable organics 877.2.5 Material - leaves 877.2.6 Repealed: By-law 2006-175, 23 October 2006 877.2.7 Origin of waste 877.2.8 Repealed: By-law 2002-14, 28 January 2002 877.2.9 Recycling box material - limit 877.2.10 Recycling box material - limit 877.2.11 Readily compostable organics - limit 877.2.12 Material - placement - permissible locations 877.2.13 Material - placed for collection - times 877.2.14 Non-portable receptacles 877.2.15 Scavenging - prohibited 877.2.16 Sale of recyclable materials 877.2.17 Recycling boxes and carts 877.2.18 Bins - City property 877.2.19 Deposit garbage - public area container 877.2.20 Garbage - tag - altered - prohibited 877.2.21 Collection at multi-unit residential buildings 877.2.22 Source separation 877.2.23 Donation box - private property 877.2.24 Donation box - City Property

Article 3 WASTE DIVERSION SITE

877.3.1 Hours of operation 877.3.2 Tipping fees 877.3.3 Credit - dump lock, delinquent accounts 877.3.4 Weighing and payment 877.3.5 Location for disposal - signs, direction from staff 877.3.6 Separation of materials

ORILLIA 877.2 MAY 2020 Page 62 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

877.3.7 Scavenging - prohibited

Article 4 ENFORCEMENT

877.4.1 Entry and inspection 877.4.2 Hinder or Obstruct 877.4.3 Fine - for contravention 877.4.4 Enforcement 877.4.5 Validity and severability 877.4.6 Expenses - recovery - by City 877.4.7 Rebuttable presumption - identification

Article 5 REPEAL

877.5.1 By-laws - Previous

______

Article 1 INTERPRETATION

877.1.1 City - defined “City” means The Corporation of the City of Orillia.

877.1.2 Donation box - defined “donation box” means a receptacle used for the purpose of collecting any item donated by the public, including clothing or electrical and electronic equipment.

877.1.3 Garbage - defined “garbage” means any dry waste other than readily compostable organics, recycling box materials and non-collectible waste.

877.1.4 Garbage lot - defined "garbage lot" means a container, bag or bundle where: containers shall be waterproof with tight-fitting lids, with handles, maximum size is 133 litres; bags shall be maximum 80 cm x 95 cm and be clear plastic polyethylene, securely fastened at the top with the allowance of up to two opaque privacy bags no larger than 51 cm x 56 cm (20 in x 22 in) within each the clear plastic garbage bag; bundles shall be tied and not exceed 1 m x 50 cm x 50 cm; each container, bag or bundle shall weigh less than 20 kg including

ORILLIA 877.3 MAY 2020 Page 63 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

contents; after July 1, 1997, each garbage container, bag or bundle set out for collection shall have an Orillia Garbage Tag easily visible and securely attached to it; for containers the tag is to be attached to the topmost garbage; for bags the tag is to be attached around the top; a bundle is to have the tag attached to the string or otherwise securely fastened to it. Tags must be attached in such a fashion that the City Logo “Orillia Garbage Tag” and serial number are visible to collection staff.

877.1.5 Readily compostable organics - defined “readily compostable organics” means any plant material such as leaves, grass clippings, house and garden plants, hedge trimmings and branches less than 25mm in diameter, Christmas trees, kitchen food organics including vegetables, fruit, coffee grounds, tea bags, eggshells, bread, pasta, rice, meat, bone, dairy products, soiled compostable food packaging materials, and soiled paper towels and tissues.

877.1.6 Readily compostable organics lot - defined “readily compostable organics lot" means a container, bag, bundle or Christmas tree where: containers shall be waterproof, maximum 75 cm in any direction and wider at the top than the bottom and shall be clearly marked compostable organics; bags shall be paper or “City - approved compostable”; bundles shall be tied with string or twine made from natural fibres and not exceed 1 m x 50 cm x 50 cm; each container, bag or bundle shall weigh less than 20 kg including contents. “City - approved compostable” bags shall include those certified through ASTM D6400-04 and/or BNQ 9011-911/2007 as amended from time to time. Paper bags or containers of grass clippings set out for collection shall have an Orillia Garbage Tag easily visible and placed on the top of the grass clippings; for compostable bags, the tag can be attached to the bag.

877.1.7 Recycling box material - defined "recycling box material" means any material designated by the City as being acceptable for collection by the City or its agent for the purpose of recycling. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it shall include newspaper, magazines, catalogues, telephone books, paperback books, junk mail, envelopes, office paper, mixed paper, egg cartons, wrapping paper, empty paper cups, boxboard, corrugated cardboard, metal food and beverage cans, aluminum cans and foil, empty paint cans, empty aerosol cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles and containers (recycling codes 1,2,4,5,6, and 7), plastic tubs and lids, empty plastic food trays, plastic film and bags, polystyrene styrofoam packaging and trays, and polycoat/aseptic cartons.

877.1.8 Non-collectible waste - defined "non-collectible waste" means:

i) any explosive or highly combustible materials of any nature whatsoever;

ii) construction debris or building materials;

iii) liquid or semi-liquid waste;

ORILLIA 877.4 MAY 2020 Page 64 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

iv) carcass of any animal;

v) major appliances;

vi) furniture;

vii) tires;

viii) bio-medical waste;

ix) automobiles, vehicles or any parts thereof;

x) hazardous waste as defined in the regulations to the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.19, as amended from time to time;

xi) propane tanks;

xii) scrap metal;

xiii) industrial or business equipment and parts.

877.1.9 Occupant - defined "occupant" means the person in possession of a building or unit and includes an owner or tenant.

877.1.10 Person - defined "person" means an individual, a corporation, a partnership or an association.

877.1.11 Business - defined "business" means industrial, commercial (incl. retail, hotel, motel) and institutional (incl. residential facilities with communal kitchen and/or dining); the schools of the Simcoe County Boards of Education are excluded.

877.1.12 Scavenging - defined "scavenging" means the unauthorized removal of material or waste.

877.1.13 Non-portable receptacle - defined "non-portable receptacle" means an enclosed receptacle that is used for storage of garbage lots for direct removal by the City or its agent. Such receptacle shall provide protection against animals, shall be easy to open and shall provide easy access for removal of garbage lots.

877.1.14 Garbage tag - defined “garbage tag” shall mean:

ORILLIA 877.5 MAY 2020 Page 65 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

i) an adhesive strip that bears the wording “Orillia Garbage Tag”, includes the City of Orillia corporate logo, includes a serial number and is a colour as approved by the City from time to time; or

ii) a rectangular label that bears the wording “Special Garbage Tag”, includes the City of Orillia corporate logo, includes a serial number and is green in colour; or

iii) an adhesive strip that bears the wording “Special Garbage Tag” includes the City of Orillia corporate logo, includes a serial number and is green in colour.

Garbage tags are issued by the Corporation of the City of Orillia.

877.1.15 Small vehicles - defined "small vehicles” means cars with or without trailers, pickup trucks and/or small vans.

877.1.16 Multi-unit residential building - defined “multi-unit residential building” means townhouse, condominium or apartment complexes, which contain six or more dwelling units. Effective January 1, 2006.

877.1.17 Land - defined "land" includes buildings or structures other than a dwelling unit.

877.1.18 Waste generator - defined “waste generator” means any person, registered property owner, occupant, or business, who generates garbage, readily compostable organics, and/or recycling box material.

Article 2 GENERAL PROVISIONS

877.2.1 Materials - prohibited No person shall place out for collection any non-collectible waste or material which is not garbage, readily compostable organics or recycling box material.

877.2.2 Material - containers, bags, bundles No person shall place out for collection any material which is not a garbage lot, a readily compostable organics lot, or recycling box material prepared as designated by the City.

877.2.3 Collection - cardboard boxes Material set out in cardboard boxes will not be collected.

877.2.4 Material - readily compostable organics

ORILLIA 877.6 MAY 2020 Page 66 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

Readily compostable organics shall be prepared and set out for collection in readily compostable organics lots. Readily compostable organics not set out in readily compostable organics lots will not be collected.

877.2.5 Material - leaves No person shall cause leaves to be left on a City property except as prepared in readily compostable organics lots for collection.

877.2.6 Repealed: By-law 2006-175, 23 October 2006

877.2.7 Origin of waste No person shall deposit any garbage, readily compostable organics or recycling box material at any location other than for collection in front of the premises where it was generated, or at an approved site.

877.2.8 Repealed: By-law 2002-14, 28 January 2002

877.2.9 Recycling box material - limit For both residential and business properties, each bundle of cardboard in excess of four must have a garbage tag attached to it to be collected. For multi-unit residential buildings, each bundle of cardboard in excess of eight must have a garbage tag attached to it to be collected.

877.2.10 Recycling box material - limit Businesses are limited to recycling box material which is not part of their primary business function.

877.2.11 Readily compostable organics - limit Businesses are limited to set out up to 10 readily compostable organics lots per week. For businesses, each lot of readily compostable organics in excess of 10 lots per week must have a garbage tag attached to it to be collected.

877.2.12 Material - placement - permissible locations Garbage, readily compostable organics and recycling box material shall be placed separately by the occupant in front of his or her building or unit, just off the travelled portion of the street and sidewalk so as not to interfere with traffic, or at any other convenient location as may be approved by the City.

877.2.13 Material - placed for collection - times Garbage, readily compostable organics and recycling box material shall be placed out for collection by the occupant not later than 7:00 a.m. on the day of collection and not earlier than 11:00 a.m. on the previous day. Within the Business Improvement Area, material shall be placed out for collection not later than 5:00 a.m. on the day of collection and not earlier than 4:00 p.m. on the previous day. Empty containers and any materials not collected for any reason shall be removed by the occupant by 11:00 a.m. on the day following collection.

ORILLIA 877.7 MAY 2020 Page 67 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

877.2.14 Non-portable receptacles All non-portable receptacles shall be placed and collected in a location designated by the City. No person shall place a non-portable receptacle in or upon City property without having first applied to and receiving approval from the City. The applicant shall pay the prescribed fee, as set from time to time by resolution of Council.

877.2.15 Scavenging - prohibited No person, other than the occupant, or the City or its agent, shall scavenge garbage, readily compostable organics and recycling box material placed out for collection pursuant to the provisions of this by-law.

877.2.16 Sale of recyclable materials Any person may donate or sell recyclables to any other person whether that person operates for profit or not for profit. Under no circumstances, however, may the transferred recyclables be picked up from curbside whether or not said recyclables are placed at the curbside on or immediately preceding the scheduled curbside collection day.

877.2.17 Recycling boxes and carts The City issues recycling boxes and carts for the purpose of facilitating recycling box material collection. No person shall use recycling carts for other than their intended purpose. While recognizing that recycling boxes are still partially subsidized by the taxpayer, they should be used for the purpose of facilitating recycling box material collection. Carts shall remain the property of the City.

877.2.18 Bins - City property No person shall place or cause to be placed bins for garbage or bins for material recovery on City property without having first applied to and receiving approval from the City. The applicant shall pay the prescribed fee, as set from time to time by resolution of Council.

877.2.19 Deposit Garbage - public area container No person shall deposit garbage, readily compostable organics or recycling box material which was generated at a residence or business in a public area garbage or recycling container which has been provided for use of pedestrians.

877.2.20 Garbage - tag - altered - prohibited No person shall alter, deface, change, modify and/or tamper with an approved City of Orillia garbage tag as defined in Section 877.1.13.

877.2.21 Collection at multi-unit residential buildings Owners of multi-unit residential buildings shall maintain a demonstrated recycling and/or readily compostable organics collection program if they receive collection services from

ORILLIA 877.8 MAY 2020 Page 68 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

the City for garbage, readily compostable organics, and/or recycling box material. If it is found that the owner does not participate fully in the City’s collection of recycling box material and/or readily compostable organics material, eligibility for other collection services will be suspended for a period of up to 90 days.

877.2.22 Source separation Every waste generator shall ensure that garbage set out for collection contains no more than 30%10% by either weight or volume of recycling box material and/or readily compostable organics even if the garbage lot is otherwise properly prepared.

877.2.23 Donation box - private property No person shall place or cause to be placed a donation box on private property without consent.

877.2.24 Donation box - City property No person shall place or cause to be placed a donation box on any street or property owned or maintained by the City.

Article 3 WASTE DIVERSION SITE

877.3.1 Hours of operation The hours of operation of the Waste Diversion Site shall be as set by Council resolution from time to time.

877.3.2 Tipping fees Every person shall pay tipping fees for materials received at the Waste Diversion Site in accordance with the tipping fee schedule established by Council resolution from time to time.

877.3.3 Credit - dump lock, delinquent accounts Access to the Waste Diversion Site is denied to any charge account customer whose account is over 90 days past due. Credit may be withdrawn from customers who are delinquent in payment of their accounts.

877.3.4 Weighing and payment No person shall bypass the weigh scales unless so directed by Waste Diversion Site staff; attempt weight manipulation; or by any other means avoid assessment of tipping fees. During peak traffic periods, customers entering the Waste Diversion Site with loads of material in small vehicles may either have staff estimate the weight of their load and pay the necessary tipping fee or utilize the weigh scales and pay the necessary tipping fee.

877.3.5 Location for disposal - signs, direction from staff No person shall dispose of material at the Waste Diversion Site other than at the proper location as directed by signage or verbally by City staff.

ORILLIA 877.9 MAY 2020 Page 69 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

877.3.6 Separation of materials No person shall dispose of material that has not been sorted and separated as directed by the Tipping Fee Schedule and other City Policy as may be revised from time to time.

877.3.7 Scavenging - prohibited No person shall scavenge anything deposited at the Waste Diversion Site.

Article 4 ENFORCEMENT

877.4.1 Entry and inspection A Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer or Police Officer may at all reasonable times, enter on land for the purposes of carrying out an inspection to determine compliance with this Chapter.

877.4.2 Hinder or Obstruct No person shall hinder or obstruct, or attempt to hinder or obstruct, any Officer exercising a power or performing a duty under this Chapter, or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an Officer. Without limiting the generality of the meaning of “hinder” or “obstruct”, a person shall be deemed to have obstructed or hindered an Officer in the execution of their duties if he or she:

(a) provides false information to an Officer; or

(b) is alleged on reasonable and probable grounds to have contravened any of the provisions of this Chapter, and fails to identify themselves to an Officer upon request.

877.4.3 Fine - for contravention

(a) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Chapter is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine or penalty as provided for in the Provincial Offences Act.

(b) Where a section of this Chapter has been contravened, a director or officer of a corporation who knowingly concurs in the contravention is guilty of an offence.

(c) Upon conviction, in addition to any other remedy and to any penalty imposed by this Chapter, the court in which the conviction has been entered and any court of competent jurisdiction thereafter may make an order prohibiting the continuation or repetition of the offence by the person convicted.

ORILLIA 877.10 MAY 2020 Page 70 of 78 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 877

877.4.4 Enforcement A Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer or Police Officer is hereby vested with the authority of enforcing the provisions of this Chapter.

877.4.5 Validity and severability Every provision of this Chapter is declared severable from the remainder and if any provision of this Chapter shall be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remainder.

877.4.6 Expenses - recovery - by City The City, by its employees, officers or agents, may collect and dispose/recycle unsorted garbage at the expense of the registered property owner and such expense, if not paid, may be collected in the same manner as property taxes.

877.4.7 Rebuttable presumption - identification In a prosecution for a contravention of this Chapter, evidence of identification shall be presumed to be correct and accurate, unless rebutted by evidence to the contrary.

Article 5 REPEAL

877.5.1 By-laws Previous By-laws 1050, 1944 and 3432 are hereby repealed.

Adopting By-law: By-law 1995-46, 3 April 1995.

By-law Amendments: By-law 1996-25, 4 March 1996; By-law 1997-46, May 26, 1997; By-law 2000-7, 17 January 2000; By-law 2002-14, 28 January 2002; By-law 2002-25, 4 March 2002; By-law 2002-62, 3 June 2002; By-law 2002-129, 7 October 2002; By-law 2005-15, 31 January 2005; By-law 2005-128, 8 August 2005; By-law 2006-175, 23 October 2006; By-law 2007-78, 7 May 2007; By-law 2008-8, 21 January 2008; By-law 2008-33, 17 March 2008; By-law 2009-150, 30 November 2009; By-law 2011-138, 28 November 2011; By-law 2012-89, 28 May 2012; By-law 2012-133, 1 October 2012; By- law 2013-7, 21 January 2013; By-law 2013-33, 18 March 2013; By-law 2013-60, May 2013; By-law 2016-8, 18 January 2016; By-law 2016-134, 12 December 2016; By-law 2017-14, 13 February 2017; By-law 2018-13, 12 February 2018; By-law 2020-48, 25 May 2020.

ORILLIA 877.11 MAY 2020 Page 71 of 78 Schedule “B”: Summary of Clear Garbage Bag Programs In Other Ontario Municipalities

City of Dufferin County (Town Town of City of Program Information Markham of Orangeville) Goderich Guelph Year Clear Garbage Bag 2013 2013 2009 Mid 90’s Program Implemented The Town allows one opaque/coloured privacy Residents can use up to a total of bag no larger than 20”x22” four privacy bags for personal None. They have had a clear Each bag/container may (grocery bag or kitchen garbage items per collection. bag program since the mid- contain two opaque privacy catcher). Privacy bags are Allowances for privacy Privacy/shopping bags can be 90’s before the privacy bag bags, no larger than 51 cm x to be placed inside the clear placed inside clear garbage bag became a concern raised in 56 cm (20 in x 22 in). bag. If a privacy bag is the or garbage can. other communities. only waste for collection, it

may be placed directly on the curb for collection. Percentage of recycling Technically as written, none. and compostable All material must be source 5% by weight as determined organics allowed in the Their by-law is not prescriptive separated. In practice, it is by a visual assessment by the Approximately 20% source separation by-law with a percentage. the driver’s discretion on collector. before the bag is left whether to collect or leave behind behind.

Vermin proof rigid They have since moved to May be placed loose in a rigid containers up to 80 litres are automated cart collection. Rigid garbage containers Rigid containers permitted. container no larger than 125 accepted with an approved Residents can either use a allowance litres in volume. tag on each clear garbage clear plastic bag in the cart or bag (tags cost $2.00 each). place all items loose in a cart.

Page 72 of 78 There was no impact on the Lower collection costs as they No budgetary impacts. Budget impacts for budget and the waste No. They use City staff and paid per tonne at the time of Collection contract is paid by moving to clear bags disposal costs were by the City trucks to collect waste. implementation. household. tonne.

CITY OF ORILLIA

TO: Council Committee – February 1, 2021 FROM: Economic Recovery Task Force DATE: January 27, 2021 REPORT NO: ERTF-21-01 SUBJECT: Economic Recovery Funding

Recommended Motion

THAT Council authorize the allocation of $60,000 from the Social Assistance and Economic Recovery COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund to the Economic Recovery Task Force (ERTF) subject to use of these funds being approved by the City of Orillia Emergency Management Committee for economic recovery projects which align with the ERTF mandate.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s support for funding immediate and upcoming initiatives prescribed by the Economic Recovery Task Force (ERTF) in its efforts to assist local businesses during the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

Background & Key Facts

• The ERTF mandate is to “support the Orillia and Area COVID-19 economic recession by increasing business and non-profit organizations’ capacity to survive the short-term economic impact, recover as restrictions are phased out and return to prosperity.” • Shortly after the establishment of the ERTF, Council allocated $1 million from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve to aid local economic recovery initiatives over the next two years, setting up the Social Assistance and Economic Recovery COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund. • Council authorized that $60,000 of the relief fund be approved for use by the ERTF to fund the first phase of its work to help businesses and organizations weather the global pandemic. • Use of these funds for specific projects has been approved by the City of Orillia Emergency Management Committee (EMC). • The ERTF has utilized funding to develop and implement two phases of a Shop Local initiative, along with programs to assist local businesses in pivoting to digital and online marketing and promotion and for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the 2020 See You on the Patio program.

I:\BD&C Temp\Economic Recovery Task Force\Reports\ERTF Funding report.Jan.24.2021\210126 - ERTF Funding Report Final.doc Page 73 of 78

• The ERTF received further Council budget approval for a 2021 See You on the Patio Program, which includes signage, marketing and an animation program. • As the pandemic has led to a prolonged crisis with significant and lingering effects on local businesses, additional funding is required by the ERTF for immediate and impending assistance measures. • There have been several reports of business closures in recent weeks and months, and the most recent lockdown as part of the Provincial State of Emergency threatens the ability of many other businesses to survive through the coming months. • The ERTF continues to monitor and consult with local business and to research and develop measures which can assist local business through these trying times. • A revived Shop Local campaign is currently being developed for launch to coincide with the lifting of the provincial stay-at-home order currently in effect. • Other assistance measures continue to be considered and will require funding to develop and implement. • As the Province moves towards easing the most recent COVID-19 restrictions, the ERTF will continue to focus on assisting local businesses and organizations to return to operation while adhering to the Provincial guidelines for safe operation.

Options & Analysis

The ERTF presents the following options for consideration:

Option 1 – Recommended

The ERTF is currently monitoring the COVID-19-related business restrictions to assess what assistance may be provided to businesses to help them through this second lockdown.

While most retail-related businesses reported a strong December, it is clear that many businesses, especially small and locally owned businesses, are especially concerned about the impact this stay-at-home order will have on their bottom line.

It is equally clear that as travel is limited, and as Orillia has a high dependence on destination-based marketing, the ERTF’s assistance in encouraging residents to shop local will be crucial. The ERTF has developed a third phase of the Shop Local campaign that will focus on thanking residents for shopping local, demonstrating the impact this has had on local businesses, and encouraging residents to continue this patronage. The Shop Local sub-committee estimates that a budget of approximately $15,000 to $18,000 may be required to deliver an effective and multi-pronged marketing approach that includes billboard, radio and print once the stay-at-home orders are lifted. If the EMC approves the final project budget for this initiative, the remaining funds from the

I:\BD&C Temp\Economic Recovery Task Force\Reports\ERTF Funding report.Jan.24.2021\210126 - ERTF Funding Report Final.doc Page 74 of 78

previously approved allocation from the Social Assistance and Economic Recovery COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund would be depleted.

In addition to the Shop Local initiative, the ERTF is also exploring opportunities to assist businesses in accessing more of the available Provincial and Federal grants along with other opportunities to support businesses once the stay-at-home orders are lifted. Further, it is anticipated that additional measures may be required to address curbside pick-up requirements, support industries that have been hit particularly hard, and provide training/workshops for entrepreneurs who are looking to transition their business models as a result of COVID-19.

Rather than seeking Council approval for funding for each of these projects individually, the ERTF is recommending that Council allocate $60,000 to the ERTF for upcoming projects, provided that these projects are brought to the EMC for review, comment and budget approval. A similar arrangement was approved in early 2020 and has proved to be very efficient and productive.

The ERTF will also explore the opportunity to reallocate funds that have already been approved for ERTF projects to new opportunities that arise where funds remain available to do so.

The EMC meets on a more frequent basis than Council, and both the ERTF and EMC include Council members who can in turn provide a Council-based perspective on these initiatives. The ability to identify opportunities to assist businesses and receive approval quickly to implement these programs would allow the ERTF to be more efficient in supporting the community as information and restrictions change at a rapid pace.

The ERTF continues to meet on a weekly basis to ensure that we are monitoring new information and trends, sharing business feedback and keeping our efforts responsive to business needs.

Option 2

THAT this report be received as information.

This option is not recommended. If Council chooses this Option, the ERTF would be required to report to Council for the use of any additional money from the Social Assistance and Economic Recovery COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund on a per-project basis. The current reporting schedule (including report preparation, internal deadlines, and so forth) means that the ERTF may require several weeks in order to report on new opportunities to support businesses, gain funding approval, then implement programs. This is not conducive to the flexibility and speed required to deal with ever-changing COVID-19 regulations.

Financial Impact

To date, the ERTF has utilized funds as follows:

I:\BD&C Temp\Economic Recovery Task Force\Reports\ERTF Funding report.Jan.24.2021\210126 - ERTF Funding Report Final.doc Page 75 of 78

Project Component Total Approved Total Spent to Date Comments (approximate) Council Approved Funds See You on the Patio $87,000 $25,990 $50,000 was Campaign (2020) allocated for DTCIP related projects. Uptake on this was minimal (approximately $5,500). It is not recommended that these funds be reallocated to other ERTF projects. See You on the Patio $55,000 $0 Not yet implemented Campaign (2021) Shop Local $8,000* $0 *Reallocated from Campaign #3 Council approved funds for See You on the Patio Campaign which were unused. Not yet implemented. Total $142,000 $25,990 EMC approved (from original $60,000 allocation) Orillia Online $1,526 $1,500 Initiative Light Up Orillia $8,500 $8,500 Initiative Shop Local $36,725 $30,446 Campaigns #1 & #2 Masked Orillia $8,475 $4,150 Initiative Total $55,226 $44,596 Total $197,226 $70,586

If Council approves the recommended motion, $60,000 in funding would be appropriated from the Social Assistance and Economic Recovery COVID-19 Emergency Relief Fund. This fund has an approximate balance of $900,000.

Consultation

The EMC is supportive of Council allocating $60,000 to the ERTF for EMC to approve on a per-project basis that would allow for the expedient launch of initiatives to support Orillia’s local businesses during COVID-19.

I:\BD&C Temp\Economic Recovery Task Force\Reports\ERTF Funding report.Jan.24.2021\210126 - ERTF Funding Report Final.doc Page 76 of 78

Economic Development Impact

Business owners continue to experience significant impact to their businesses due to the recent Provincial restrictions that have been enacted to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

The approval of the recommendation within this report would enable the ERTF to continue to assist in promotional and other efforts as required to help with their survival.

Communications Plan

Staff from the Business Development, Culture and Tourism Department are members of the ERTF and will ensure that messaging related to ERTF initiatives are well communicated to the community.

Relation to Formal Plans, City of Orillia Policy Manual and/or Guiding Legislation

The recommendation included in this report is related to the following formal plans, the City of Orillia Policy Manual and/or guiding legislation: • City of Orillia Strategic Plan (Section 5.1 and 6.2) o 5.1. Promote a revitalized and vibrant downtown core which encourages citizens to contribute to businesses in this area. o 6.2. Deliver leading edge, efficient and effective services that are client-centric and business friendly.

Conclusion

Due to the ever-evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting restrictions, this provides the ERTF with the flexibility to respond accordingly by developing initiatives and programming, and efficiently reporting these proposals to EMC for consideration for funding.

It is anticipated that the proposed funds may be required to respond to the lifting of restrictions and may apply to initiatives related to changes in curbside parking provisions, programming to support industries that have been hit particularly hard, opportunities to ensure that businesses are tapping into available grants, as well as training and workshops to support businesses in pivoting their operations.

While this summarizes potential initiatives, the exact direction of the ERTF will be highly dependent upon yet-unknown changes in COVID-19-related policies, grants and restrictions.

Rather than seeking Council’s approval for funds for specific initiatives, the ERTF is recommending that Council allocate $60,000 in funding to the ERTF to be used upon approval of the EMC.

I:\BD&C Temp\Economic Recovery Task Force\Reports\ERTF Funding report.Jan.24.2021\210126 - ERTF Funding Report Final.doc Page 77 of 78

Schedules

N/A

Prepared by & Key Contact: Laura Thompson, CEc.D., Ec.D. Senior Manager of Business Development

On behalf of the Economic Recovery Task Force Councillor Ted Emond, Chair Ron Shulman, Mayor's appointee Ted Markle, Mayor's appointee Laura Thompson, City of Orillia Business Development, Culture and Tourism Department Dan Landry, City of Orillia Business Development, Culture and Tourism Department Michael Ladouceur, City of Orillia Business Development, Culture and Tourism Department Wendy Timpano, Orillia Area CDC Allan Lafontaine, Orillia District Chamber of Commerce Lisa Thomson-Roop, Downtown Orillia Management Board Kris Puhvel, Orillia and Lake Country Tourism Councillor David Campbell Councillor Ralph Cipolla

Approved by: Ted Emond, Chair, Economic Recovery Task Force

I:\BD&C Temp\Economic Recovery Task Force\Reports\ERTF Funding report.Jan.24.2021\210126 - ERTF Funding Report Final.doc Page 78 of 78