City’s proposed garbage policy doesn’t pass the smell test

You’ve no doubt heard that City staff have proposed changes to Ottawa’s garbage collection that would see the current policy of allowing six bags every two weeks replaced with an onerous and punitive bag-tagging system. Residents would be provided with 55 garbage tags annually, with additional tags available for purchase at a cost of $3 each. You’ve also likely heard that I am not in support of this proposed policy.

The policy as proposed is a service cut coupled with a tax hike, effectively reducing the amount of curbside garbage collection to roughly two bags every two weeks unless residents are able to pay for more. The policy will cost $3.5 million to implement and will operate at an estimated $1 million loss annually. For this, city staff estimate that Trail Road Landfill — which is running out of space — will have its life extended by about two years.

Is punishing residents during a time when many are struggling the right way to move forward? To me, the answer is an obvious no.

Up until this point, the City has failed to implement a long-term solution. This shortcoming should not be paid for by residents in the form of higher taxes for decreased service. This policy is unlikely to accomplish its goals with the worst offenders buying their way out rather than improving waste diversion. Moreover, the policy is likely to lead to an increase in illegal dumping.

At the Environment and Climate Change Committee meeting on Monday, there was significant debate over the policy as it is currently proposed, with many Councillors in opposition. To offer an alternative, I put forward a motion which proposes replacing the bag-tagging policy with a four-bags-no-tags policy.

This policy would reduce the biweekly garbage collection from six garbage items, unenforced, to four garbage items, enforced. It would look to create carve outs for residents who are negatively impacted, such as farmers and large families. By not mailing out tags, the policy that I proposed would generate significant savings that could go towards further improving waste diversion though education and communication.

I will be honest; going down to four garbage items is not my preferred solution. I would prefer to continue with the status quo at least until the City deals with multi-residential waste. However, such a solution would not pass at Council. Moreover, it is true that there are provincial targets for waste diversion which our City is obliged to meet; under the current policy, we’re falling well short of that. Rather than let the perfect be the enemy of the good, my motion was designed to nudge residents in the right direction.

Moreover, no matter how much waste we reduce and divert, the fact is that the landfill will run out of space. Our City needs a long-term solution.  Read about my motion with Councillor Hubley which directs staff to to explore long-term solutions, including waste-to-energy, and provide those solutions to Council.

My motion on curbside collection ended in a tie vote at committee and will go to Council for consideration on June 14, along with the originally proposed policy and a few other motions by other Council members that also ended in tie votes. This fight is far from over. After more than a decade of failed leadership, inaction and continued service cuts at a greater cost to taxpayers, now is not the time to punish residents for living here. I will continue to push for better outcomes for our communities.