Expanded return of containers | Far from the count

The return locations that were planned for the end of 2023 are still pending

The deployment of the final phase of Quebec’s new deposit system on beverage containers is experiencing delays and has funding problems, reveals an investigation by The Press. The organization created by the bottlers to manage it has not yet opened any of the new-style return locations that were expected from the end of 2023.

Quebec should have 200 of these places dedicated solely to the return of returnable containers on 1^er March 2025, when the deposit will be extended to all beverage containers from 100 mL to 2 L which are not yet returnable, such as glass wine bottles or multi-layer cardboard containers for milk and juice, and 400 d by 2026.

But with less than a year to go before the deadline, the Quebec Association for the Recovery of Beverage Containers (AQRCB), a private organization which was designated in October 2022 as manager of the new deposit system, under the principle of “extended responsibility producers”, is struggling to reach cruising speed.

The AQRCB obtained its first transformation permit on February 19, for the development of a place of return in Granby, following procedures during which it was called to order by the municipal administration. This is shown by the exchanges between the organization and the City, obtained by The Press under the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information.

“Several information on the nature of the work seems to be missing” in the permit application, dated January 30, 2024, wrote a municipal official in an email to the head of the AQRCB, on February 2, listing the documents to be provided, including one description of the work, a construction plan “signed and sealed by the architect” and plumbing, electrical and ventilation plans.

The AQRCB provided plans the following week, but they were neither signed nor sealed, “therefore not complete”, then notes the official in the file, who mentions that the organization also asked if it could begin the demolition existing premises before obtaining the permit, which was logically refused.

In mid-February, the AQRCB also obtained two “certificates of occupancy” from the borough of Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie, in Montreal, for the establishment of return locations in two separate locations on rue Beaubien – such a certificate is required to “carry out a commercial or industrial activity”, but does not constitute a permit to carry out work.

Steps are also underway with the Côte-des-Neiges–Notre-Dame-de-Grâce borough, but no permit has yet been issued, indicated the municipal administration.

The AQRCB, which refused to grant an interview to The Press to talk about the progress of the deployment of the new system, says he is unable to specify how many return locations under his responsibility will be open on 1^er March 2025.

Few leases signed

If the development of future places of return is slow, it is also because the rental procedures are still not advanced: the AQRCB has so far only signed seven leases, revealed to The Press Emmanuelle Géhin, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of the Société québécoise de Récupération et de Recycling (Recyc-Québec), to which the AQRCB reports.

Thus, 136 sites that can accommodate places of return have also been identified by the AQRCB, indicates M^me Géhin, who adds that “steps have been taken for 80%” of them.

The AQRCB aims to have 200 places assigned to return open on 1^er March 2025, but it has set a “floor” objective of 150 to 175 sites, specifies M^me Gehin.

“This will allow us to have enough return points [pour] “do not saturate the retailers”, which constitute the existing return locations, she explains, adding that all the return locations will be set up in buildings already constructed, which should speed up the process.

The AQRCB will still have to open more than one return location per working day for the rest of the year if it wants to reach its objective of 200 for the 1^er March, notes the CEO of Recyc-Québec, who says she does not know if the organization will succeed.

“I have the same questions as you,” she declared, still saying she had confidence in the AQRCB to succeed in phase two of the extension of the deposit, as it succeeded in phase one, last fall, despite some confusion¹.

The AQRCB now maintains that the first openings of places assigned to return will take place in the spring: “We do not wish to tell you more at the moment,” declared by email the representative of an external public relations firm refusing to be named, maintaining that announcements would be made “soon”.

Funding issues

The AQRCB is also struggling to find the necessary funds to complete the deployment of the expanded instructions, so much so that it had to ask the government to endorse it, in an “urgent request” for a financing guarantee submitted on February 27 to the ministry of the Environment, the Fight against Climate Change, Wildlife and Parks (MELCCFP).

She indicates that she faces “significant difficulties in securing the necessary financing [à sa mission] from financial institutions”, who are concerned about its ability to repay the loans taken out.

This concern would be attributable to the duration of the mandate of the AQRCB as manager of the deposit system, which is five years, as provided for in the reform adopted by the Legault government.

The AQRCB estimates “the scale of the initial investments necessary for the deployment of the deposit system” at 125 to 150 million dollars, which the ten million dollars paid to it by Recyc-Québec upon its designation does not cover so no.

The work to develop the Granby return location is, for example, estimated at $165,000, according to the information contained in the permit application.

Why did the AQRCB take more than 15 months to sound the alarm on this funding issue and to begin developing its places of return?

“That’s a good question,” replies the CEO of Recyc-Québec, who also asks herself.

1. Read the article “Expanded return of containers: confusing instructions”