State of Solid Waste Management Systems in Canada

2025

Technical Paper

Table of Contents

Notice to reader

Executive summary

Solid waste management systems in Canada

The state of solid waste management infrastructure

State of investment in solid waste management

State of solid waste management services in Canada

Are solid waste management systems prepared for the future?

Solid waste management and climate change

Conclusion

Notice to reader

Drawing from publicly available national data up to December 2024, the purpose of this working paper is to present a basic overview of the current state of solid waste in Canada. It aims to initiate a conversation on what infrastructure we have today, how it serves Canadians, and what other data or areas of research the Canadian Infrastructure Council (Council) should consider as it embarks on its work.

The infrastructure analysis in this report is grounded in national datasets compiled by Statistics Canada and other national sources. These sources offer consistent methodologies, transparency, regular updates, and comprehensive coverage—essential for meaningful national comparisons and informed decision-making across the country. However, provinces, territories, municipalities, and Indigenous organizations could maintain their own infrastructure databases, tailored to local policy needs, regulatory requirements, and operational priorities. These jurisdiction-specific datasets often provide a higher level of detail, enable real-time monitoring, and support local innovation in planning and program delivery.

The paper was prepared as a backgrounder to support the Council. It reflects input from Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities Canada, Statistics Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Indigenous Services Canada, and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada. The paper is not part of the first National Infrastructure Assessment that is under development by the Council.

Executive summary

Solid waste, commonly known as garbage and recyclables, is generated by nearly every Canadian. Effective solid waste management services are as essential as utilities for ensuring that homes and businesses are operating smoothly. These services also play a critical environmental role in ensuring that waste does not pollute the land and water around us. In this context, the quality of service refers to the ability to manage waste through the landfill, incineration, recycling, or repurposing organic material, ideally through the latter two. Waste generation is influenced not only by population and economic growth, but also by consumption patterns and the rate of diversion of waste from landfills and incineration, which has improved nationally from 21.6% in 2002 to 27.1% in 2022.

While all levels of government own solid waste management assets, municipal governments play the largest role in owning and operating these facilities, either directly, or indirectly through the private sector. However, the approval to operate waste management facilities is regulated by provincial and territorial authorities. Additionally, federal, provincial and territorial governments provide funding for solid waste management projects and collaborate through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) to set voluntary environmental standards, including those relevant to municipal solid waste (MSW).

Canadians pay for solid waste management services both directly, through fees and levies, and indirectly, through government grants and municipal general revenue like property taxes. In 2022, Canadian governments spent $117 per capita on solid waste management services, relatively low compared to the $308 per capita spent on water and wastewater services.

Existing publicly owned solid waste assets are generally rated as being in good or very good physical condition, suggesting no immediate concerns in the near term for existing infrastructure. However, this does not reflect the capacity of these assets, nor whether future investments will be required due to factors like the introduction of extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation, which would call for increased private investment in waste diversion infrastructure.

At current waste disposal rates, some Canadian communities may face the challenge of insufficient capacity in their solid waste management systems to meet growing demand. Population growth will further increase the need to either reduce waste disposal per capita, reduce the proportion of waste sent to landfill and incineration, expand landfill or incinerator capacity, or a combination of these measures. Although national data on landfill capacity is not available, provincial and municipal documents indicate that Ontario and parts of Quebec are within a decade of possibly running out of existing authorized landfill capacity. Northern and remote communities also face unique challenges related to both cost and capacity.

Similar to other types of infrastructure, climate change will require solid waste management systems to consider both greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation methods and adaptation measures. In 2022, landfills contributed 2.74% of GHG emissions in Canada, owing to the potent warming impact of the methane released from decomposing organic waste, which has 86 times more global warming potential than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As well, changes in precipitation patterns may require climate adaptation measures to manage additional landfill leachate generation. Although it remains uncertain what measures may be required and to what extent.

Solid waste management systems in Canada

Solid waste management refers to the process of collecting and disposing of waste. It is also an environmental service, as it safely disposes of waste that would otherwise leach chemicals and pathogens into the environment. Municipal solid waste (MSW) refers to recyclables and compostable materials, as well as garbage from households, businesses, and institutions.

The solid waste management process starts in every home and business, where waste is sorted, bagged, or placed in bins for collection or direct transport to facilities. Once collected from households, businesses and institutions, the waste is taken to transfer stations, where it is unloaded and redirected to treatment or disposal facilities. Waste may be separated at the source (termed “source separated”) or, less commonly, separated at facilities designed to sort waste intended for diversion from that destined for disposal.

Source separated organic waste is sent to composting and anaerobic digestion facilities. Composting organic (or biodegradable) waste, such as food and yard waste, is a very effective method of diverting a large part of MSW from landfill, with added benefits such as the reduction of methane emissions and leachate production in landfills. The finished composting materials can also then be used as a product, such as fertilizer. Similarly, processing organic waste in anaerobic digestion, sometimes called “biogas systems,” involves organic materials being broken down by micro-organisms in the absence of oxygen,[1] resulting in the production of biogas, which consists primarily of methane and carbon dioxide, and nutrient rich digestate.

As for waste sent to incineration, its volume can be reduced by 90%, but the ash produced throughout the process is also sent to landfill. Modern incinerators, whose emissions are regulated by provincial and territorial governments, are equipped with advanced air pollution controls and can include technologies that remove 99% of the dioxins and furans emitted from the process.[2]

Finally, landfilling remains the primary method of municipal waste disposal in Canada. Modern MSW landfills are designed to minimize the impacts on the environment as much as possible. For example, modern landfills collect and treat leachate, the rainwater that accumulates and becomes contaminated as it travels through waste. When equipped with the proper equipment, landfills can also capture methane, which can then be used for energy production.

Communities and solid waste management challenges

Northern and remote communities face unique challenges in solid waste management, including limited access to training and human capital, dependence on fewer ways to transport materials and equipment, and higher per capita costs overall. These communities may have limited or no access to recycling programs, hazardous household waste disposal options or properly designed waste management facilities. This results in environmental and health risks for northern communities, especially when open waste burning is used as a disposal method. These communities may also face greater challenges in accessing solid waste services, such as relying on a single route to reach the only available landfill site, which could then be blocked by flooding or forest fires. Many remote communities are also First Nations, who, according to the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), face a substantial infrastructure gap with the rest of Canada, including for solid waste management infrastructure.[3]

Communities across the country also face challenges related to the sustainability of solid waste management systems. Although landfills are a cost-effective way of managing solid waste, they do not result in resource efficiency, as a considerable portion of the waste disposed could have been reused, recycled or composted. The nature of the Canadian economy makes landfilling more ideal than recycling in many cases, as both landfilling and raw materials are relatively affordable in Canada. Canada’s economy is estimated to have 6.1% circularity, which is the share of waste materials that re-enter the economy. This is significantly lower than France (18.8%) and the European Union (EU) (11.5%), indicating room for improvement.[4]

Canada is home to over 1,500 active landfills, the majority of which are small and service the many rural communities across the country.[5] Although in theory there is no shortage of land for new landfill sites, environmental, social and legal considerations limit what areas can be developed into landfills. Potential landfills and incinerators are highly contested as businesses and residents do not want them close by. Moreover, provincial regulations require proponents wishing to establish landfill sites to comply with environmental standards and regulations, conduct environmental assessments, and conduct public consultation. While these regulations add another layer to the process, they promote transparency and the interest of locals. For communities whose landfills do not have the capacity to meet daily waste demand, waste can be transported to facilities outside their jurisdiction, both domestically and internationally.

Solid waste management governance

Waste management is a shared jurisdiction in Canada, wherein each level of government has a role in solid waste management systems, including as a funder, regulator, planner, owner and/or operator. Different levels of government have different jurisdictional roles related to waste management, however, there are also many areas of shared responsibility.

For First Nations communities, on-reserve waste management systems are regulated by the federal government through the Indian Reserve Waste Disposal Regulations. These regulations provide the Minister authority to issue permits for operation of disposal sites and the burning of waste[6], although, they are broadly acknowledged as ineffective.[7] First Nations communities also have Municipal Type Service Agreements (MTSA)[8], which are not exclusive to waste management services but can include a formal arrangement for municipalities to collect, haul and/or accept solid waste from communities.

Municipal governments also manage the collection, recycling, composting, and disposal of household waste, and they may set bylaws related to solid waste collection and recycling. However, municipalities do not always manage the waste directly as it is often managed by the waste management industry under contract to municipal or regional authorities or managed by municipal authorities directly. The waste management industry provides services under contract to industrial, commercial or institutional waste generators.[9] Employment in this industry by the private sector accounted for most of employment (78%) in waste collection and treatment in 2018, the last year for which this data is available.[10]

Provinces and territories hold primary jurisdiction over waste management within their respective environments. Landfills and incinerators receiving municipal solid waste are primarily regulated and managed by provincial and territorial authorities. Each province and territory has its own legislation and regulations. Generally, provincial and territorial authorities establish waste reduction policies and programs, and they approve, oversee and regulate waste management facilities and operations like treatment, disposal, and recycling. For example, Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks administers regulations that govern waste collection, storage, and transportation within the province, such as the Waste-Free Ontario Act which holds producers accountable for the management and disposal of product and packaging waste.[11]

For its part, the federal government complements the activities of other levels of government by controlling international and interprovincial movements of hazardous waste and hazardous recyclable material, as well as identifying approaches and best practices that will reduce pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the management of waste. The federal government also ensures that Canada complies with international waste management standards and agreements, like the Basel Convention, which govern the cross-border movement of hazardous and other wastes through its “Prior Informed Consent” (PIC) provisions. These provisions must be fulfilled before any waste export shipments are approved.[12]

Through a wide variety of programs, the federal government also provides funding for pilot projects, community activities and major infrastructure in order to reduce waste sent to landfills and improve how Canada manages its resources. It also collaborates with provincial, territorial, municipal and Indigenous partners to develop and implement standards on matters of mutual concern such as the management of plastics and mercury from used fluorescent lights.[13] Under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), environment ministers from the federal, provincial and territorial governments work together to improve waste reduction policies and practices across Canada.[14] The CCME has developed Canada-wide standards for landfill leachate and the emissions of hazardous pollutants like dioxins, furans, and mercury from waste incineration processes.[15] Canada-wide Standards (CWS) lend themselves to achievement through voluntary action, or through compliance with regulated or legally. enforceable limits.[16]

The state of solid waste management infrastructure

The Canada Core Public Infrastructure (CCPI) Survey provides data on the stock and condition of publicly owned solid waste management infrastructure in Canada. This includes the multiple components of publicly owned solid waste infrastructure, such as waste disposal facilities, waste diversion facilities and transfer stations. However, this data does not include rolling stock assets for solid waste, such as garbage trucks and tractors.

Though CCPI definitions are not available at the time of writing, the Waste Management Survey includes the following definitions of waste disposal facilities and processes. Note, these may not align directly with CCPI but are provided here for context.

• Transfer station: a facility at which wastes transported by vehicles involved in collection are transferred to other vehicles that will transport the wastes to a disposal (landfill or incinerator) or recycling facilities.
• Energy from waste (EFW): any waste treatment that creates energy in the form of electricity or heat from a waste source. Most EFW processes produce electricity directly through combustion, or produce a combustible fuel commodity, such as methane, methanol, ethanol or synthetic fuels.
• Incineration (thermal treatment): Incineration, in the context of waste, refers to the burning of waste. Incineration of waste materials converts the waste into incinerator bottom ash, flue gases, particulates, and heat, which can in turn be used to generate electric power. Most jurisdictions in Canada consider incineration to be disposal.
• Landfill: a site, on land, that is used primarily for the disposal of waste materials. The contents of landfills can include garbage, which is not processed, and also residual material from processing operations (e.g., material recovery facility residues, incinerator ash, organic processing residues).
• Material Recycling Facility (MRF): A facility where materials that are collected for recycling are prepared or processed. The preparation or processing can include sorting, baling, cleaning, crushing, volume reduction and storing until shipment.
• Anaerobic digestion: a series of processes in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen.
• Composting: an aerobic biological treatment process used most frequently in Canada at this time for management of biodegradable waste such as leaf and yard waste or food wastes. See also anaerobic digestion.[17]

Though waste diversion facilities have become more common, most solid waste management assets are involved in the transfer and disposal of waste. As of 2020, data from CCPI indicated that Canada’s stock of publicly owned solid waste infrastructure assets included roughly 1,640 transfer stations, 400 material recovery facilities, 290 composting facilities, 20 incinerators, 20 energy-from-waste facilities and 20 anaerobic digestion facilities.

In 2020, the majority of publicly owned solid waste management assets were reported by municipalities to be in good or very good physical condition. The majority (77%) of energy-from-waste plants, a type of waste disposal facility, were reported to be in good or very good condition. Other waste disposal facilities, such as engineered landfills and dump sites whose condition is more difficult to describe or is subjective, were reported to be in good or very good condition in 47% and 66% of cases, respectively. Most waste diversion assets, including roughly 70% of composting facilities and 80% of material recovery facilities were also reported to be in good or very good condition. The same is true of transfer stations (71%).

Figure 1: Roughly 70% of material recovery (recycling), composting and energy-from-waste facilities are in good or very good condition (2020)

Note: This table is sourced from StatsCan’s CCPI. Table: 34-10-0240-01 (2022-10-28) Inventory distribution of publicly owned solid waste assets by physical condition rating, Infrastructure Canada.

Following the rating scale used in CCPI, the share of assets in poor and very poor condition are more telling of the need to renew or replace infrastructure in the short term. Only dump sites (12.7%) and engineered landfills (6.2%) had over 5% of assets reported to be in poor or very poor condition. Assessing the meaning of this is made more difficult for these assets, as describing the condition of landfills is potentially subjective. No energy-from-waste, incinerators or anaerobic digestion facilities were rated as being in poor or very poor condition. Although, these did have higher levels of assets in unknown condition than the other asset classes. However, this figure is only above 20% in the case of incinerators (26%), indicating that we understand the condition of the overall stock for this asset with less certainty, rather than its stock necessarily being in poor condition.[18] Overall, this indicates that solid waste management assets are not in critical need of replacement due to deteriorating physical condition.

With the exception of incinerators, assets that are most commonly in good and very good condition tend to have large amounts of stock built more recently. A large portion of waste diversion assets, such as composting (40%) and material recovery facilities (42%) were built in or after 2010. This is also true of transfer stations (34%) and waste-to-energy facilities (60%).

Figure 2: Incinerators and dump sites are the only asset classes with a significant portion built before 2000

Note: This table is sourced from StatsCan’s CCPI. Note that figures for incinerators built or purchased in 2010-18 are not published due to poor quality but 10% were built or purchased in 2000-18. A portion of incinerators are unaccounted in the figure due to data quality issues for assets completed in 2000 to 2009. Table: 34-10-0238-01 (2022-10-28) Inventory of publicly owned solid waste assets by year of completed construction, Infrastructure Canada.

Excluding engineered landfills, dumpsites and closed sites, 38% of solid waste management assets were built after 2009. This figure is highest in Newfoundland and Labrador (62%) and Saskatchewan (56%), largely from new transfer stations and new composting facilities in Saskatchewan. In contrast, waste disposal assets tend to be older. Fewer dump sites (16%) have been built since 2010, likely reflecting increased investment into modern, engineered landfills, of which 27% were built in the same period. Though age is not necessarily of concern to engineered landfills, dump sites and closed sites, as the number of years remaining for these sites to operate reflect the amount of waste disposed of, rather than the condition of structures or rolling stock on site.[19]

Of public organizations that own solid waste assets, the share that have asset management plans for them has improved since data was first collected in 2016, rising from 19% to 46% in 2020. This share is highest in Yukon (73%), Ontario (72%) and New Brunswick (58%).

Figure 3: The share of solid waste management asset owners with an asset management plan has improved considerably since 2016

Note: This graph shows the amount of solid waste management asset owners that have an asset management plan for these assets. Sources from StatsCan’s CCPI. Table 34-10-0269-01 Municipal organizations with a documented asset management plan, by core infrastructure assets, by urban and rural, and population size, Infrastructure Canada, inactive.[20]

State of investment in solid waste management

Though solid waste management is a labour-intensive sector, capital investment is also critical to providing services. This requires investment in renewing and replacing existing stock to keep them in a state of good repair, as well as investing in new technologies and facilities to improve waste diversion, efficiency and emissions reductions.

The Infrastructure Economic Account (INFEA) includes estimated public and private investment in solid waste disposal facilities, but not all solid waste facilities. Some facilities, such as transfer stations, may not be disaggregated or included in these estimates. Comparing 2022 investment in solid waste facilities, as noted in INFEA, with investment in the broader waste management category found in the Capital Expenditure and Repair Expenditure Survey, investment in solid waste disposal facilities accounts for roughly 75% of waste management capital spending.[21]

Since 1981, investment in solid waste disposal facilities has been volatile but has increased overall. On average, Canada has spent 0.03% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on solid waste disposal infrastructure, including contributions from the private sector, all levels of government and Indigenous communities. The net stock of these assets is estimated to be worth $1.16 billion. Investment in solid waste disposal facilities reached $654 million in 2023, which is equivalent to $16 per capita. This accounted for 0.59% of total infrastructure investment in 2023. The national average annual growth rate was roughly 12% between 2004 and 2023, with Quebec accounting for the largest share of growth owing to substantial investment growth starting in 2017.

The economic impact of investment in solid waste disposal facilities is proportionately comparable to other types of infrastructure investment. In 2023, investment in solid waste disposal facilities added $278 million directly to GDP and $232 million indirectly, roughly equivalent to 0.66% of total value added from all private and public infrastructure investment. This investment created an estimated 2,200 direct and 1,900 indirect jobs.

Figure 4: Most investments in solid waste disposal facilities is public, but the private sector plays a growing role, accounting for 40.3% of investment in 2023

Note: This graph shows the estimated total annual investment in solid waste disposal facilities. 2003–2017 is presented as an average as investment levels in years before 2018 are estimates. Sourced from StatsCan’s INFEA. Table: 36-10-0608-01 (2024-06-14) Infrastructure Economic Accounts, investment and net stock by assets, industry, and asset function.

While the majority of solid waste disposal infrastructure investment is public, private investment has come to make up a substantial part of the total, reaching 40.8% in 2023. The growth rate of private investment has outpaced public investment since 2017, with the private sector having represented a greater share of solid waste management investment in recent years.[22] Most of the jobs in solid waste collection and disposal have historically been and continue to be in the private sector, representing roughly 78% of solid waste management employment from 2002 to 2018. The sector is highly fragmented, with the four largest firms controlling a combined 14% of assets.[23] This may be due to the sector being considered to have a moderate barrier to entry with steady revenue.

Figure 5: The remaining useful life ratio (RULR) of waste disposal facilities is stable and above 50% in most provinces and territories

Note: This graph shows the estimated average remaining useful life in years of public and private. StatsCan’s INFEA. Table: 36-10-0611-01 (2024-06-14) Infrastructure Economic Accounts, average age and remaining useful service life ratio by asset and asset function.[24]

The remaining useful life ratio (RULR) is an estimate of the average number of years a stock of assets has left before needing to be repaired or replaced, divided by its average expected service life, creating a ratio that indicates the percentage of the asset class that remains useful. It reflects the aging of assets and investment in repairing, replacing and adding assets, such as when a new solid waste disposal facility is built. A declining RULR may indicate that more investment is needed.

The RULR for solid waste disposal facilities is above 50%, on average, nationally. Quebec’s RULR is relatively high, owing to increased investment since 2016. The average remaining useful life is above 50% in most provinces and territories, except in Yukon and Prince Edward Island. Though it is likely that individual projects skew the RULR more in Yukon and Prince Edward Island, given that they have fewer assets. This is not to say that investment is not needed to improve the ability of existing solid waste assets to function. The RULR shows investment compared to existing stock but does not account for investment shortfalls related to enhancing assets. For example, it would not account for any needs related to meeting changes in legislation or regulation or initiatives to improve operations, such as reduced contamination or GHG emissions.

In addition to private enterprises that own and operate waste collection and disposal businesses, some municipalities have leveraged private capital to deliver solid waste management infrastructure through public-private partnerships (P3s). In some facilities, the private sector is involved in the treatment process as well as the end product, such as the sale of fertilizer produced from organic waste. Since 2013, seven P3s solid waste management projects with a combined value of $1.25 billion have been undertaken in Canada, of which four were supported by the P3 Canada Fund.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) works with the private sector to crowd in capital for infrastructure projects. For example, the Enerkem Varennes Carbon Recycling in Varennes, Quebec aims to build North America’s largest green hydrogen electrolyzer to convert non-recyclable waste and residual biomass into biofuels and circular chemicals. This project supports renewable energy and innovation and Canada’s aim to be a net zero by 2050. The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) has committed $277 million towards this project, with 44% of investment coming from the private sector. Construction has already begun, and commercial output is expected to start in 2025.[25]

Municipalities and other publicly owned solid waste management entities use a range of revenue sources to fund the solid waste management system. Property taxes may fund solid waste management, either as general property taxes or a portion earmarked for this service. In addition to this, there are a variety of other revenue sources used to varying degrees across the country, such as:

• Waste management fees collected on utility bill payments (e.g., user fees);
• Waste management fees received from municipal levies;
• Sale of recyclable materials;
• Provision of waste management services to businesses on contract;
• Tipping fees received from businesses;
• Royalties received for hosting a waste disposal facility;
• Grants, interest-free loans, federal or provincial non-tax-based revenues; and
• Other non-tax revenues for waste management (e.g., sale of composters).

The public cost to deliver solid waste management services is relatively low compared to the combined cost of drinking water and wastewater services. In 2022, Canadian governments spent roughly $117 per capita on solid waste (3.1% of general public service spending), $102 of which came from provincial, territorial and municipal governments.[26] In comparison, Canadian governments spent $99 per capita on wastewater management and $209 on water supply.

Though there is no national database from which to estimate cost per unit, academic research estimates the average cost of solid waste disposal in 2016 to be $274 per tonne, a 53.7% increase since 1998.[27] Adjusting for inflation, this is roughly $342 per tonne in 2024 dollars.[28] On a per capita basis, user fees were lowest in Alberta and Saskatchewan in this period while fees were higher in Nova Scotia and Ontario.[29] This appears to be consistent into 2024, as Toronto’s solid waste management fees ranged from $295 to $565 ,while the annual impact of solid waste management fees on the average household was expected to be $194 in Regina.[30]

A 2021 report from the Canadian Council of Academies found that solid waste services are subsidized, as fees are not high enough to cover the full cost of the service.[31] However, there is a lack of data on fee charges in total and on average across the country. Statistics Canada data does provide operating revenue, operating expenditure and capital expenditure for local government solid waste management for a limited set of years. As of 2018, the last year for which there is data, 82% of municipal solid waste management expenditure was met by solid waste management operating revenue, indicating that solid waste systems are also reliant on grants and general revenue.[32] This does indicate that solid waste fees alone are insufficient to cover the cost of the service. Though, this gap may be somewhat reduced by the sale of waste products, including recyclable materials and methane from landfills. Also, this is not what is shown in a sample of cities as of 2024, as operating revenue from solid waste services roughly meets or exceeds planned operating spending in several large municipalities, as shown in figure 6.

Figure 6: In a sample of cities, 2024 waste management municipal revenue is budgeted to meet or exceed operating expenditure but is not a significant part of overall revenue on average ($M)

Note: This is sourced from the municipal budget documents of the respective municipalities.

Solid waste fees and spending vary across the country, and without more recent data, it is unclear if solid waste fees continue to be below the cost of service. Though reporting is inconsistent across municipalities, a sample of 2024 municipal budgets shows that most expected solid waste management revenue will meet or exceed capital spending. Though an exception to this, the City of Ottawa indicated that $128M was allocated to solid waste initiatives in 2024 to 2027, making it unclear if revenue is expected to match demand in the future. While some data exists at the national level, municipal spending figures exist through Statistics Canada’s Canadian Government Finance Statistics (CGFS) and Canadian Classification of government Function (CCFOG), which include solid waste expenditure but not revenue. This makes it difficult to know for certain if the variety of revenue streams designed specifically for solid waste services are insufficient on average. As such, it is difficult to paint a national picture without a national collection of solid waste revenue and expenditure, including cost per unit.

In the case that solid waste management fees need to be raised to properly reflect the cost of the service, it may not have a substantial impact on local governments, except in the case of an extreme increase. Total public and private investment in solid waste disposal facilities does not make up a substantial portion of overall infrastructure investment, representing less than 1% of total investment in all assets.[33] In comparison, waterworks infrastructure investment represented roughly 4.2% of investment in 2023. Similarly, provincial and municipal governments spend less than 1% of total spending on solid waste management services[34] while 1% of public capital funding is allocated to waste management.[35]

State of solid waste management services in Canada

In 2022, 26.6 million tonnes of waste were either sent to landfill or incinerated in Canada. To put this into perspective, it is the equivalent of the weight of 225 CN towers being discarded annually.[36] Although, it has been argued that Canadians generate a disproportionate amount of solid waste, data limitations make it difficult to be certain.

When comparing solid waste statistics, Canada produces more solid waste per capita compared to other OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. Canada is ranked 11^th in the world and produces 1.2% of global waste, despite making up 0.5% of the global population.[37] However, OECD data does not include privately collected waste, while Canadian data does. As such, comparing Canadian municipal waste disposal figures to international data is challenging. In 2020, waste disposed per capita across OECD members, which excludes Canada, was 533.7 kg.[38] Canadians disposed of 684 kg per capita in 2022.[39] In comparison, per capita waste disposal was 6% higher than that of Germans (641 kg) and 18% lower than that of Americans (811 kg). Though, Canadians dispose of more waste per capita than the global average, it is unclear how far they are from their OECD counterparts.

Figure 7: Annual waste disposal per capita (Kg/person) varies by province, with the most improvement coming from high waste per capita provinces like Alberta

Note: This data is from Environment and Climate Change Canada and includes HICC calculations. Not all provinces and territories are shown to ensure that the readability of the figure. Table: 38-10-0032-01 (formerly CANSIM 153-0041) (2024-07-02) Disposal of waste, by source, and Table: 17-10-0005-01 (formerly CANSIM 051-0001) (2024-09-25) Population estimates on July 1, by age and gender.[40]

Canadians disposed of roughly 26.6 million tonnes of solid waste in 2022, up 10.5% from 2002. Following a peak in 2018, the total quantity of waste disposed has shown a declining trend – in 2022, decreasing 1.3% from 2020 and 4.4% from 2012 levels. Of the disposed waste, most (97%) is sent to landfill while the rest is incinerated.[41]

Figure 8: Canadians sent 72.5% of solid waste to landfill and incineration in 2022, with the rest being diverted, a figure that improved between 2002 and 2018 but has since slowed

Note: This figure shows the percentage of solid waste that is diverted from landfills and incineration by sources. For 2022, residential and non-residential data is not yet available at time of writing. From Statistics Canada with HICC calculations. Table: 38-10-0138-01 (2024-04-08) Waste materials diverted, by type and by sources; Table: 38-10-0032-01 (formerly CANSIM 153-0041) (2024-07-02) Disposal of waste, by sources.

Municipalities across Canada diverted 9.9 million tonnes of waste from landfills in 2022, up 3.3 million tonnes (49%) from 2002.[42] Waste that is not disposed of in landfills or incinerators are diverted through recycling, composting, anaerobic digestion or other processes. As seen in Figure 8, the share of waste diverted has improved since 2002, but not since 2016, indicating that the amount of waste diverted has grown at the same rate as the amount of total waste generated since then. In 2022, 27.1% of solid waste generated in Canada was diverted from landfills or incinerated, up from 21.6% in 2002. From 2002 to 2022, per capita waste diverted improved by 20% to 254 kg (+42 kg) while per capita waste disposal declined 11% to 684 kg (-81 kg), indicating that diversion did not account for the entirety of this decline.[43] From 2002 to 2020, residential waste has made the most improvement over this period, rising from 24.8% to 32.2%, while non-residential waste diversion increased from 19.8% to 21.7%.[44]

Figure 9: Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and British Columbia are leaders in waste diversion

Note: This data shows the percentage of waste that is diverted from landfills and incineration. Only 2018 and 2020 data are available for PEI. The territories are not shown due to limited data over this period. From Statistics Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada. Table: 38-10-0138-01 (2024-04-08) Waste materials diverted, by type and by source: Table: 38-10-0032-01 (formerly CANSIM 153-0041) (2024-07-02) Disposal of waste, by source.[45]

Waste diversion rates vary by province and territory.[46] With a 2020 diversion rate of 51%, PEI diverts more waste than it sends to landfill and incineration. In 2022, Nova Scotia (42.9%) and British Columbia (38.4%) also had high waste diversion rates. Newfoundland and Labrador (11.4%) and Saskatchewan (17.9%) had the lowest diversion rates. From 2002 to 2022, the diversion rate improved in every province and territory for which there is data. The most progress has been made in Nova Scotia, where the diversion rate improved by 9.9%, from 33% to 43% of waste being diverted. Over the same period, Quebec (+8.5%), British Columbia (+7.2%) and Ontario (+5.2%) also showed improvements. This may indicate a relationship between solid waste management spending and higher diversion rates as Saskatchewan has one of the lowest spending per tonne on average while Nova Scotia has one of the highest.[47]

Figure 10: Organics represent most of the waste that was diverted in 2022

Note: This graph shows the share of types of solid waste that are diverted, not disposed of, with types of solid waste that make up less than 1% of the total removed. Construction includes renovation and demolition waste. Sourced from Statistics Canada Table: 38-10-0138-01 (2024-04-08) Waste materials diverted, by type and by source.

Are solid waste management systems prepared for the future?

Canada’s future infrastructure needs will be tied heavily to major trends reshaping communities, particularly population growth and climate change. The preparedness of Canada’s solid waste systems to accommodate population growth, adapt to climate impacts, and reduce GHG emissions remains uncertain.

Capacity of the solid waste management system

Canada’s growing population is expected to place increasing demands on infrastructure systems, including solid waste infrastructure. Canada’s population has been growing at a rapid pace in recent years, reaching almost 37 million in 2021, an increase of 5.2% from 2016. A higher population means more demand for solid waste management services. Despite this rise in population, unlike other types of infrastructure, the higher density in communities does not significantly affect the costs of waste management services. Research from the Halifax Regional Municipality suggests that the cost difference between urban cores and rural areas is less than 10%.[48]

Though the cost of providing new solid waste services and assets is unlikely to be an obstacle in accommodating population growth, near-term capacity could be. Reports from Ontario and Quebec indicate that landfills will reach existing authorized capacity within a decade. Consequently, since this includes Toronto and Ottawa, roughly a quarter of Ontario’s residents live in communities that have highlighted potential landfill existing authorized capacity challenges within a decade. In both Quebec and Nunavut’s remote and northern communities, capacity challenges are more so related to the added cost.

In Canada’s Arctic and Subarctic communities, adding new capacity of modern waste management facilities is cost prohibitive. The cost of closing the existing landfill in Rankin Inlet was noted as a challenge to opening the new one in 2021.[49] These challenges go beyond cost to including logistics, climate, capacity of facilities, and a lack of skills training and personnel due to the remoteness and size of these communities.[50] In Schefferville, a regional hub in Quebec’s far north, waste is burned at least once a week to reduce the amount of chemicals leaching into groundwater.[51] As the landfill site is not equipped to manage leachate, there is a trade-off as both burning waste and leachate have an impact on local communities and environment. As of 2022, 10 of Quebec’s 17 most remote communities had filled over 75% of their landfill space, four of which were over capacity, indicating that waste had to be stored elsewhere, or the landfill was expanded beyond its approved capacity.[52]

A 2023 report indicated that Ontario is expected to run out of landfill capacity for municipal solid waste between 2032-35.[53] The same report highlighted that the provincial government had not implemented an action plan to divert organic and food waste or implement green procurement practices to create demand for recovered materials. From 2017 to 2022, per capita waste generation in Ontario increased by 5%, reaching 925.5 kg per person. Over the next decade, expanding disposal and processing infrastructure is likely to be needed to accommodate Ontario’s growing communities.

In 2022, the Government of Quebec identified that several communities could face of local landfills reaching capacity within ten years. With waste disposal volumes remaining at 2019 levels and no new capacity added to existing landfills, 9 of the Quebec’s 38 engineered landfill sites are projected to reach capacity before 2030, and 13 by 2040. Only 16 sites are expected to maintain residual capacity after 2041. This is particularly concerning as engineered landfills account for 92% of disposed waste in Quebec. Some landfills may reach capacity by 2025, while those many of those close to Metro Montreal would reach capacity by 2030 to 2040.[54]

Of British Columbia’s most populous districts, only the City of Vancouver, which serves other municipalities in Metro Vancouver as well, has highlighted having used most of its existing authorized landfill capacity. As of 2023, the City of Vancouver’s landfill had used over 75% of its capacity.[55] Though the most recent annual landfill report does not estimate the number of years of capacity remaining, total estimated capacity fell by roughly 800 thousand tonnes in 2023, indicating that the remaining 4.9 million tonnes (Mt) of capacity would be used within ten years.[56] This may not be a concern, as Metro Vancouver does intend to ship more waste to the US and BC interior.[57] Recent waste management plans for other districts in British Columbia have noted decades of remaining life. For example, the Capital Regional District’s largest site has capacity until 2045 and could be extended to 2100 by expanding the landfill area within the current site.

If alternatives cannot be found, new landfills may need to be added to service these communities. Currently, it takes close to a decade to locate a suitable site, obtain a permit, and open a new landfill or incinerator. Regulations vary by province and territory, but all solid waste management facilities must be designed to meet environmental standards and be acceptable to the public. It takes five to ten years for a new waste management facility to be approved in Ontario.[58] This estimate may not include other parts of the process to bring these sites into operation, such as construction and commissioning.[59]

It is unclear to what extent new landfill space will be required to meet future demand as there are many factors to consider. Diverting more waste from landfills may play a key role in extending capacity. There are initiatives at every level of government to achieve this. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) set an aspirational waste reduction goal, to reduce per capita waste disposal per capita, by 30% below 2014 levels by 2030 and by 50% by 2040.[60] Similarly, the introduction of extended producer responsibility legislation could improve diversion by incentivizing products and packaging that are biodegradable or more easily recycled. This may reduce waste disposal per capita, though, the exact amount that could potentially be reduced is unclear.

On the other hand, if non-residential waste diversion were to increase by the 6% needed to be on par with the residential diversion rate, this alone would reduce waste disposal by roughly 4.48%.[61] In 2022, it was estimated that 47% of waste sent to the Hartland Landfill on Vancouver Island could have been diverted through existing programs, with 23% being compostable and 26% recyclable, including recyclables that would need to be dropped off to specialized depots.[62] Quebec aims to increase the rate of organic material recycling to 60%, a drastic improvement from 2018 levels (27%).[63] There may be opportunities to increase diversion with existing capacity. A 2020 consultant report found that organic processing facilities used 64% of capacity in 2017, 74% in Eastern Canada and 52% in the West.[64]

Even without improved diversion rates, it is not clear that any gap in publicly owned landfill space within Canada will be of concern as solid waste could be sent to private landfills or exported. Municipalities in Ontario and Metro Vancouver use private sector landfill capacity in Canada and the United States to take pressure off of their own landfills. For example, the City of Ottawa estimates that its existing landfill capacity will be extended from ending in 2034 to 2048 by increasing diversion and sending 30% of waste to private landfills.[65] As solid waste exports to the United States have raised political backlash in the past, it is unclear how much Canadian communities can rely on this approach.

Solid waste management and climate change

Human activity is driving unprecedented changes in Earth’s climate, posing significant risks to the health and well-being of Canadians, communities and the economy. Canada’s climate has warmed and will warm further in the future, which will intensify some weather extremes moving forward. In addition, precipitation is projected to increase for most of Canada, on average. In 2019, the Council of Canadian Academies identified infrastructure as the top sector at risk of climate impacts in Canada, as today’s infrastructure was designed to be based on an assumption of steady-state climate. Climate change will have an impact on solid waste systems indirectly, such as reduced ice road seasons impacting the shipping of materials and equipment, as well as directly on solid waste assets themselves.

Leachate management is already part of the design and operation of landfills. However, in some circumstances, changing temperatures and precipitation can have negative impacts on landfills. For example, droughts can cause the capping material of closed landfill sites to crack while flooding can increase leachate generation and landfill erosion, both of which increase the risk of chemicals reaching the surrounding environment.[66]

The case of the District of Mission, seen below, illustrates that these risks may exist for modern engineered landfills as well. As heavy precipitation, flooding, and other hazards become more common and more intense with climate change, there is an increased risk of impacts to landfill sites such as leaching chemicals into groundwater. Landfills that were not located in high-hazard areas when they were built may now be facing new risk levels and may require adaptation as floodplain boundaries change. Though, sites can be adapted to withstand increased rainfall and flooding and it is unclear if a substantial risk to most modern engineered landfill sites exists.

There are international examples that showcase innovative ways to improve climate resilience. The Life Green Adapt programs in the EU use nature-based solutions to reduce the environmental impacts of fires, floods, landslides, and extreme temperatures on landfills. Elements of the project include bio-technosoil for soil stabilization to prevent landslides during heavy rain, wetlands to store and treat leachates and high-contaminant run-off, and using treated wastewater to mitigate extreme temperature effects.[67] In the United States, superfund sites have been protected against potential climate impacts through combinations of natural and grey infrastructure, such as the intertidal wetland used to reduce flooding and erosion risks to the Allen Harbor Landfill.[68] These cases provide innovative examples of how solid waste management infrastructure can be protected from future climate impacts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C indicates that achieving net-zero global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Recognizing that Canada and other countries around the world need to accelerate action to address climate change, the Government of Canada has committed to a 2030 emission reduction target of 40 to 45% below 2005 levels, and a net-zero emissions goal by 2050. To meet our climate goals, action is required throughout the economy, including the waste sector. In addition, Canada supports the Global Methane Pledge to reduce global methane emissions by 30% below 2020 levels by 2030.[69]

According to the latest National Inventory Report (2024), emissions from waste contributed 23 Mt of CO2 equivalent to Canada’s emissions in 2022, representing 3.3% of total emissions.[70] Of this, 83%, or 2.74% of that national total, was from landfills, while incineration and open burning of waste contributed 0.7% of national emissions.[71] In 2022, emissions from landfills (excluding Industrial Wood Waste Landfills) decreased by 3.6% between 2005 and 2022.

Of the 34 Mt CO2 equivalent of methane generated at municipal solid waste landfills in 2022, 19 Mt CO2 equivalent (58%) were emitted to the atmosphere, while 12 Mt CO2 equivalent (36%) were captured by landfill gas collection facilities and flared or used for energy (compared to 29% in 2005). Though there are CO2 emissions associated with flaring and burning methane as fuel, this process significantly reduces warming effects compared to methane that is released into the atmosphere. The remaining 2.2 Mt (6%) is assumed to be oxidized through landfill cover materials.[72] Over 100 landfills in Canada recover landfill gas, which contains roughly 50% methane, from disposed solid waste. Of the recovered methane used to create energy in 2021, most (53%) was used to generate electricity, 31% to produce renewable natural gas and 16% was used directly at a nearby facility. The total emissions from the solid waste management sector are likely somewhat higher as these figures do not include emission associated with the operation of facilities, such as heating buildings and fuelling machinery.

Landfill methane emissions from disposal of biodegradable waste can be avoided entirely by diverting biodegradable waste to beneficial management approaches such as composting, anaerobic digestion (AD), recycling (paper, wood, textiles) and thermochemical processing - all of which recover resources (energy, fuels and/or soil amendments) in addition to avoiding the creation of landfill methane. Encouraging or requiring the diversion of organic waste from landfills has been the focus of recent provincial, territorial and municipal efforts. These actions will secure long-term reductions of methane emissions from landfills, and need to be accelerated.

In parts of Europe, the drastic reduction in disposal of waste in landfills achieved in the early 2000’s has resulted in very low levels of landfill methane emissions today. Alternative waste management practices such as anaerobic digestion, composting, mechanical-biological treatment and thermal treatment drastically reduced the disposal of waste and the generation of methane in some European countries. Unless similar approaches are adopted in Canada, methane emission controls will be needed at landfills for decades in the future.[73]

Embodied GHG emissions refers to the emissions that were produced as part of manufacturing a product or material. Though the embodied CO₂ emissions are not attributed to the solid waste sector, investment in more recycling capacity could reduce emissions. Increased recycling would result in less new material needed in manufacturing processes, which reduces embodied GHG emissions, that is, the emissions required to produce new material. In addition to reducing the embodied carbon of products manufactured with recycled biodegradable materials such as wood and paper, diverting these waste materials from landfill avoids the generation of methane, further enhancing the GHG benefits of recycling. Research indicates that improved recycling of building materials could save up to 20% of embodied emissions in the primary materials for residential construction, which may improve with better recycling methods.[74]

Conclusion

Solid waste services and infrastructure are essential for the health and well-being of communities and the environment in Canada. While Canadians have widespread access to solid waste services of different types and to varying degrees, these services are often provided by underperforming infrastructure. In addition, remote communities, including many Indigenous communities, face unique challenges. Moving forward, population growth will require either a reduction in waste disposal per person, improved waste diversion, new waste disposal capacity, or a combination of these measures. Solid waste systems will need to do this while meeting GHG reduction goals and being increasingly resilient to changing weather patterns.

Understanding the current state of solid waste management systems is a crucial step toward Canada's first National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA). This discussion paper provides an overview of key issues and publicly available data across Canada. Over the next 25 years, decision-makers will need to examine the most significant threats to the delivery of affordable and reliable solid waste management services to Canadians.