Steven Guilbeault, Canada’s environment minister, said the government was “strongly considering” an appeal of the federal court’s ruling.
Checkout lines in Canadian retailers have witnessed the absence of plastic bags since their prohibition by the federal government last year. This ban also extended to several other single-use plastic items, including straws and disposable takeout cutlery. However, just as businesses and consumers were adjusting to these changes, a court ruling disrupted the policy, which was a pivotal component of Canada's aspiration to be at the forefront of global efforts to combat plastic pollution.
In June of last year, Environment and Climate Change Canada introduced regulations banning six single-use plastics, including stir sticks, plastic checkout bags, cutlery, straws, six-pack rings, and certain types of food service packaging. The government initially issued a cabinet order in 2021, designating these items as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
 |
| The government is reviewing the court’s judgment and “strongly considering an appeal,” the environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, said in a statement posted on X.Blair Gable/Reuters |
The government, according to Justice Furlanetto, "exceeded their authority," and the choice to include the plastic items in the list of toxic substances "lacked support from the evidence" available. This ruling stands as a triumph for the coalition of plastics manufacturers and industry groups opposing the government's ban, which includes Imperial Oil, Nova Chemicals, and Dow Chemical, a major producer of single-use plastics globally.
"Once again, Alberta emerges victorious," remarked Danielle Smith, the province's premier, emphasizing the significant role of Alberta in plastics manufacturing. The province boasts Canada's largest petrochemical sector and stands as the nation's primary supplier of natural gas. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan intervened in the court proceedings, contesting what officials deemed a federal overreach of jurisdiction.
The government is currently examining the court's decision, and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault stated in a post on X, the social media site, that an appeal is being strongly considered.
The decision is the third environmental policy “blow to the federal government’s agenda in the last little while,” Mark Winfield, a professor at the faculty of environmental and urban change at York University in Toronto, told me.
The two aforementioned challenges, as highlighted by Professor Winfield, occurred in October. Firstly, the Supreme Court deemed several sections of a law pertaining to environmental impact assessments unconstitutional. This law primarily addresses how infrastructure projects may impact the environment. Subsequently, in the same month, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a temporary suspension of the carbon tax on home heating oil to alleviate the high cost of living. This decision, criticized by some environmentalists, was perceived as a retreat from the government's climate goals and environmental agenda.
One of these objectives is to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030.
Expressing disappointment with the ruling, Lindsay Beck, a lawyer at Ecojustice, an environmental law group in Toronto, who represented two other organizations as interveners before the court, stated, “By designating plastic as a toxic substance, the government had taken a crucial initial step toward mitigating plastic pollution.”
In contrast to more intricate policy issues, addressing the court's decision on single-use plastics might involve the government refining the list of toxic substances. Professor Winfield suggested this could be achieved by specifying particular types of plastics and resins, for instance.
“This is likely amendable to some extent,” Professor Winfield remarked. “They need to return and be more precise about what, exactly — types of plastics and uses of plastics — they are prohibiting, and that's something which would have a reasonable chance of surviving a constitutional challenge. That would be the quickest course of action.”
