Federal Court Upholds Plastic Ban Amid Growing Criticism
The Federal Court of Appeal has recently upheld the federal government's classification of plastic items as "toxic," allowing Ottawa to continue its ban on several types of single-use plastics. This includes straws, grocery bags, cutlery, and takeout containers, which are being restricted in response to global plastic pollution concerns.
Questionable Environmental Benefits
Despite the court ruling, this Justin Trudeau-era policy remains deeply flawed according to critics. Canada's plastics ban will have a negligible impact on global plastic pollution, yet will increase waste domestically and force a shift toward substitute items with higher overall environmental impacts.
First, the federal government's own assessment acknowledges that 99% of Canada's plastic waste is already disposed of safely through incineration, recycling, and environmentally-sound landfills. According to the latest available estimates, thanks to its near-total waste collection and disposal system, Canada contributes a negligible 0.04% of global mismanaged plastic waste.
Global Context of Plastic Pollution
A 2024 study published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, finds that no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters. Just eight countries generate more than half of global plastic waste: India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, and Brazil.
Most ocean plastic pollution originates in Asia, where six countries account for nearly three-quarters of the global total: the Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, and Myanmar.
The Problem with Plastic Substitutes
When evaluating whether plastic items should be deemed toxic, the Federal Court of Appeal stated that the "chemical content" of plastic manufactured items is "irrelevant to the sea otter choking on a plastic straw." In the judges' words, "the problem is the plastic item itself, not its chemistry."
But by that logic, any discarded object with the potential to cause physical harm could be considered toxic, including porcelain, silicone, glass, paper, and other plastic substitutes whose waste will likely increase under the plastic ban.
Government's Own Projections Raise Concerns
Ottawa's own projections acknowledge this risk. According to the government, the anticipated reduction in plastic waste—roughly 1.5 million tonnes by 2032—will be outweighed by nearly three million tonnes of additional waste from heavier substitutes such as metal, porcelain, glass, wood, and aluminum. As a result, the ban would increase total waste overall.
Environmental Trade-offs of Alternatives
Moreover, by forcing Canadians to replace plastics with these substitutes, the government may help increase the overall environmental risks of the substitutes throughout their life cycle, from manufacturing and transportation to use and disposal.
Studies show that alternatives to plastic require more energy and water to produce, generate more solid waste, and result in higher CO2 emissions from production and transportation. They also contribute more to acidification of lakes and rivers, degradation of water quality, smog formation, and ozone depletion than the plastic products they replace.
Ottawa does not dispute the environmental harm of plastic substitutes and, in fact, acknowledges that plastic substitutes can worsen air quality, affect both marine and freshwater environments, and typically have higher climate change impacts due to increased greenhouse-gas emissions.
Call for Policy Reconsideration
Simply put, the single-use plastic ban trades higher waste and environmental costs for a negligible impact on global plastic pollution. It's a deeply flawed policy that Prime Minister Mark Carney's government should reconsider at once, according to analysts.
Julio Mejia and Elmira Aliakbari are analysts at the Fraser Institute.
