The federal government is planning to appeal a court decision that quashed an order-in-council listing manufactured plastic items as toxic.
Last week, a Federal Court judge ruled that the government’s move to list all plastic items as toxic was “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”
“Our government intends to appeal the Federal Court’s decision and we are exploring all options to continue leading the fight against plastic pollution,” the statement says.
In her ruling released Thursday, Justice Angela Furlanetto wrote that the category of plastic manufactured items was too broad to be given a blanket toxicity label under federal law.
Furlanetto wrote that Ottawa’s decision “poses a threat to the balance of federalism” because it didn’t restrict its regulations to those plastics that have “potential to cause harm to the environment.”
On Thursday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz urged Ottawa not to appeal Furlanetto’s decision.
The original article contains 337 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The only logical reason I can think of for this is the reliance on plastics in our food and water systems. Nearly every food comes into contact with plastic. The water coming out of your tap, be it city water or a private well, is also very likely to have traveled through plastic.
I can see the government being hesistant to broadly label all of it as toxic while needing to continue to rely on these plastics.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Come on, Ottawa! What a ridiculous claim by the oil industry.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The federal government is planning to appeal a court decision that quashed an order-in-council listing manufactured plastic items as toxic.
Last week, a Federal Court judge ruled that the government’s move to list all plastic items as toxic was “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”
“Our government intends to appeal the Federal Court’s decision and we are exploring all options to continue leading the fight against plastic pollution,” the statement says.
In her ruling released Thursday, Justice Angela Furlanetto wrote that the category of plastic manufactured items was too broad to be given a blanket toxicity label under federal law.
Furlanetto wrote that Ottawa’s decision “poses a threat to the balance of federalism” because it didn’t restrict its regulations to those plastics that have “potential to cause harm to the environment.”
On Thursday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz urged Ottawa not to appeal Furlanetto’s decision.
The original article contains 337 words, the summary contains 146 words. Saved 57%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The only logical reason I can think of for this is the reliance on plastics in our food and water systems. Nearly every food comes into contact with plastic. The water coming out of your tap, be it city water or a private well, is also very likely to have traveled through plastic.
I can see the government being hesistant to broadly label all of it as toxic while needing to continue to rely on these plastics.
Uh, the government were the ones that said it was. The courts overruled it, and they’re now appealing.