SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Bill

Bill C-380

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2024
An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (plastic manufactured items)
  • This is a bill called C-380 that is being introduced in the Canadian Parliament. It aims to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, specifically regarding plastic manufactured items. The bill proposes to remove plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Act. The bill was introduced on February 12, 2024, and is available on the House of Commons website.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • S1
  • S2
  • S3
  • RA
  • Yea
  • Nay
  • star_border

SteelmanSpren in Favour

  • Steelman Argument in Favor of Bill C-380: One possible steelman argument in favor of Bill C-380 is that it recognizes the need for a balanced approach to environmental protection. By removing plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the bill acknowledges that not all plastics pose the same level of harm to the environment. This amendment could be seen as a response to scientific evidence and research that shows that not all plastics have the same environmental impact. By removing plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances, the bill allows for a more nuanced approach to regulating plastics, focusing on those that are truly harmful while allowing for the continued use of plastics that have been deemed safe. Furthermore, this amendment could be seen as a recognition of the importance of plastics in various industries and everyday life. Plastics have numerous practical applications and are used in a wide range of products, from medical devices to packaging materials. By removing plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances, the bill acknowledges the value and benefits that plastics bring to society. Additionally, this amendment could be seen as a way to promote innovation and encourage the development of more sustainable plastics. By recognizing that not all plastics are inherently toxic, the bill creates an opportunity for researchers, scientists, and industry experts to focus on developing and implementing more environmentally friendly alternatives. This could lead to the creation of new materials that are less harmful to the environment, while still serving the same practical purposes as traditional plastics. In summary, a steelman argument in favor of Bill C-380 is that it takes a balanced approach to environmental protection by recognizing that not all plastics are equally harmful. By removing plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances, the bill allows for a more nuanced and targeted regulation of plastics, while still acknowledging their value and promoting innovation towards more sustainable alternatives.

SteelmanSpren Against

  • Steelman Argument Opposing Bill C-380: While the intention behind Bill C-380 may be to address environmental concerns, there are several right-wing anti-government talking points that can be used to argue against this legislation. 1. Limited Government Intervention: Right-wing ideology emphasizes limited government intervention in the economy. By removing plastic manufactured items from the list of toxic substances, this bill is seen as an unnecessary expansion of government regulation. It is argued that the market should be left to determine the use and disposal of plastic items, rather than relying on government intervention. 2. Individual Responsibility: Right-wing perspectives often emphasize individual responsibility and freedom of choice. Opponents of this bill argue that individuals should have the freedom to choose whether or not to use plastic manufactured items. By removing these items from the list of toxic substances, the government is seen as infringing on individual choice and responsibility. 3. Economic Impact: Another argument against this bill is the potential negative impact on the economy. Plastic manufacturing is a significant industry that provides jobs and contributes to economic growth. By labeling plastic manufactured items as toxic substances, this bill could lead to increased regulations and restrictions on the industry, potentially resulting in job losses and economic decline. 4. Innovation and Technological Solutions: Right-wing perspectives often emphasize the power of innovation and technological advancements to address environmental challenges. Opponents of this bill argue that instead of labeling plastic manufactured items as toxic substances, efforts should be focused on promoting and investing in innovative solutions, such as recycling technologies or biodegradable alternatives. This approach is seen as more aligned with free-market principles and encourages private sector innovation. 5. Personal Freedom and Property Rights: Right-wing ideology places a strong emphasis on personal freedom and property rights. Opponents of this bill argue that by labeling plastic manufactured items as toxic substances, the government is infringing on property rights of individuals and businesses. They argue that individuals and businesses should have the freedom to use and dispose of their property as they see fit, without government interference. It is important to note that these arguments are presented from a hypothetical right-wing perspective and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the author.
House Second Reading
  • Feb. 12, 2024, 11 a.m.
  • In Progress
  • Read
House First Reading
  • Feb. 12, 2024, 11 a.m.
  • Passed