Forgive me if I’m missing something, but I am completely confused about the Sask. Party government’s stance on plastic.

You may know that the federal government is banning certain single-use plastic items, to wit: checkout bags, cutlery, certain takeout containers, stir sticks, straws, and those horrible plastic things that hold aluminum cans together only to wrap themselves around unsuspecting birds’ necks after disposal.

Ottawa views the plastics ban as a way to reduce pollution. Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said the Liberals plan to “keep fighting for the clean, healthy environment Canadians deserve.”

Keep fighting, indeed, because certain groups including (what!?) plastic manufacturers are unhappy about this. And so is the Sask. Party (along with the Alberta) government — which objected or “intervened” because plastic, in its view, is a provincial power.

“If anything, this is a waste management issue. It isn’t a toxic substances issue. And we regulate waste management in the province,” Bronwyn Eyre, the Saskatchewan justice minister, told reporters in early March.

She also expressed concerns about affordability, businesses, and consumers.

Yet we do seem to be adjusting to this lack of plastic bags. I haven’t seen the big ones at, for example, Sobeys, for a while, and I now have a cloth bag hanging out in the back seat of my car for drop-in shopping emergencies.

Somehow, I’m still managing to get my groceries into the house plastic-bag-free, and I have been for years. I expect others are also figuring it out. Also, from the business side, many retailers are selling us non-plastic bags, so there might be an upside for them right there.

Returning to the justice minister’s comments, then.

“If we’re starting out with straws, stirrers, food service containers and bags, you know, what is next?” she asked. Well now, there’s a slippery slope. Where will it all end!?

“If plastic is toxic, why do we brush our teeth with plastic toothbrushes?” she added.

I gather she said this with a straight face. Nope, not a joke.

(As an aside, I don’t know about you, but I use a toothbrush more than once or twice, which I would have to suggest eliminates it from the single-use plastics category.)

So, I suppose we have to explain that we use toothbrushes because many plastic items are not toxic (some are, but bear with me here) until they break down. And that’s the issue.

Granted, the break-down takes a long time — some say from 40 to 1,000 years — but their components will ultimately leach into the soil and water. So that’s a nice gift for future generations.

Granted also, today’s landfills are supposed to be lined to avoid this leaching problem, but how long will that work? What are the long-term guarantees? How many have been lined? We haven’t been doing this for very long.

Yet Eyre also said “99 percent” of plastic waste in Canada is “safely landfilled” or burned for energy.

Safely landfilled!? Have you seen a landfill? Disgusting stuff reeking to high heaven and swirling in the wind, only to be picked up by swarms of seagulls?

How is this not a “toxic substances issue?”

Plastic bags, for example, come apart into tiny particles, which can be inadvertently consumed — by animals, largely, and those gulls. And yeah, that’s not good for them. Or, ultimately, possibly us. We are not supposed to eat plastic or, really, breathe it in. (Brushing teeth, by the way, is pretty safe.)

To be fair, Eyre said an environmental study showed that eliminating single-use plastics will reduce 1.6 million tonnes of waste (I assume this is nationally) but 3.2 million tonnes of other material will be added. I assume these are replacements for plastic items.

I have not seen this study. If correct, that’s not good; it will certainly bulk up the garbage dumps. That being said, if the additional 1.6 million tonnes of stuff breaks down more quickly and more safely (let’s say there’s more paper that people forget to/won’t recycle, for instance), that may not be an entirely bad trade-off.

As to the basis of Saskatchewan’s argument before the Federal Court, Eyre said that Saskatchewan was mostly concerned about the constitutionality of the single-use plastics ban, along with concerns for the retail sector and other industries affected.

Right. Constitutionality. Which in this case, as it so often does, means control and power.

I wish she, and the rest of caucus, would be “mostly concerned” about our right to clean air, food, and water.

• Joanne Paulson