The federal government is seeking the dismissal of a prominent environmental lawsuit, contending that there is no obligation to update Canada’s climate plan to align with national emissions reduction targets. They argue that it is not within the court’s purview to dictate climate policy and have filed a motion to have the case thrown out before proceeding to full hearings.
In June, a lawsuit was initiated by three young individuals and two environmental organizations urging the Federal Court to compel Ottawa to revise its climate plan. The Liberal government has removed crucial measures necessary for Canada to meet the 2030 target since the plan’s inception in 2022.
The lawsuit claims that the failure to update the climate plan violates the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The government highlighted in a legal document that the act specifies the Minister has the discretion to amend emissions targets or reduction plans, emphasizing that the use of the term “may” does not impose a mandatory requirement to amend.
Furthermore, the government emphasized that the courts do not establish or control climate policies, stating that the lawsuit raises overarching political and policy matters beyond the court’s jurisdiction. When questioned about updating the 2030 climate plan, the government reiterated its commitment to combatting climate change and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, declining further comment due to the ongoing legal proceedings.
Despite the unspecified stance on updating the climate plan, the plaintiffs in the case are urging the court to reject any attempts to dismiss it. Marie Maltais expressed concern over the lack of a robust climate strategy, criticizing the government for pursuing fossil fuel expansion and dismantling key environmental safeguards amid the ongoing legal battle.
Kyle Harrietha, who played a pivotal role in guiding the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act through Parliament, believes the government should revise its climate plan. He emphasized that the discretionary powers outlined in the act were never intended to enable significant changes to climate policy without corresponding plan amendments.