The federal government is seeking to dismiss a prominent environmental lawsuit, stating that it is not obligated to update Canada’s climate plan to align with national emissions reduction goals. They argue that it is not the court’s role to dictate climate policy and have requested the case be struck before proceeding to full hearings. In June, a lawsuit was filed by three young individuals and two environmental organizations urging the Federal Court to compel Ottawa to revise its climate plan.
Since its inception in 2022, the Liberal government has removed essential measures crucial for Canada to meet the 2030 target. The lawsuit claims that the failure to update the climate plan violates Canada’s climate accountability act, formally known as the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. The government’s initial response on August 14 highlighted that the act allows the Minister to amend emissions targets and reduction plans, suggesting that there is no obligation to amend as implied by the use of the term “may.”
In a legal submission to the court, the government contended that the courts are not responsible for creating or directing climate policy, emphasizing that the lawsuit raises political and policy issues beyond the court’s scope. When asked if the federal government intends to update its 2030 climate plan, a spokesperson for the minister reiterated the government’s commitment to combatting climate change and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 but refrained from further comment due to the ongoing legal proceedings.
Despite the lack of clarity on the government’s stance regarding the climate plan update, the individuals challenging the lawsuit are urging the court to reject any attempts to dismiss it. They expressed concerns over the government’s actions, including advancing fossil fuel expansion and rolling back critical climate safeguards. Kyle Harrietha, who played a significant role in developing the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, believes that the government should revise its climate plan, suggesting that the discretion granted by the act was not intended to allow major policy changes without amendments to the plan.