Were Canada’s “Legally-Binding Targets” Really Binding?

Were Canada's "Legally-Binding Targets" Really Binding?

Recently, I was asked an interesting question: “Can the federal government be sued for breaking its own laws?”

To answer this question, I have to go back a little over five years, to June 2021, when the Liberals introduced Canada's first net-zero emissions law with a promise to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

At the time, the Liberals said, and I quote:

"We promised to legislate net-zero emissions by 2050 and put in place legally-binding targets, and yesterday we delivered on that promise. Canada's new net-zero law provides the long-term confidence and certainty required to attract investment and ensure that Canadians are delivering products and services that will be in high demand the world over, now and well into the future."

As the Official Opposition Environment Critic at the time, I was concerned about this new law. I pointed out that many Canadians were worried about the impact it could have on the cost of gas, groceries, and home heating.

That brings us to today.

Fast forward to today, and the Liberals' "net-zero-by-2050 law" is now before the courts. Why? Because several environmental organizations, along with a group of young Canadians, have launched a lawsuit against the federal government.

They argue that the government is not following the accountability measures set out in its own law. More specifically, they allege that the government failed to update its emissions reduction plan to reflect recent policy changes by the federal Liberal government. The plaintiffs say those changes promote greater fossil fuel development while rolling back key climate measures.

In other words, the very accountability mechanism and "legally-binding targets" promised when the law was passed are now being tested in court. Canadians were assured these targets would create accountability. Now a court may be asked to determine what those "legally-binding targets" actually require the government to do.

In response, the federal government is asking the court to dismiss the case. It argues that it is not required to update its emissions reduction plan in the way the plaintiffs claim.

The federal government has also argued that it should not be the courts' role to establish or influence climate policy. Some may wonder how promises of "legally-binding targets" and climate accountability can be reconciled with a request to have this case dismissed before it is heard.

My question this week is a simple one: Do you care?

Your feedback helps me do my job. As always, you are welcome to share your thoughts on my Facebook page, by email at Dan.Albas@parl.gc.ca, or by calling toll-free at 1-800-665-8711.