I fully recognize our grand good fortune in having Mark Carney as our PM, possibly the most highly qualified leader on the world stage. His credentials are dazzling: degrees from Harvard and Oxford including a PhD in economics, governor of not one but two national banks, plus senior executive positions in the private sector.

And he has met expectations since being elected, responding nimbly and firmly to the economic and other nonsense from Washington. Indeed, he has become mote than a Canadian leader; he has become a world leader. A recent headline in The Wall Street Journal read “The Canadian Who Steered Europe Away From the U.S.” This kind of international respect has become routine.

But his performance isn’t without concerns. And as citizens we have the responsibility to constructively criticize our leaders, regardless of how well they are doing their job.

Nowhere is this more important than on the most important of issues—the environment. The most immediate challenge being global warming and the resulting climate crisis.

Carney has shown keen recognition of the crisis in the past and continues to talk a strong game. Unfortunately he has also weakened climate policies established under the Trudeau government, saying they were “too divisive” and “too expensive.” His agreement with Alberta to build a 90-percent taxpayer-funded pipeline to the west coast particularly set environmentalists teeth on edge.

He may achieve the right policy balance in the longer term, but some are impatient. There has even been grumbling in his own party. Not everyone is willing to wait for the longer term. Earlier this year, three young people and two environmental organizations launched a lawsuit asking the Federal Court to order Ottawa to amend its climate plan. 

The Liberals enacted the federal climate plan, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, in 2022 setting targets of a 40-45 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050. However, under Carney the government has backed off on efforts to achieve the 2030 emissions target, and recent analysis by the Canadian Climate Institute shows that we are far off track to meet either target. In fact, apparently current climate policies are not even enough to achieve the 2030 target by 2050.

Consequently, the plaintiffs are arguing the climate plan must be amended to ensure the goals are reached. The government said the suit should be dismissed as the Act states that “the Minister may amend an emissions target … or an emissions reduction plan.”

Justice Patrick Gleeson rejected that argument, stating that in a legal context “may” doesn’t carry the same discretion under an Act aimed at holding the Canadian government accountable for its actions. “‘May,’ the judge ruled, “requires a consideration of the meaning and purpose of the provision, its role in the legislative scheme and other relevant contextual factors.” Ergo, the case will proceed.

I will maintain my confidence in the prime minister ultimately doing right by the environment, including toward global warming, but I will also wish the young activists and their mentors luck with their court case. A case I will follow closely.