Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Canada’s New Greenwashing Rules Could Hamper Climate Action – Grady Semmens

Published

12 months ago

8 minute read

From Energy Now 

By Grady Semmens

Also added to the mix was the ability for private citizens to lodge complaints with the Competition Bureau (starting June 20, 2025) and placing the onus on companies to prove their claims – effectively making defendants guilty of greenwashing until they can prove their information is valid.

The Government of Canada’s new rules to crack down on greenwashing will likely hamper new energy projects, including those designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to experts who say they pose significant legal risk and create uncertainty for how industries across the country can communicate their plans for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

The legislation came into effect on June 20 as part of an omnibus package of economic policies known as Bill C-59. The package contained long-awaited tax credits for carbon capture and storage (CCS) development, sparking positive investment decisions for several new CCS projects over the summer. However, C-59 also included significant amendments to the Competition Act that require companies to more fully substantiate statements about their management of environmental and social issues – with a particular focus on claims related to climate change activity.

The crux of the concern about the anti-greenwashing laws lies in the call for companies to use an ‘internationally recognized methodology’ to report on business interests such as their decarbonization efforts. The government failed to provide guidance for what methodologies meet this standard. At the same time, massive penalties (up to three per cent of a firm’s annual gross global revenues) were introduced for companies found to be making misleading claims. Also added to the mix was the ability for private citizens to lodge complaints with the Competition Bureau (starting June 20, 2025) and placing the onus on companies to prove their claims – effectively making defendants guilty of greenwashing until they can prove their information is valid.

Response to the amendments by Canada’s energy sector was swift and dramatic. Almost immediately, the Pathways Alliance – a partnership of Canada’s largest oil sands producers that are pursuing one of the world’s largest CCS projects – gutted its website and its social media channels have gone quiet. Many energy, mining and other resource-based companies have followed suit, resulting it what some are now calling a ‘greenhushing’ that goes counter to years of admirable progress in corporate transparency and reporting on the management of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.

“The federal government implementing a law, without consultation, which intrinsically infringes on the ability to participate in open discussions on some of the most important issues facing the country today should be a serious concern for all Canadians,” says Lisa Baiton, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Looking beyond its impact on public discourse, Baiton says the legislation also creates new roadblocks for developing critical infrastructure to help meet Canada’s climate change commitments.

“The federal government’s approach to these amendments has introduced a new level of complexity and risk for those looking to invest in Canada. The amendments to the Competition Act will make it more difficult for proponents to speak to Canadians and gain public support for their projects, particularly for those focused on reducing emissions.”

One of the country’s top environmental lawyers agrees, adding that Competition Bureau rules apply far beyond websites and sustainability reports, also encompassing the detailed plans and evidence required in regulatory applications for projects.

“Canadian regulatory processes are already protracted, and I think there will be more delays and complications for project approvals as environmental impact assessments will face an additional layer of scrutiny,” said Conor Chell, a partner and national leader of ESG legal risk and disclosure with KPMG, at a recent seminar on the impacts of C-59 on Canadian industry.

The Competition Bureau was gathering public feedback until September 27 on the new greenwashing provisions that it says will be used to provide further guidance for how the rules will be enforced. Industry players hope the consultation will result in greater clarity on what methodologies for environmental reporting the government prefers, along with details on how the bureau’s complaints tribunal will determine which complaints are in the public interest to investigate.

“Companies face a high risk of being unfairly and unnecessarily targeted and pulled into long, drawn out legal proceedings in defence of reasonable statements. Without clear guidance as to how the Competition Bureau plans to handle such frivolous and vexatious claims, this will have a chilling effect on companies’ disclosure and participation in climate and environmental policy discussions,” Baiton wrote in CAPP’s Sept. 5 feedback submission.

In the meantime, Canadian companies are figuring out how to continue reporting on their ESG performance without placing themselves at undue risk of legal action. In its latest corporate social responsibility report published earlier this month, Cenovus Energy chose to omit information on greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental subjects, while continuing to report on topics including workplace safety, engagement with Indigenous communities, and its progress on meeting equity, diversity and inclusion targets in its workforce.

“Given this uncertainty, we made the difficult decision to defer publication of information about our recent environmental performance and plans. I’d like to be very clear that this does not change our commitment to advancing our environmental work. We firmly stand by the actions we’re taking, the accuracy of our reporting and the information we’ve shared to date about our environmental performance. And, to the extent the Competition Bureau can provide clarity through specific guidance about how these changes to the Competition Act will be interpreted and applied, that will help guide our future communications about the environmental work we are doing,” Cenovus’ CEO Jon McKenzie states in his opening message to the report.

With anti-greenwashing regulations being adopted and/or strengthened in many countries, KPMG’s Conor Chell recommends companies revisit their targets and performance metrics for key environmental issues to ensure they are realistic and are backed up by accurate and consistent data.

“Canada now has some of the strongest anti-greenwashing legislation, but it is something that is growing globally, and companies will face it in other jurisdictions,”  Chell said. “Going forward, as important as it will be for the good work to continue, it will be equally important to ensure that companies are thoroughly assessing and substantiating their environmental and social claims, so they can withstand the additional scrutiny that is now required.”

Grady Semmens is a writer and communications consultant specializing in energy, sustainability and ESG reporting.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Energy / 10 hours ago

The IEA’s Peak Oil Fever Dream Looks To Be In Full Collapse

Crime / 10 hours ago

Transgender Roomate of Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Cooperating with Investigation

Energy / 11 hours ago

Trump Admin Torpedoing Biden’s Oil And Gas Crackdown

Censorship Industrial Complex

Decision expected soon in case that challenges Alberta’s “safe spaces” law

Published on September 13, 2025

By

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that the Alberta Court of Appeal will soon release its decision in a case challenging whether speaking events can be censored on the basis of potential “psychological harm” to an audience, infringing Charter-protected freedoms of expression (section 2(b) and peaceful assembly (section 2(c).

This case stems from the University of Lethbridge’s January 30, 2023, decision to cancel a speaking event featuring Dr. Frances Widdowson, who has frequently challenged established narratives on Indigenous matters.

In written argument filed in 2024 the University claimed it cancelled the event, in part, because it had obligations under Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure a workplace free of “harassment” and free of hazards to “psychological and social wellbeing.”

Lawyers argue that these provisions (which might be described as a “safe spaces” law) compel employers to censor lawful expression under threat of fines or imprisonment.

Constitutional lawyer Glenn Blackett said, “Safe spaces provisions are a serious threat to Charter freedoms. Employers who don’t censor ‘unsafe’ speech are liable to be fined or even jailed. This isn’t just the government censoring speech, it is the government requiring citizens to censor one another.”

Given the University’s defence, lawyers asked the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to allow an amendment to the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the “safe spaces” laws. However, the Court denied the request. According to the Court’s apparent reasoning because the safe spaces law is worded vaguely and generally, it is immune from constitutional challenge.

Mr. Blackett says, “I think the Court got things backwards. If legislation infringes Charter rights in a vague or general way, infringements become impossible to justify – they don’t become Constitution-proof.”

Widdowson and co-litigant Jonah Pickle appealed the ruling to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which heard argument on Monday. A decision from the Court of Appeal is expected soon.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK’s top cop wants to ‘stop policing tweets’: report

Published on September 11, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

‘I don’t believe we should be policing toxic culture wars debates,’ said Sir Mark Rowley, chief of the London Metropolitan Police.

In a remarkable shift, Britain’s most senior police officer is to recommend changes to the law which could allow police to “stop policing tweets” within weeks.

Sir Mark Rowley, chief of London’s Metropolitan Police, said he will approach the Home Secretary with proposals which could see police return to policing real-life crime.

Sources close to Rowley told the UK’s Daily Telegraph:

He wants Shabana Mahmood, the new Home Secretary, to change the rules so police officers are not required to record or investigate complaints when there is no evidence the suspect intended real-world harm.

The change would be a remarkable departure from the crackdown on “non-crime hate incidents,” which have seen British people given sentences of several years for remarks made online.

Rowley’s move to change the law comes alongside the UK Labour government’s proposal to introduce digital ID – which could tie access to bank accounts and work to online speech.

Return to common sense policing?

The Telegraph’s source said Rowley “is proposing a shake-up of legislation that would give officers greater discretion to use ‘common sense’ when deciding whether to record and investigate complaints about comments on social media.”

The proposed change follows the arrest of comedy writer Graham Linehan, prompting the Metropolitan Police Chief to respond.

Responding to Linehan’s arrest, Rowley said on September 3 that a return to common sense was needed as a series of high-profile arrests over “non-crime hate incidents” was undermining public trust in the police.

He said the policies of successive governments had left the police in an “impossible position” over hate speech laws.

“[O]fficers are currently in an impossible position. I have offered to provide suggestions to the Home Office on where the law and policy should be clarified.”

Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson, who was doorstepped by police last November for a tweet described as a “non-crime hate incident,” responded on September 9 by saying Rowley’s step towards defending free speech was “disingenuous” at best.

“At the risk of being arrested,” Pearson said, “I suggest Met chief Mark Rowley is a total muppet.”

Commenting on the recent arrest of comedian Graham Linehan for online speech, she added, “It is disingenuous in the extreme for the commissioner to say officers’ hands are tied in cases like that of Graham Linehan.”

Pearson explains that Linehan, famous for writing sitcoms, was arrested by five armed police after a “notorious trans activist” reported his tweets to police.

Rowley’s claim is that guidelines to police compel them to treat such appeals as crime reports, leaving no room for discretion.

Pearson then refers to the many real-life crimes to which British police do not routinely respond – even over decades:

It’s perfectly clear that the police have discretion to ignore complaints, even crimes, if they want to. Let’s see now:

Phone theft – ignored.

Shoplifting – essentially legal.

Carjacking – we’ll send you a crime number.

Burglaries – help yourself, lads!

Sexual harassment, child gang rape – er, sorry, cultural sensitivities.

Pearson concludes that the police chief is himself being dishonest – at best – in saying that speech crime laws tie the hands of officers.

For Sir Mark to claim that his officers were unable to use their common sense and ignore a complaint from a notorious trans activist about [Linehan] is to insult the public’s intelligence.

Baronness Winterbourne of the House of Lords responded, recommending that “[i]nstead of blaming Parliament for your officers’ inability to think for themselves intelligently, perhaps you might firmly tell them, please, to stop being stupid.”

As the latest Telegraph report shows, government advice to police already exists – which has not prevented the policing of so-called “non-crime hate incidents.”

More than 13,200 non-crime hate incidents were recorded by police in the 12 months to June 2024, a similar number to the previous year, despite new guidelines requiring police to investigate only ‘when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate and not simply because someone is offended.’

Rowley was also recorded on a UK radio show defending the officers who carried out Linehan’s arrest.

Graham Linehan’s case is but one of many in which British people have been prosecuted for online speech. As the Free Speech Union reported in April 2025, new data showed that over 12,000 people in Britain are arrested for speech crimes every year.

Hitchens: Disband the police?

Peter Hitchens, a veteran conservative commentator and staunch Christian, spoke out on GB News – calling for the British police to be completely abolished and replaced.

Hitchens, a devout Christian, said the British police should be “disbanded” as they have become a “sinister menace to the freedom of speech.”

“They’re not responsible for crime anymore,” Hitchens explained. “They’re a politically correct body who think they’re policing thought.”

He told GB News’ Michelle Dewberry that “the police don’t believe they should be doing what we think they should be doing. They do believe they should be arresting people for incorrect tweets. The only solution is to disband them and start again.”

Elsewhere Hitchens argued this was no novel development, saying this “new style of policing” went back 20 years.

Two-tier Keir Starmer

The embattled Prime Minister Keir Starmer has long been accused of “two-tier” policing in cracking down on “far-right thugs” who commit online speech crimes.

As the murder of Charlie Kirk focuses attention on the toxic speech of the left, Britain’s justice system sees no evil when left-wingers call for the collective murder of people on the right.

Whilst former Conservative councilor Lucy Connolly received a 31-month sentence for an angry tweet about illegal migrants, a councilor for Starmer’s own Labour Party was found not guilty of incitement to violence after demanding that everyone he saw as “far right” be murdered.

Ricky Jones was declared innocent after publicly calling for his comrades to “cut the throats” of the so-called “disgusting Nazi fascists” who were protesting over the murder of children by a man of migrant heritage. Three girls were killed in Southport by a Rwandan youth last July. After stabbing the nine children in a frenzied assault, Axel Rudakubana told police, “It’s a good thing those children are dead.”

When angry protests broke out at the murders, Jones responded on video, saying of the so-called “far-right” protesters: “We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.”

Jones was freed, Connolly was jailed.

Despite the obvious dangers in preferring the policing of speech to genuine threats and crimes, there seems to be no cause for concern from the point of view of Britain’s prime minister.

During Wednesday afternoon’s questions, Sir Keir Starmer was asked whether he would commit to revising speech laws to “ensure legitimate free expression is protected.”

Starmer replied with a stock response: “I’ve been clear throughout, we must ensure the police focus on the most serious issues and the issues that matter most to our constituencies and all communities.”

He ended by saying he was proud of Britain’s long history of free speech, which he said he would always protect.

“And that includes tackling issues like antisocial behavior, knife crime and violence. And we have a long history of free speech in this country. I’m very proud of that, and I will always defend it.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X