Skip to main content

Canada’s new greenwashing rules still aren’t strong enough

#32 of 69 articles from the Special Report: Climate of denial

Canada's natural gas utilities are leaning heavily on so-called "renewable natural gas" made from manure to justify expanding gas infrastructure — even though they will still mostly use fossil gas to meet demand. Photo by Stijin te Strake/Unsplash

For months, social media feeds in Canada have been bombarded with ads touting efforts by provincial gas utilities to capture so-called "renewable natural gas" produced from decomposing organic waste. From B.C. to Quebec, the ads suggest measures to phase out gas aren't needed because gas from landfills and manure pits will soon heat millions of homes.

That's not true. While gas utilities like FortisBC and Quebec's Énergir do use renewable natural gas, the fuel is only projected to account for a tiny fraction of their supply. The remainder will come from pumping planet-warming fossil fuels out of the ground.

The case is one of many examples of fossil fuel disinformation, experts say. And the fact that Canada's truth-in-advertising laws likely couldn’t challenge this and many other forms of greenwashing highlight weaknesses in the Competition Act, even after the federal government recently published amendments meant to tackle the problem.

The Competition Act is designed to prevent anti-competitive practices like price-fixing. But it includes provisions that allow the Competition Bureau, the independent enforcement body, to pursue companies for false marketing and other deceptive practices.

But the act only applies to substantiate statements that could influence consumers to buy the product, not general statements about a business or an industry. As it stands, broad sustainability claims by fossil fuel companies could be excluded, explained Université de Sherbrooke lecturer Julien Beaulieu. Furthermore, until the amendments are implemented, the act does not require companies to provide evidence backing their environmental claims or make any evidence offered by companies to the Competition Bureau public.

The amendments require companies to back up their environmental claims with sufficient tests. Previously, businesses only needed to back up claims about a product’s "performance, efficacy or longevity.” The amendments will extend this requirement to claims about "protecting the environment or mitigating the environmental and ecological effects of climate change," Beaulieu said.

However, they will likely not extend this requirement to include general sustainability claims by the oil and gas industry. The rules also might be vague enough that companies could argue they only apply to advertising that focuses on how their products impact climate change adaptation while omitting information about how they are not trying to mitigate the crisis, Beaulieu explained.

For example, a national ad campaign by the Pathways Alliance, a coalition of Canada's six largest oil companies, could fall outside the scope of the Competition Act's substantiation requirements, even with the amendments. The campaign claims the group's "net-zero plan is in motion” but fails to note the plan excludes 80 per cent of the companies' greenhouse gas emissions.

The Pathways Alliance campaign is currently under evaluation by the Competition Bureau for deceptive practices, but the agency is tight-lipped about the case, Beaulieu said.

The Competition Act only applies to statements that could influence consumers to buy the product, not general statements about a business or an industry.

In addition to extending the Competition Act to cover environmental claims, the amendments include a provision that lets people bypass the Competition Bureau and sue companies directly for greenwashing. They also include provisions meant to reduce planned obsolescence and give companies permission to co-operate on sustainability initiatives without being accused of conspiracy.

While the changes mark "some advancement" in forcing companies to own up to and reduce their environmental impacts, the government's decision to avoid more substantial changes is "unfortunate," said Leah Temper, health and economic policy director for the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE).

"Decarbonizing our economy to move away from fossil fuels is the biggest challenge businesses are facing right now," she said. "It's unfortunate that we're doing a once-in-a-century update of the Competition Act and not taking that into account."

Other countries have taken far more aggressive stances on the issue. Last year, France banned ads for fossil fuels and required auto manufacturers to encourage people to use public transportation in their ads. The country also requires companies to include a QR code on eco-branded products that links to the research backing up the ecological claim.

Earlier this year, the European Union made similar moves, publishing a directive that prohibits the most common types of fossil fuel greenwashing. And several cities like Amsterdam, Stockholm and Liverpool have either banned or pledged a ban on fossil fuel advertising, according to a recent report by CAPE and Greenpeace.

Temper would like to see federal officials follow the Europeans' lead but noted that simply ensuring the Competition Bureau is strictly enforcing its greenwashing rules would be a positive step. That will require training people to undertake complex greenwashing investigations and investing resources to "act proactively" on the problem.

"We really can't wait," she said. "Every year that this pervasive greenwashing is allowed to continue, it's slowing down the green transition."

Updates and corrections | Corrections policy

Editor's note: This story was amended to clarify that Justin Beaulieu is a lecturer at the Université de Sherbrooke and that some Competition Act provisions relate to companies' ability to substantiate their claims. 

Comments