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

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.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Legal warning sent to Ontario school board for suspending elected school council member

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms announces that a legal warning letter has been sent to the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board after it suspended a parent from her role on the School Council for respectfully objecting to land acknowledgements.
Catherine Kronas, a concerned parent with a child enrolled at Ancaster High Secondary School, was re-elected to serve on School Council in October 2024.
During a Council meeting on April 9, 2025, Ms. Kronas asked that her respectful objection to land acknowledgements be noted in the minutes. No disruption occurred; her comments were limited to requesting that her dissenting viewpoint be recorded.
On May 22, 2025, however, the School Board informed Ms. Kronas that her involvement on the Council was being “paused” based on allegations that she had caused harm and had violated a Code of Conduct Policy. She has not been permitted to attend the next scheduled meeting.
Ms. Kronas was unsettled by the Board’s decision, saying, “I was taken aback by the Board’s decision to suspend me from the School Council after delivering a respectful objection, especially given assurances made at a previous council meeting and outlined in the Council bylaws that open dialogue and diverse perspectives are welcomed.”
“By barring me from the next meeting, the Council sends a troubling message to all parents: that even respectful disagreement may be met not with dialogue, but with disciplinary action. I am grateful to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms for assisting me in this matter,” she remarked.
Constitutional lawyer Hatim Kheir said Ms. Kronas’ comments “were a reasonable and measured expression of a viewpoint held by many Canadians.”
“The Board’s decision to suspend her from the Council, which she has a right to sit on as an elected parent member, is an act of censorship that offends the right to freedom of expression,” he explained.
Mr. Kheir is calling for Ms. Kronas to be immediately reinstated to the Council and to be allowed to fulfill her elected role without further retaliation for expressing her views.
To view a brief video summary of this matter, click here.
To receive regular updates from the Justice Centre, click on this link to join our email list.
Censorship Industrial Complex
BC nurse faces $163k legal bill for co-sponsored a billboard reading, “I [heart] JK Rowling.”

From LifeSiteNews
British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm, a single mother, faces a $163,000 legal bill and a three-month license suspension from the BCCNM over her public statements opposing LGBT ideology.
British Columbia nurse Amy Hamm is facing legal costs of $163,000 for her court battle over her statements publicly opposing LGBT ideology.
In a June 1 post on X, Amy Hamm announced that the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) is seeking $163,000 in legal costs after firing her without severance after she was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct” when she publicly voiced the immutable truth that sex is based on biology.
“The @BCnursemidwife spent 4+ years persecuting me for my political views,” Hamm wrote.
“Their latest move is to try to take $163,053 dollars from me, a single mother, to pay for their b******* persecution that I wanted nothing to do with,” she continued. “And suspend my license for 3 months.”
The court document, submitted on May 29, seeks to suspend Hamm’s license for three months in addition to forcing her to cover the $163,053 legal cost.
The next day, Hamm announced that she plans to fight the BCCNM’s submission, saying, “Unfortunately for them, I am not a weak person. I reject their lies, and their punishment, and will fight to see that they never see a penny of the $161,000 they want to take from me. I will fight to see that they are punished for what they’ve done.”
“Their latest move is nothing other than a plain admission of their evil hearts,” she declared.
“They’ve already defended male rapists in women’s prisons, and the end of women’s rights,” Hamm continued. “Of course they would ruin my career and reputation, and then attempt to bankrupt me as a kill shot.”
“I couldn’t be more proud to stand alongside all of the reality based men and women who see this ideology for what it is, and aren’t afraid to speak the truth,” Hamm concluded.
I was very angry yesterday, as I made clear. Today I am feeling calm. I've got my lawyers, and the JCCF. I've got an army of supporters.
It should not have come as such a surprise that my persecutors, who have already spent years articulating the horrible depravity and lies…
— Amy Eileen Hamm (@preta_6) June 2, 2025
The move to force Hamm to cover legal costs comes after a March ruling from the BCCNM disciplinary panel which found that Hamm committed “unprofessional conduct” by publicly discussing the dangers of the LGBT agenda in three articles and a podcast appearance.
Furthermore, in late March, Hamm shared on social media that Vancouver Coastal Health fired her from her nursing position without severance after she was found guilty of “unprofessional conduct.”
Hamm found herself targeted by the BCCNM in 2020 when she co-sponsored a billboard reading, “I [heart] JK Rowling.” This sign was a nod to the famous British author’s public comments defending women’s private spaces from being used by gender-confused men.
The BCCNM accused Hamm of making “discriminatory and derogatory statements regarding [so-called] transgender people” while identifying herself as a nurse or nurse educator.
According to the college, Hamm’s statements were “made across various online platforms, including but not limited to podcasts, videos, published writings, and social media” between July 2018 and March 2021.
Already, Hamm has revealed that she will take her case to the provincial Supreme Court.
-
Brownstone Institute16 hours ago
Anthony Fauci Gets Demolished by White House in New Covid Update
-
Business17 hours ago
Sobering reality check – Trump is right: Canada’s economy can’t survive a fair trade agreement with the US
-
Business18 hours ago
Ottawa must listen to the West
-
Crime15 hours ago
Mexican Cartels Expanding Operations in Canada, Using Indigenous Reserves as Factory Hubs
-
Fraser Institute19 hours ago
Declining stature of foreign affairs minister underscores Canada’s waning influence on world stage
-
Automotive4 hours ago
Canada’s EV house of cards is close to collapsing
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta’s Environmental Changemakers Shine at the 2025 Emerald Awards
-
Banks2 days ago
Liberal border bill could usher in cashless economy by outlawing cash payments