Canada Joins Global Climate Disinformation Fight While Backtracking on Domestic Greenwashing Rules

In a significant step at the COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil, countries have formally committed to tackling climate disinformation for the first time, with Canada among the 15 nations signing the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change. The pledge comes at a critical moment, as climate misinformation surged 267% between July and September leading up to the summit, according to a report by Climate Action Against Disinformation.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva set the tone in his opening address, condemning those who spread climate disinformation. “In the era of disinformation, obscurantists reject not only scientific evidence but also the progress of multilateralism,” he stated. “They control algorithms, sow hatred, and spread fear. They attack institutions, science, and universities. It is time to once again defeat the denialists.”

The declaration, which includes signatories such as Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay, commits nations to promoting climate information integrity while respecting international human rights law. It also emphasizes supporting diverse media ecosystems, advancing equitable access to accurate climate information, and protecting climate reporters and researchers.

However, Canada’s commitment abroad stands in stark contrast to recent domestic policy decisions. Environmental advocates have criticized the federal government for announcing plans in its 2025 budget to roll back anti-greenwashing measures that were only adopted in June 2024 through Bill C-59.

Dr. Joe Vipond, emergency physician and past president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), highlighted this contradiction: “While joining the global initiative is a good step forward towards protecting the truth, the government’s plan to weaken existing greenwashing rules would be a major step backward.”

The anti-greenwashing provisions in Bill C-59 had strengthened the federal Competition Act by requiring that environmental marketing claims be substantiated by internationally recognized methodology. The law also extended the scope of private party claims and implemented a “reverse onus” provision that would require companies accused of greenwashing to prove their claims were substantiated.

These measures faced significant pushback from corporations, who argued the requirements were too vague and would create a “chilling effect” on environmental reporting. Some warned it might lead to “greenhushing,” where companies cease publishing climate disclosures altogether for fear of legal challenges.

In response to business concerns, the government’s recent budget announced intentions to remove the requirement that environmental claims be substantiated by internationally acceptable methodology, citing a need to create “more certainty” in markets, particularly for international investors.

The Canadian Climate Law Initiative acknowledged the “legal risks and unintended consequences” of Bill C-59 but expressed concern that the proposed rollback “leaves a lot of questions open on the intent and extent of the amendments and what that will mean for the substantiation requirement for claims.”

Some experts suggest Canada should look to more established regulatory frameworks as models. Thomas Walker and Maya Saryyeva of the Institute for Sustainable Finance at Queen’s University recommend that Canada draw inspiration from Australia’s “more mature and robust” anti-greenwashing legislation. They advocate for clearer guidance with sector-specific examples, better coordination between the Competition Bureau and financial regulators, and mandatory climate-related corporate reporting aligned with the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board.

As climate disinformation continues to delay meaningful action globally, Canada’s seemingly contradictory approach—championing information integrity internationally while potentially weakening domestic accountability measures—raises questions about the government’s commitment to combating greenwashing at home.