As claims of environmental sustainability and “green” marketing practices continue to attract regulatory and public scrutiny, the federal government has continued to adjust its approach to greenwashing under Canada’s Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 (the “Competition Act”).
Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget table in Parliament on November 4, 2025, received Royal Assent on March 26, 2026 (“Bill C-15”). Through this omnibus legislation, the federal government enacted two key amendments to the Competition Act’s “anti-greenwashing” provisions: (i) adding greater flexibility for how businesses can substantiate environmental representations; and (ii) limiting the scope of certain private actions.
On the heels of Bill C-59, which introduced the Competition Act’s first express anti-greenwashing provisions in 2024 (“Bill C-59”), these new amendments in Bill C-15 mark a modest but important recalibration of interests — slightly rebalancing interests between businesses, consumers, competitors, and environmental protection.
What is greenwashing?
The federal Competition Bureau defines greenwashing as the practice of making false, misleading, or unsubstantiated environmental claims — creating the inaccurate impression that a product, service, or business practice is more environmentally beneficial than it truly is.[1] Through a lens of anti-competitive behaviour, greenwashing can contribute to marketplace distortion: misleading consumers into believing that they are making environmentally-sound choices, and disadvantaging businesses that invest in legitimate, evidence-based environmental practices and marketing.
In June 2024, Bill C-59 introduced Canada’s first express anti-greenwashing provisions under ss. 74.01(1)(b.1) and (b.2) of the Competition Act, establishing dedicated rules for both: (i) environmental performance claims about products; and (ii) environmental benefit claims about businesses or business activities. For more information on Bill C-59, please see our August 7, 2025 Insight: “One Year Out: The New Frontier of Greenwashing Litigation in Canada”.
Newest changes to the Competition Act under Bill C-15
Upon its enactment in 2024, Bill C-59 gave rise to significant uncertainty among Canadian businesses. Companies struggled to interpret the requirement that environmental claims be supported by an “internationally recognized methodology”, leading some to reassess their environmental representations, and others to even scale back their “green” initiatives due to the uncertain risk of non-compliance with the Competition Act.[2]
Through its enactment in 2026, Bill C-15 attempts to address and mitigate some of these compliance challenges. Bill C-15 modifies two key aspects of the existing Bill C-59 regime:
- First, Bill C-15 removes the requirement for businesses to substantiate environmental representations “in accordance with internationally recognized methodology”; and
- Second, Bill C-15 eliminates the ability of third parties to bring cases directly to the Competition Tribunal in respect of environmental representations concerning a business or business activity.
For a table summary of the latest changes to the Competition Act, you can access our one-page briefing sheet here.
Modification #1: a more flexible approach to “adequate and proper substantiation”
Under s. 74.01(1)(b.2) of the Competition Act, environmental claims regarding the benefits of a business or business activity must still be based on “adequate and proper substantiation” (where “substantiation” means, according to the Competition Bureau, “having evidence to show that a claim is true”).[3] Accordingly, businesses must still select a method of substantiation that is suitable, appropriate and relevant to the claim being made, and sufficiently rigorous to establish the claim in question. Doing so, however, no longer requires recourse to international standards.
Whereas businesses were previously required to show “adequate and proper substantiation” for environmental claims “in accordance with internationally recognized methodology” — where the concept of “internationally recognized methodology” was previously undefined and difficult to identify under Bill C-59 — under the latest Competition Act amendments, businesses need only point to “adequate and proper substantiation”.
This amendment to s. 74.01(1)(b.2) of the Competition Act helpfully restores some greater flexibility when it comes to substantiating environmental claims.
Modification #2: a potential narrowing of greenwashing litigation risk
Through Bill C-15, the federal government has also introduced greater limits on private access to the Competition Tribunal. These amendments represent a partial course reversal from Bill C-59, which notably expanded private recourse under the Competition Act.
With the enactment of ss. 74.01(1.01) and 103.1(6.2), private parties (such as competitors, consumers, and environmental groups) are no longer able to bring private applications to the Competition Tribunal in relation to alleged deceptive environmental marketing practices under s. 74.01(1)(b.2). Oversight of environmental representations concerning the environmental benefits of a “business or business activity” will now rest solely with the Commissioner of Competition (the head of the Competition Bureau), reducing some external pressure on businesses.
Not without some debate
The federal government’s latest amendments to the Competition Act via Bill C-15 were not enacted without some pointed debate. In the House of Commons, for example, Liberal Member of Parliament Patrick Weiler (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country) characterized the government’s proposed changes to the Competition Act as “a mistake”:
[Bill C-15 removes] the requirement that this substantiation be done in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology. It also removes the third-party private right of action at the tribunal. I think both moves are a mistake, but especially the latter.[4]
Others, like Conservative Member of Parliament Branden Leslie (Portage–Lisgar), focused on the government’s quick change of course, characterizing the latest amendments via Bill C-15 as “[t]he government … sheepishly backtracking” just a year after Bill C-59:
What happened? Reality happened, and it hit hard.
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board rolled back its own net-zero portfolio commitment, with experts linking it to these changes. The Royal Bank of Canada ditched its $500-billion sustainable finance pledge and stopped disclosing key green metrics, fearing penalties. The rules created a chilling effect as businesses halted legitimate green claims to avoid the red tape nightmare. Even the Competition Bureau's guidelines could not save this mess, as industry feedback poured in about the unworkable burden.
Now the Liberals are quietly relaxing it to “adequate and proper substantiation” and banning private lawsuits, admitting their overreach without any apology.[5]
Broader trends in environmental and regulatory law
Regardless of the partisan debate surrounding Bill C-15, these latest amendments to the Competition Act arrive at a moment when Canada’s environmental regulatory landscape is becoming increasingly detailed and compliance-intensive. In recent years, the federal government has rolled out high-precision reporting regimes, including a new PFAS (“forever chemical”) reporting regime now in place under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, S.C. 1999, c. 33.[6] Initiatives like this one reflect a wider trend of granular, data-focused oversight.
In response to this shifting landscape, some Canadian businesses have also become increasingly cautious when it comes to environmental reporting and initiatives. One significant example is the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (“CPP”):
- In February 2022, CPP announced a net-zero commitment “across all scopes by 2050”,[7] but this public commitment was then quietly rolled back in May 2025 (with CPP citing “legal uncertainty” in a brief explanation of its “considered decision”).[8]
- More recently, in October 2025, CPP became the subject of a new legal proceeding filed by lawyers from Ecojustice and Goldblatt Partners LLP (Aliya Hirji and others v. Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Ontario Sup. Ct. Justice File No. CV-25-00754169-0000).[9] The applicants in that case allege, among other claims, that CPP “breached… statutory and fiduciary duties” through “its failure to prudently identify, assess and manage climate-related financial risks”.[10]
Where do we stand today? In the midst of an ever-evolving legal landscape.
While businesses must continue to approach environmental marketing with care, ensuring that environmental claims remain accurate and supported by verifiable sources, Bill C-15 stands out as a rare instance of regulatory recalibration — signaling an attempt to adjust the balance between environmental objectives and workable compliance pathways for corporations.
Follow our Insights as we continue to watch this developing field of Canadian law.
Various members of Lawson Lundell LLP’s Regulatory Compliance, Pensions and Employee Benefits, Corporate Commercial, and Litigation & Dispute Resolution groups frequently advise on matters involving the Competition Act, environmental marketing claims, and class proceedings across Canada. For inquiries about greenwashing litigation and/or related regulatory compliance, please reach out to one of our team members.
[1] Government of Canada, “Environmental Claims and Greenwashing” (July 10, 2025).
[2] For more about these impacts, see our Lawson Lundell Insight, “One Year Out: The New Frontier of Greenwashing Litigation in Canada” (August 7, 2025).
[3] Government of Canada, “Environmental claims and the Competition Act” (June 5, 2025) online: <competition-bureau.canada.ca/en/how-we-foster-competition/education-and-outreach/publications/environmental-claims-and-competition-act> (“Competition Bureau Guidance”).
[4] Hansard (November 25, 2025), online: < https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/house/sitting-60/hansard#Int-13261900>.
[5] Hansard (December 2, 2025), online: < https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/45-1/house/sitting-65/hansard#Int-13281929>.
[6] Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 30: SUPPLEMENT (July 27, 2024) online: <gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2024/2024-07-27/html/sup-eng.html>.
[7] “CPP Investments Announces Commitment to Net Zero by 2050” (February 10, 2022), online: <https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/cpp-investments-announces-commitment-to-net-zero-by-2050-897529663.html>.
[8] See, for example: Business in Vancouver, “Canada’s pension giant quietly abandons net-zero climate goal” (May 21, 2025), online: <https://www.biv.com/news/environment/canadas-pension-giant-quietly-abandons-net-zero-climate-goal-10690703>.
[9] A filed copy of the notice of application initiating this proceeding is available through Ecojustice’s website, here: <https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Application-Document-Form-14E_-Notice-of-Application.pdf>.
[10] See the filed notice of application at para. 6.