[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

C-59 is only going to result in less transparency regarding ESG. No company, O&G or otherwise, is going to say anything about ESG publicly.

Well then they are pathetic and cowardly. Or they have been spewing BS this whole time. Because there is no reason to believe that the Comp Bureau has magically become a Kangaroo Court because a couple paragraphs got added to a law.

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Couple quick areas, the nebulous reference to international reporting standards and now a private party can force this review where previously it was th competition bureau. If you don’t think the environmental NGO’s aren’t licking their chops at just endlessly tying up the resource company’s on this issue you are kidding yourself.

Citation on the bolded? Has this not always been a complaints based process through the Competition Bureau? I couldn't find anything with respect to changing the process. What do you think the process is?


Interestingly, there have already been a few cases dealt with through the environmental lens (all comp bureau cases made public: https://competition-bureau.canada.ca...s-and-outcomes :

Keurig Canada Allegations of false or misleading environmental claims about the recyclability of single-use coffee pods The company agreed to pay a $3 million penalty, donate $800,000 to a Canadian charitable organisation and pay $500,000 for the costs of the Bureau’s investigation

Automobile (3.0 litre diesel engine) Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche Allegations of false or misleading environmental marketing claims The companies agreed to pay a penalty of $2.5 million.

Automobile (2.0 litre diesel engine) Volkswagen Canada and Audi Canada Allegations of false or misleading environmental claims The companies agreed to pay an administrative penalty of $15 million.

Now there is a fairly direct line from these false claims to consumer decisions. Which could also apply to retail gasoline, but there are probably a lot of less direct cases where a company might have been able to wriggle out of the Comp Bureau's purview before.


As for your concern about "internationally recognized methodology"...I don't know wtf you expect? Of course there is ambiguity for something this broad. I'm not sure how every other company in Canada has survived the unspecified definition of "adequate and proper test" in 74.01(b). Or perhaps I should say all but 3:

Spoiler!

Sport equipment True Sport Allegations of performance claims not based on adequate and proper tests The company agreed to cease all claims at issue and donate $100,000 in equipment to support youth sports.

Sport equipment Reebok-CCM Allegations that certain performance claims not based on adequate and proper tests The company agreed to remove or modify certain performance claim, donate $475,000 to a Canadian charity, and pay $30,000 toward the cost of the Bureau’s investigation.

Electronic muscle stimulation devices Thane Canada Inc. Allegations of performance claims not based on adequate and proper tests The company agreed to pay a penalty of $350,000 and not to market electronic muscle stimulation services for 10 years.

It's almost like there will be professionals adjudicating these cases who can apply critical judgment. If I had to hazard a wild guess, I'd venture that the int'l methodology thing was included to prevent companies from using shoddy #### from the Fraser Institute (or similar) to support their statements.