In early February, at a press conference announcing his proposed private members’ bill to ban fossil fuel advertising, federal NDP member of Parliament Charlie Angus argued oil and gas companies have continuously contributed to climate change, while “claiming they can be part of the climate solution.”
“That’s like Benson and Hedges telling you that they can help end lung cancer,” Angus said.
Referring to the British cigarette brand and big tobacco’s public relations campaign masking the carcinogenic effects of their products from the 1950s until the 1990s, Angus compared hiding the effects of cigarettes to what he calls the “propaganda” of fossil fuel producers.
Bill C-372, or the Fossil Fuel Advertising Act, has been met with both applause and ire. Those in favour view it as an essential step in limiting greenwashing and holding big oil accountable. Those opposed see it as an arbitrary, ill-timed infringement on free speech.
Members of Parliament, who are not ministers, the parliamentary secretary or the house or deputy Speaker can submit legislation for approval and potential amendment. Essentially, private members’ bills come from ordinary MPs and must receive the support of other MPs to become law.
Historical comparisons
Angus’s bill proposes legislation similar to the 1997 Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, banning the outward promotion of tobacco products and any misleading information about their health impacts.
Structurally, both Bill C-372 and the 1997 legislation are similar, with the former utilizing much of the same language — replacing “tobacco” with “fossil fuels.”
Critics argue that fossil fuels and tobacco are not the same. For one, society still relies heavily on oil and gas to fuel our economies and daily lives. In Alberta, especially, oil and gas account for 21 per cent of the total GDP. Many events and organizations in the province are sponsored by industry in some way or another.
Martin Olszynski, an associate professor at the U of C’s faculty of law, said it took decades for the public to recognize the widespread consequences of smoking.
“One of the things that we have to understand is that while now it seems to be incontrovertible, that tobacco is generally bad for us … that’s a four-decade journey when we start passing restrictions on tobacco advertising,” Olszynski said.
To crack down on greenwashing, the bill prohibits promotion of fossil fuels and their production “in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive” in terms of health and environmental impacts and hazardous emissions.
Emilia Belliveau, energy transition program manager with Environmental Defence Canada, an organization advocating for the environment and community health, said greenwashing isn’t new.
“We see how pervasive it is and how effectively it’s been used as a tool to manipulate the public perception of the oil and gas industry,” Belliveau said.
Greenwashing – when companies make false claims about their environmental efforts without concrete evidence of their work – is most apparent when companies claim they will be net zero by a certain date, Belliveau said.
It’s no secret that fossil fuel companies have known about the effects of climate change long before governments started creating policies to target it. A 1988 Shell report – which Angus points to as evidence of persistent misinformation – demonstrates that big oil companies like Shell and Exxon investigated the damaging effects of their products while engaging in climate change denialism.
The question of advertising campaigns
Belliveau said fossil fuel companies “invest hundreds of millions of dollars” on product advertising campaigns. Similarly, supporters of the bill maintain big oil spends more on advertising than on its sustainability policies.
Through its annual Environmental Protection Expenditures Survey, Statistics Canada collects data on the amount various industries spend on environmental initiatives.
In 2020, the most recent year with available data, the survey reported the oil and gas industry spent the most on environmental protection at $2.7 billion, accounting for almost one-third, or 27 per cent of the total expenditures across all industries.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), a non-partisan, research organization promoting the development of the oil and gas industry in Canada, reports similar numbers. According to their 2024 forecast, the oil and gas industry spent $9.4 billion from 2018 to 2020 on environmental protection, amounting to 33 per cent of all businesses’ expenses.
In an email statement to the Calgary Journal, CAPP president and chief executive officer Lisa Baiton defended her industry’s advertising.
“Abiding by Canadian advertising laws, we are proud to amplify industry efforts to meet the need for safe, reliable, affordable, and responsibly produced energy, for Canada and the world.”
“Advertising,” the statement added, “is one way we can reach Canadians to ensure they are informed of the progress their oil and natural gas industry is making on these critical matters.”
Prescribing jail time for speaking well of fossil fuels
Opponents of the bill, however, maintain that Bill C-372 will fine and imprison anyone who appears to support fossil fuels.
While the bill does outline fines of $1-million to $1.5-million for companies and $500,000 to $750,000 for “other persons” who breach its policies, Belliveau, with Environmental Defence, said there are provisions protecting individuals from hefty fines and jail time.
“In reading the full text of the bill, it’s easy to see that individuals are protected, retailers are protected,” she said. “This is specifically going after oil and gas companies and PR firms – folks who spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising.”
Others claim the bill restricts constitutional rights such as free speech and expression. Prof. Olszynski, however, said apparent restrictions are not automatic infringements.
“The charter is self-limiting. Not all infringements on the charter are going to be unconstitutional,” he said. “So long as they’re consistent with the principles of a free and democratic society, then there are going to be some infringements.”
Section 20 of the bill also outlines exemptions through a “due diligence defence.” If a person can prove they did everything in their power to avoid spreading misleading information, then they cannot be found guilty.
Olszynski said that while the bill’s timing might not be perfect, given that the Liberal government is currently more focused on legislation targeting emissions reductions, it does spark important conversations moving forward.
“What Mr. Angus has done already successfully is he’s gotten people to start talking about fossil fuels and thinking about tobacco and thinking about the restrictions on tobacco,” he said.
Belliveau agrees, saying at the very least Bill C-372 brings the fossil fuel and tobacco industry connection into the public’s consciousness.
“I think even if the bill doesn’t pass, the conversation that we’re having now that draws the connection between big oil and big tobacco is really valuable.”