Enough. Who's Really Flooding Canada’s Councils with Misinformation?
By Maggie Hope Braun
Founder, KICLEI Canada
September 23, 2025
Another week, another article from Rory White of the Canadian National Observer — again pushing the same tired, disproven narrative that KICLEI is “Did an AI chatbot push Thorold Council to leave the Climate Protection Program?”
It’s becoming a pattern.
When a municipal council anywhere in Canada votes to leave the FCM's Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program, Canada’s National Observer publishes a follow-up hit piece. The articles target councillors, misrepresent facts, and discredit citizens who raise valid concerns about the cost, governance, and legitimacy of international climate programs being embedded in local decision-making.
We’ve addressed this narrative multiple times — with facts, transparency, and reasoned arguments.
But it keeps coming back.
So let’s set the record straight again — and this time, let’s ask why this story keeps being told.
No, an AI Chatbot Did Not Influence Thorold Council — or Any Other
Here are the actual events leading up to Thorold’s decision:
Feb 2, 2023 — Resident Ron Devereux gave an in-person delegation. (Watch here)
Mar 1, 2024 — I presented over Zoom to the Environmental Committee. (Watch here)
Mar 19, 2024 — Local resident Mark LaFebe (spelling uncertain) and I gave Zoom delegations to council. (Watch here)
May 28, 2024 — Representatives from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) presented to council. Their presentation was less than impressive. (Watch here)
June 18, 2024 — Three local residents and I gave public deputations. A petition calling for withdrawal was submitted, and 50+ residents attended in person. (Watch here)
After this, council reviewed a formal staff report and voted to exit the PCP program.
That vote was democratic, transparent, and legal.
No chatbot presented.
No chatbot made a motion.
No chatbot cast a vote.
To suggest otherwise is a fabrication — one that disrespects both the intelligence of councillors and the right of citizens to participate in public policy.
What They Call “Weaponized AI” Is Actually… Citizenship
The Observer claims that KICLEI’s “custom AI chatbot” is being used to influence municipal councils. But here’s what they say the tool is actually programmed to do:
“The chatbot’s instructions tell it to de-emphasize the climate catastrophe narrative… to focus on practical environmental protection measures… real pollution, not CO₂… [and] to frame these arguments in the most reasonable possible way, emphasizing collaboration and encouraging diplomacy and mutual understanding between citizens and elected officials.”
— Canada’s National Observer, Sept 2025
Let’s pause on that.
They’re describing a tool that:
Uses respectful tone
Encourages diplomacy
Focuses on real environmental stewardship
Supports constructive communication between citizens and councils
Avoids alarmism
Stays grounded in local priorities
That’s not “weaponized.” That’s the definition of engaged citizenship.
What Canada’s National Observer is really criticizing is not a chatbot — it’s the fact that everyday Canadians are now equipped to write well, speak clearly, and push back on complex global frameworks with confidence and professionalism.
We are proud of that.
Projection: What They Accuse Us of, They Are Doing Themselves
Now, let’s compare KICLEI’s work to the National Observer’s own description of their operations — taken directly from their About Us page.
Everything they accuse us of, they do themselves — but on a much larger, institutional scale.
Accusation: “Using AI tools to shape narratives”
Reality: CNO openly describes itself as a digital-only outlet that has “grown from a startup to a newsroom politicians, business leaders, and policymakers rely on.” They dedicate 15% of their budget to operations and technology, partner with The Trust Project to work with global tech platforms, and list Margery Moore — President of I-SEA and founder of ehsAI — on their advisory board. Their own “digital ethics” branding and technology partnerships show they’re deeply embedded in AI and digital influence networks — far beyond KICLEI’s basic use of grammar-checking tools.
Accusation: “Flooding councils with emails”
Reality: CNO reaches 4.5 million readers annually and supplies content directly to governments, universities, and schools — far beyond local councils.
Accusation: “Coordinated misinformation to change decisions”
Reality: CNO openly admits their reporting has influenced legislation, sparked parliamentary questions, and changed how Canadians understand the climate choices being made in their name. Good for them — but why can’t citizens do the same?
And here’s the irony: by reporting so one-sidedly on KICLEI’s work, anyone who actually knows the full story — like the councillors in Thorold, or others who have sat through public delegations — would say it’s CNO that is spreading misinformation. The difference is scale: KICLEI is grassroots, while CNO does it on a much larger, institutional level.
So when CNO claims KICLEI is “flooding councils” or “influencing decisions,” remember this: we’re talking about a handful of grassroots citizens writing respectful emails and giving delegations.
They, on the other hand, are delivering centrally coordinated messaging to millions — backed by government subsidies, institutional subscriptions, tech and renewable industry ties, and international foundations.
So the question is simple:
Who’s really running the multimillion-dollar influence campaign here?
Why This Narrative Keeps Coming Back
It’s obvious why this reporting keeps resurfacing: a well-funded newsroom is threatened when citizens begin doing similar work — on a smaller scale, and in open opposition.
KICLEI is still a start-up — volunteer-led, citizen-funded, and growing — but it’s having an impact because it shares information, asks questions, and equips residents to speak to council. That’s not a conspiracy; it’s transparent civic organizing.
When hard questions start to change outcomes, powerful actors often try to discredit the questioners rather than answer the questions.
We’ll keep asking the questions, and
We already answered their questions. And they keep ignoring our answers.
We’ve responded to every accusation:
✅ We published a full Q&A reply to Canada’s National Observer — in writing, to ensure accuracy
✅ We posted a public response to their original article, line-by-line
✅ We showed how ICLEI Canada ignored our Open Letter — while calling us “misinformation” without answering a single question
✅ We provided source citations for every scientific claim we made
✅ We clarified that our outreach is opt-in, polite, and unsubscribable — like any newsletter
The silence from ICLEI and FCM is deafening. The only people answering questions are the ones being attacked.
To Councillors Across Canada: You Are Not Alone.
You are being targeted — not for doing something wrong, but for doing your job.
You were elected to ask questions, weigh costs, and represent your constituents.
You are not obligated to accept every international program that shows up with a grant and a timeline.
You are not spreading misinformation for asking “What will this cost us?”
And you are not alone.
We are hundreds of Canadians — councillors, farmers, planners, small business owners — standing together to demand local accountability in a world of top-down policy.
Maggie Hope Braun
Founder, KICLEI Canada
info@kiclei.ca | www.kiclei.ca
Disclaimer (because transparency matters):
This article was polished with the help of ChatGPT — because unlike Canada’s National Observer, I don’t have a $2.8M newsroom budget or a team of editors.
I use AI the way most working-age professionals do: as a grammar checker, draft smoother, and instant proof-reader. Studies show 61% of Canadian workers intentionally use AI at work, especially in communications, tech, and desk-based jobs.
That’s a far cry from what the Observer accuses KICLEI of. Using a tool to clean up sentences is not the same thing as “orchestrating council decisions with a chatbot.”
So if you see a typo, blame me — not the robot. 😉