Taxonomy Foundations
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
1a. The first phase of taxonomy development will focus on climate mitigation. In subsequent phases of the Canadian taxonomy, which objectives should be prioritized? Please select your top choices.
- Protection of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems
- Pollution prevention and control
- Circular economy
It is proposed that the design and implementation of the Canadian taxonomy be informed by the following six principles: Credible; usable; interoperable; dynamic; regionally specific; and prioritized.
2a. Do you agree or disagree with these proposed principles as the foundation for the taxonomy?
Strongly agree
2b. Please share the reason for your answer in the space provided
Credible means not focussing on removals as a first port of call. Integrity Matters UN HLEG report written by former Minister McKenna should form the basis
3. Please rate each of the principles below on a scale from “very important” to “not at all important.”
- Credible
- Very important
- Usable
- Important
- Interoperable
- Important
- Dynamic
- Important
- Regionally Specific
- Important
- Prioritized
- Important
Do No Significant Harm and Minimum Social Safeguards
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
The proposed taxonomy framework for Canada includes a set of Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) criteria and Minimum Social Safeguards (MSS), which will be designed to ensure that climate mitigation objectives do not adversely impact other environmental and social values, or legal rights. It is proposed that issuers must disclose the extent to which they meet specific criteria for both DNSH and MSS in order to claim taxonomy alignment.
4a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed partial alignment approach, which would require entities to disclose the extent to which DNSH/MSS criteria are or are not met rather than requiring full alignment with all DNSH/MSS criteria?
Agree
4b. Please explain your answer in the space below
If this supports transparency that significant harm should be disclosed, however mitigation is a top agenda.
5a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed scope of objectives to be covered under the DNSH and MSS frameworks?
Neutral
6a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach to grounding the DNSH/MSS frameworks in Canadian legislation and going beyond existing laws and standards where necessary?
Agree
8a. Do you agree or disagree that different DNSH/MSS standards should apply to projects or entities of different sizes? E.g. more comprehensive disclosures required for larger projects and/or entities, with more streamlined disclosures for smaller projects and/or entities?
Strongly agree
8b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Large and listed companies, with the more complex and longer supply chains should have the burden of data collection and reporting, and should be encouraged to put aside resources and make corporate commitment to disclose.
Section 3: Activity Classification Framework
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
The activity classification framework proposes that the green category should be limited to activities with zero or near-zero emissions that make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation or to activities that directly enable zero to near-zero emissions climate solutions (e.g., electric vehicle manufacturing facilities)
12a. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?
Agree
The framework proposes that the transition category should include activities that have materially high emissions today but have the potential to decarbonize sufficiently to align with the green definition (i.e., zero to near-zero emissions) by 2050. These activities are likely to experience stable or growing demand in Paris-aligned representative pathways due to a lack of technically feasible low-carbon substitutes (e.g., major decarbonization investments in steel, cement, and chemicals manufacturing).
13a. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?
Strongly agree
13b. Please explain your answer in the space below
High emission sectors in Canada include oil and gas, with Canada's industrial strategy making clear to expand production, this is a concern and Canadians need to understand what credible transition plan is in place. Climate impacts are causing the population to demand answers to this.
14a. Do you agree or disagree that the proposed guardrails for the transition category (both for the whole-of-activity and measures pathways) are sufficient to protect the science-based credibility of the category and reduce the risk of carbon lock-in, while supporting usability?
Agree
The report proposes that initial research on the abatement measures category should be conducted in 2027 and include select emissions-reduction measures for activities that have high Scope 1 emissions today and are unable to achieve the life cycle emissions reductions necessary to align with Paris-aligned pathways (e.g. major decarbonization investments in the upstream production, refining, and distribution of oil and gas). These are activities that are highly likely to experience declining demand as the world transitions to clean energy and alternative technologies.
15a. Do you agree or disagree that the taxonomy should include a third “abatement” category, as proposed, that covers demand-decline activities?
Strongly disagree (i.e., disagree on fundamentals)
15b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Deeply concerned about this category, and disagree with its inclusion, which is targeted at the country’s large and growing oil and gas sector. This category “will help enable select, tightly ring-fenced emissions-reduction investments made in the short-term” without—the climate hopes—locking-in high carbon assets. Getting that balance right will require real leadership and more clarity is needed on plans. As this workstream will not start until 2027, it should be treated as an urgent 2026 matter.
The report proposes an illustrative list of guardrails for the abatement measures category that, if formally developed and finalized, would be designed to prevent carbon lock-in and ensure the abatement measures category remains credible within a Paris-aligned framework. When thinking about the taxonomy’s credibility and usability, please provide feedback on this illustrative list of guardrails.
16. Should any additional guardrails be considered?
Deep commitment to net zero, expanding renewables as a first priority above expansion of oil and gas.
Section 4: Technical Screening Criteria
Please feel free to answer only the questions that are of the most interest and relevance to you.
18a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for developing technical screening criteria?
Neutral
19. Please rate each of the proposed elements for the screening criteria on a scale from “very important” to “not at all important.”
- Forward-looking wherever possible
- Very important
- Include sunset and/or sunrise dates where relevant
- Very important
- Revise as necessary during regular review periods
- Important
- Primarily use quantitative metrics
- Important
- Primarily focus on Scope 1 emissions but address Scope 2 and 3 emissions where feasible and/or material
- Important
- Informed by a range of robust methods
- Very important
20. When thinking about the taxonomy’s credibility and usability, how technologically specific or prescriptive should the technical screening criteria be?
Scope 3 is where the most significant emissions lie, concern about primary focus on Scope 1.
21. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach of focusing primarily on Scope 1 emissions, and addressing Scope 2 and 3 emissions where feasible and/or material?
Yes, priority on Scope 3 as well as 1 and 2. The forthcoming ISO Net Zero standard is a framework for transition planning and should be used by the Government of Canada.
Final questions
22. Overall, how satisfied are you with the proposed sustainable finance taxonomy framework?
Satisfied