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.
- Other (please specify)
1b. Specify priority
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
2b. Please share the reason for your answer in the space provided
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
4b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
5a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed scope of objectives to be covered under the DNSH and MSS frameworks?
Select
5b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
6b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
7. In which areas, if any, is it necessary to go beyond existing laws and standards for the DNSH/MSS framework?
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
8b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
9. Are there any gaps in the proposed DNSH/MSS framework that could result in unintended environmental or social harms?
Please refer to our submission.
10. How should the taxonomy operationalize the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and, in particular, the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, in the MSS framework?
Please refer to our submission.
11. Is there any other feedback you would like to provide on the proposed MSS/DNSH framework?
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
12b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
13b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
14b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
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.
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?
Please refer to our submission.
17. Is there any other feedback you would like to provide on the proposed activity classification framework?
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Select
18b. Please explain your answer in the space below
Please refer to our submission.
20. When thinking about the taxonomy’s credibility and usability, how technologically specific or prescriptive should the technical screening criteria be?
Please refer to our submission.
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?
Please refer to our submission.
Final questions
22. Overall, how satisfied are you with the proposed sustainable finance taxonomy framework?
Select
23. Is there any other feedback you would like to provide on the methodology report as a whole that has not already been covered?
Please refer to our submission.