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.

• Water and marine resource conservation
• Other (please specify)

1b. Specify priority

Loss and Damage and Responsibility of sectors that have contributed to it. These objectives are not water-tight from mitigation, and the taxonomy process should clearly indicate that finished pieces will be updated and interactions between mitigation and subsequent objectives will be addressed. For example, a failure to mitigate should give rise to heightened responsibilities in relation to adaptation, loss and damage, and protection of biodiversity and healthy ecosystems.

2a. Do you agree or disagree with these proposed principles as the foundation for the taxonomy?

Agree

2b. Please share the reason for your answer in the space provided

Within the current principles, credibility is the most important, being the primary principle which can examine issues of science. However, the below submissions flag critical areas for improvement, and an additional principle, currently absent from the taxonomy.

WCEL’s Recommendation for an Added Principle:
The discussion paper discusses the Taxonomy’s level of ambition at some length, but this survey does not directly mention ambition. According to the discussion paper, the ambition is necessary “to support both credibility and interoperability,” but the importance of rigorous, science-based standards consistent with a safe climate future must be clearly reflected in the principles, and deserve their own principle.

The Discussion Paper equates the level of ambition variously as aligned with climate science, anchored to the Paris Agreement and based on Canada’s Net Zero Emissions Accountability Act (CNZEAA).[1] The Discussion Paper does acknowledge in a footnote that the Paris Agreement and the CNZEAA are not consistent, and that basing a technical screening on Paris-aligned pathways “would likely require steeper and faster near-term emissions reductions across sectors than what is required under the legislated Canadian net zero target.”

It fails to address the reality that:
• CNZEAA is being challenged in the Federal Court as unconstitutional due to its failure to plot a climate-safe path for Canada’s GHG emissions (La Rose v. HMTQ, scheduled for hearing in October 2026. West Coast Environmental Law is providing support to this case);
• Using CNZEAA as a basis for screening encounters similar challenges to those that occur using the Paris Agreement, such as having to make assumptions about apportionment of emissions between sectors, provinces and facilities, as well as the degree to which 2026, 2030 and 2035 targets (themselves inadequate) will inform the screening.
• The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion provides an interpretation of national obligations under the Paris Agreement, other treaties and Customary International Law that CNZEAA fails to meet.

The Discussion Paper’s failure to centre climate-science and the need for a rigorous standard as a stand-alone principle has allowed the authors to gloss over the difficult but crucial questions that go to the heart of the Taxonomy.

Relegating this principle to being necessary in defining the credible and interoperable principles is not sufficient; credible, in particular, is extraordinarily subjective, depending upon the perspectives that the reader brings, as evidenced by the Discussion Paper’s apparent belief that the oil and gas industry needs to be included for the Taxonomy to be credible. This conclusion stands in contrast to the Discussion Paper’s acknowledgement that “[t]he complete exclusion of these activities [in other taxonomies] has been grounded in clear climate science” (Discussion Paper, p. 39).

Interoperability would seem to support excluding oil and gas operations altogether since, as the discussion paper acknowledges, international taxonomies have more typically excluded “any type of investment in activities misaligned with the long-term objectives of the Paris Agreement.” However, this is clearer when the importance of rigorous, science-based standards is explicitly included as a principle.

We also note that while Prioritization does make some sense for a principle in developing a Taxonomy, the discussion of this Principle in the Discussion Paper fails to address why the Abatement Category is a priority. Even if there were arguments for developing an Abatement Category, why is it of sufficient priority to mandate that development of the guard rails start by the end of 2027, only slightly behind the six sectors which are identified as the highest priority?

We submit that the Oil and Gas sector does not meet the prioritization criteria listed in the description of the Prioritized Principle at p. 16 (focused on “a) activities are likely to deliver the greatest impact on the taxonomy’s climate mitigation objective and b) Canada has the opportunity to demonstrate leadership and bring additional market clarity and value to complement existing global guidance.”

Other sectors, as well as standards for adaptation/resilience and other priorities discussed in question 1a, above, surely are higher priority.

Additional Commentary on Currently Proposed Principles:
Within the current principles, credibility is the most important to the taxonomy’s legitimacy, integrity and effectiveness as a sustainable investment classification system, subject to the improvements set out in these submissions.

To constitute a credible taxonomy, the fossil fuel sector can play no role within any of its categories, including within the abatement measures category. Recognizing oil and gas activities in any taxonomy category would be inconsistent with the taxonomy’s fundamental function of distinguishing investments that credibly contribute to long-term environmental and climate objectives, including scientifically credible pathways to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. It would perpetuate contradictory outcomes, including greenwashing, while risking prolonged reliance on high-emitting activities in Canada at the expense of climate stability and ecological integrity.

Additionally, the credibility of a national taxonomy depends on meaningfully incorporating respect for human rights, constitutionally protected Indigenous rights, and Canada’s commitment to the internationally recognized rights and standards set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), as affirmed through the Constitution Act, 1982 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA). Ensuring the MSS framework meaningfully adheres to the baseline standard for Indigenous rights set out in UNDRIP is also critical to meaningfully actioning the MSS framework’s stated commitment to Indigenous rights. However, the inclusion of fossil fuel sectors within the taxonomy and the failure to integrate Aboriginal and Indigenous rights (including a requirement for full alignment with UNDRIP) cannot be considered sustainable by any definition, including due to the impact of these industries on the health of Indigenous lands, territories, resources, and the exercise of Indigenous and Aboriginal rights across generations.

With regard to the regionally specific principle, considering the unique barriers that may arise for northern, rural, remote and Indigenous communities cannot come at the cost of deviating from the taxonomy’s core mandate of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and directing capital towards meaningfully “green” and “transition” activities accordingly. It also cannot result in lowered taxonomy standards that increase fossil fuel dependence, environmental racism and the disproportionate ecological, environmental and climate impacts by directing capital towards non-sustainable activities on communities made vulnerable. The application of this principle must not inadvertently direct capital towards activities that extend the life of fossil fuel infrastructure or delay in an energy transition, which would not meaningfully improve outcomes for communities in any case. Critically, the taxonomy should not reinforce these inequities by creating pathways that make it possible for fossil fuel activities or other high-emitting projects in these regions to receive taxonomy-designations (i.e., “green”; “transition” etc.).

Ultimately, any differentiated pathways or alternative technical screening criteria must not lower the substantive requirements for taxonomy alignment or risk causing or exacerbating violations of Indigenous rights. Specifically, economic or technical challenges faced by a project, entity, or activity should not lower the standard for Indigenous rights or allow activities that do not respect those rights to be recognized as taxonomy-aligned. Any alternative pathway should still be required to meet the taxonomy’s MSS criteria, with the standards and principles of UNDRIP incorporated into those requirements.

Flexibility in how environmental objectives are met should not come at the expense of weaker environmental sustainability performance requirements, lower technical screening assessments, or reduced MSS criteria, including respect for Indigenous rights.

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

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?

Disagree

4b. Please explain your answer in the space below

WCEL disagrees with the proposed partial alignment approach. Full alignment with the DNSH/MSS criteria should be required as a threshold condition for receiving any taxonomy designation. This approach is not unprecedented: the European Union (EU) Taxonomy adopts a similar “binary” approach, requiring activities to meet the relevant safeguards rather than treating them as optional considerations.

As aforementioned, MSS criteria should explicitly include a requirement for taxonomy-users to be in full alignment with UNDRIP in order to receive any taxonomy-designations. UNDRIP sets a minimum standard for Indigenous rights, and therefore must be included in MSS criteria as a baseline for achieving taxonomy-alignment.

Given that the MSS criteria is currently the only component of the taxonomy that provides a direct mechanism for addressing Indigenous rights, allowing partial alignment risks signalling that respect for Indigenous rights is aspirational rather than a minimum standard and a critical element of taxonomy-alignment. In practice, the partial alignment approach could allow entities, projects and activities that violate Indigenous rights to qualify for taxonomy-designations and benefit from increased access to capital and market legitimacy where they fulfill “green” or “transition” criteria. Such an approach undermines the purpose of the MSS framework: to ensure that activities deemed “sustainable” do not cause or contribute to violations of fundamental Indigenous rights. It also goes against the spirit of Canada’s commitments to advancing reconciliation and aligning Canadian standards with UNDRIP.

Furthermore, the partial alignment approach fails to provide any accountability measures to drive meaningful change in corporate behaviour. There is much research demonstrating gaps between companies’ self-reported communications and their conduct in practice, as well as evidence that voluntary self-assessment and disclosure mechanisms—particularly in the absence of enforcement—often fail to produce meaningful changes in corporate behaviour [cited below]. Specifically, with respect to both voluntary reporting and mandatory securities disclosures that lack clear baseline requirements for reporting on Indigenous rights, companies often omit, minimize, or misrepresent their impacts on Indigenous rights, as well as the associated legal, financial, operational, political, and reputational risks [https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/reconciliation_action_plans].

Accordingly, in order for the national taxonomy and MSS criteria to meaningfully realize commitments to Indigenous rights, full alignment with the DNSH/MSS criteria (incorporating a requirement for full alignment with UNDRIP) must be required as a threshold condition for receiving any taxonomy designation.

Clear baseline criteria and verification mechanisms are needed to ensure that taxonomy users demonstrate actual compliance with Indigenous rights under UNDRIP in practice, rather than relying solely on self-reported claims of alignment. This should include: (1) a requirement for taxonomy-users to provide objective, credible evidence of UNDRIP alignment, including evidence that FPIC has been obtained based on defined indicators (see response to Question 10); and (2) an accessible grievance process allowing Indigenous Nations to challenge inaccurate or misleading claims of full UNDRIP alignment, with such claims resolved before a taxonomy designation is granted.

Citation:
• Living in a Material World: Turning Corporate Indigenous Relations Communications from Token to Tangible. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/ubcic/pages/10755/attachments/original/1781823104/RAPS_Living_in_a_Material_World.pdf?1781823104;
• Roebuck, K., Alonso, G. (2025). Voluntary corporate accountability doesn’t work. Canada needs to mandate it. Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2025/10/corporate-accountability-mandate/;
• Braam, G. J. M., Uit de Weerd, L., Hauck, M., Huijbregts, M. A. J. (2016). Determinants of corporate environmental reporting: The importance of environmental performance and assurance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 724–734. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616301068;
• Wong, C. W. Y., Wong, C. Y., Boon-itt, S., Tang, A. K. Y. (2021). Strategies for building environmental transparency and accountability. Sustainability, 13(16), 9116. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169116.

5a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed scope of objectives to be covered under the DNSH and MSS frameworks?

Agree

5b. Please explain your answer in the space below

WCEL supports incorporating Indigenous rights into the MSS framework, particularly given that economic activities can have significant impacts on Aboriginal and treaty rights, Aboriginal title, lands and waters, cultures, and Indigenous self-determination. Recognizing these rights as part of the MSS is therefore essential to ensuring that the taxonomy reflects a meaningful and credible understanding of sustainability.

Without incorporating Indigenous rights, the taxonomy would be out of line with Canada’s constitutional and legal affirmation and recognition of Aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as Canada’s and British Columbia’s statutory commitments to UNDRIP as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).

The scope of objectives to be covered under the MSS framework must go no lower than the minimum standard set by UNDRIP—that is the baseline that should be reflected with a full alignment approach (instead of partial alignment).

Furthermore, with respect to UNDRIP principles around self-determination, following the principle of “nothing about us without us”, the development of the Canadian MSS criteria should be informed by meaningful engagement with Indigenous rights-holders and their representative institutions. We support further engagement to determine how Indigenous rights should be incorporated into the MSS framework.

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?

Strongly agree

6b. Please explain your answer in the space below

Compliance with legal standards should be a bare minimum. Canadian companies should be expected to meet all applicable domestic environmental and human rights obligations as a matter of course, and minimum barrier for accessing capital. The DNSH/MSS framework should therefore serve a broader function than simply confirming legal compliance; it should establish a higher threshold that encourages businesses and investors to adopt internationally recognized standards and better practices. This approach is consistent with the taxonomy’s objective of setting a high bar for sustainability and supporting meaningful progress toward Canada’s 2050 net-zero target (Department of Finance Canada, 2024).

It is not at all clear what is meant by “Canadian legislation” or “existing laws and standards.” Legislation related to the relevant topics varies between provinces and endorsing weaker standards in some provinces penalizes provinces with stronger rules. In addition, legislation is not the only source of law. Other sources include Indigenous Law, Common law and other judge-made law (tort obligations) and International Law, among others. Standards include professional and industry standards, among others. The focus of doing no harm should be focused less on legislative compliance and more on not negatively impacting the rights of others or causing environmental harm.

That said, the taxonomy (including DNSH/MSS frameworks) should necessarily endeavor to build upon and exceed existing laws and standards to advance sustainable finance in Canada and create higher threshold that warrant entities, projects and activities earning a taxonomy designation.

Compliance with constitutionally recognized and affirmed Aboriginal and treaty rights protected under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, or adherence to the minimum standard for Indigenous rights set out in UNDRIP should be a given baseline.

However, recognizing that UNDA and DRIPA establish legislative frameworks for ‘aligning’ federal and provincial laws with the UN Declaration—work that is ongoing—these statutes recognize that legislation in BC and Canada in many cases does not yet fully reflect the minimum standards set out in UNDRIP. Accordingly, this is one key example of where it is “necessary” for the taxonomy to go beyond Canadian legislation that currently do not meet the UNDRIP baseline minimum protections, principles and rights for Indigenous Peoples.

7. In which areas, if any, is it necessary to go beyond existing laws and standards for the DNSH/MSS framework?

As reiterated throughout this submission, UNDRIP establishes a minimum standard for the protection of Indigenous rights and should serve as the benchmark for the MSS framework. Meeting existing domestic laws and standards is therefore not sufficient where those requirements fall below the protections affirmed in UNDRIP. In these cases, the MSS framework should instead go beyond existing requirements where necessary to ensure meaningful protection of Indigenous rights, including the right to FPIC.

For example, while standards such as IFC Performance Standard 7 and the Equator Principles recognize consent in certain circumstances, they do not fully reflect the minimum protections contemplated by UNDRIP. Given Canada’s commitments under UNDA and BC’s commitments under DRIPA, the taxonomy should not simply reproduce existing standards, but should help close these gaps and advance practices to be consistent with UNDRIP as a baseline to build upon.

The same principle should apply to how DNSH and MSS requirements are integrated into the taxonomy. These safeguards should not be treated as secondary considerations that are assessed only after an activity has otherwise qualified for a taxonomy designation. An activity cannot credibly be considered sustainable if it achieves environmental objectives while violating Indigenous rights. Respect for Indigenous rights must therefore be treated as an integral condition of sustainability, rather than a separate or subsequent assessment.

When it comes to nature and biodiversity, the DNSH can also be improved to adopt internationally recognized standards and better practices, as well as evolving scientific evidence or international commitments.

For example, one area where the DNSH/MSS frameworks can be strengthened is through a more explicit consideration of cumulative impacts on Indigenous rights over time, alongside its consideration of cumulative impacts to nature and biodiversity. Environmental impacts that may appear manageable when assessed on a project-by-project basis can, when considered cumulatively, progressively diminish Indigenous Peoples’ ability to exercise their rights (see Yahey v. British Columbia, where the B.C. Supreme Court found that the cumulative effects of industrial development had significantly diminished the Blueberry River First Nation’s ability to meaningfully exercise its Treaty 8 rights). DNSH assessments should therefore consider not only the individual impacts of a proposed activity, but also its contribution to existing and anticipated ecological, environmental, climate and Indigenous rights cumulative effects (see Question 10 submission for additional note on cumulative effects).

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?

Disagree

8b. Please explain your answer in the space below

UNDRIP does not distinguish or vary the applicability of baseline Indigenous rights (including FPIC and the right to self-determination) based on entity size. Accordingly, any alternative requirements for projects or entities should not result in different baseline substantive expectations for respecting Indigenous rights. Regardless of the type or size of an entity or project, all users seeking taxonomy-alignment whose activities may affect Indigenous rights should be required to meet the same minimum standard: full alignment with Indigenous rights as set out in UNDRIP, which the MSS criteria should reflect.

Accordingly, the scale or emissions profile of a project should not determine whether Indigenous rights must be respected—in all cases, no taxonomy-users should be able to bypass the baseline MSS requirement for full UNDRIP alignment. This means that wherever Indigenous rights are engaged or impacted, even a small entity or a low-emissions project should not be able to bypass the requirement to be aligned with UNDRIP (e.g. obtain FPIC)—as a minimum standard applicable to all taxonomy users. In this way, differentiated disclosure pathways must not create a lower standard that enables smaller projects or entities to bypass baseline MSS criteria or claim taxonomy-alignment despite failing to meet the minimum requirements established by UNDRIP.

However, proportionality may be appropriate in determining the scope and extent of additional requirements based on the degree of impact on Indigenous rights. All taxonomy users must meet the baseline standards of the UN Declaration; however, where an entity, project, or activity has a greater potential to affect Indigenous rights, more comprehensive substantive, assessment, and disclosure requirements may be warranted beyond that baseline.

Activities with greater potential to affect Indigenous territories, resources, self-determination, or other rights may warrant more comprehensive assessment, disclosure, and substantive requirements. This approach is consistent with the general concept in Canadian law of tailoring obligations to the degree of impact, as reflected in Haida Nation v. British Columbia, while recognizing that the taxonomy should go beyond that legal framework to reflect UNDRIP’s minimum standards.

Additionally, for all entities, activities and projects that provide evidence for taxonomy-alignment, verification and an accessible grievance mechanism should be available to allow Indigenous Peoples to challenge inaccurate self-assessments of impacts on Indigenous rights or claims of MSS compliance. Taxonomy designations should also be withheld until any grievances and Indigenous rights violations are resolved and confirmed as such by the impacted, appropriate rights-holder.

9. Are there any gaps in the proposed DNSH/MSS framework that could result in unintended environmental or social harms?

A partial alignment approach for MSS/DNSH criteria can result in unintended environmental or social harms given that an activity can achieve taxonomy-alignment status even if it fails to meet some DNSH or MSS criteria, provided the entity discloses which criteria are not met. For example, a project can be categorized as green based on its emissions, but can simultaneously be violating Indigneous rights by proceeding without the FPIC of the appropriate Indigenous rights-holder and be eligible for taxonomy financing.

Furthermore, relegating Indigenous rights as secondary factor solely within the MSS framework and not within the taxonomy’s larger assessment of what is sustainable under i.e., the green or transition categories reinforces colonial notions of sustainability that overlooks Indigenous Peoples’ conceptions of sustainability which are often connected to their inherent rights to, relationships with and stewardship over their territories which have existed since time immemorial and are expressed through diverse legal orders, governance systems, knowledge systems and cultural practices, and often recognize that territorial integrity, responsibilities to future generations, and the exercise of Indigenous rights are inseparable.

It also overlooks how the ability to exercise Indigenous and Aboriginal rights can often be an indicator of sustainability and should be a key component of any environmental sustainability assessment and overall taxonomy designation.

For example, the exercise of s. 35 Aboriginal rights—including rights to hunt, fish, harvest, and maintain diverse territorial-based cultural and spiritual practices—often depends directly on the continued ecological integrity and health of lands, waters, and ecosystems. Additionally, activities that encumber Indigenous lands (including lands subject to Aboriginal title) in a manner that would interfere with the continuity of Indigenous Peoples’ relationships with their territories—including by compromising the ecological integrity of those lands—or prevent future generations from meaningfully exercising their constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights are fundamentally inconsistent with the objectives of a credible sustainable finance taxonomy and UNDRIP. They are also inconsistent with Canadian conceptions of Aboriginal title which also include a ‘sustainability’ component: Per Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, [2014] 2 SCR 7, 2014 SCC 44 at para 74, Aboriginal Title is held collectively by each Indigenous rights-holder for present and future generations, and cannot be developed or misused in ways that would “substantially deprive future generations of the benefit of the land”.

The proposed sequence of assessing MSS/DNSH only after activity classification risks treating Indigenous rights as secondary to determining whether an activity is sustainable and undermining meaningful compliance of taxonomy-users with minimum Indigenous rights standards set out in UNDRIP. It may also create inefficiencies if an activity is classified before significant Indigenous rights concerns ultimately prevent it from qualifying.

Instead, the taxonomy should apply an MSS screen at the outset, under a full alignment approach (not partial alignment), so that failure to meet minimum Indigenous rights standards pauses or prevents further classification until the deficiencies are addressed. Similar approaches have been taken in existing financial-sector practices, such as the Royal Bank of Canada, where Indigenous rights screenings are a threshold question in the context of a commercial loan that can trigger enhanced due diligence and a risk assessment where potential concerns are identified: https://www.rbccm.com/assets/rbccm/docs/uploads/2026/RBC-2025-sustainability-report.pdf.

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?

The taxonomy should ensure that MSS criteria require full alignment with Indigenous rights as set out in UNDRIP as a minimum standard—this should be a threshold question, the failure to satisfy would disqualify a user from taxonomy-alignment.

Accordingly, the taxonomy should ensure that activities that violate Indigenous rights cannot receive a taxonomy-aligned designation. The MSS framework should therefore incorporate clear, mandatory requirements grounded in the UN Declaration, including FPIC and the right to self-determination. This is necessary not only to protect Indigenous rights, but also to preserve the taxonomy’s credibility by preventing capital from being directed toward activities that may be climate-sustainable on paper while causing or contributing to serious Indigenous/Aboriginal rights and ecological harms to Indigenous territories.

In practice, this should require taxonomy users to demonstrate compliance with Indigenous rights through providing objective and credible evidence showcasing UNDRIP alignment (i.e. obtaining FPIC) rather than self-disclosure alone. Additionally, an accesisible and culturally competent grievance mechanism should be available to Indigenous rights-holders to challenge or oppose inaccurate or misleading evidence or claims of MSS/UNDRIP alignment. In such cases, taxonomy-designation must be withheld until such Indigenous/Aboriginal rights-violations are resolved and a project, entity or activity is confirmed by the rights-holder to be fully aligned with UNDRIP.

Furthermore, MSS criteria should verify the presence of key indicators and criteria for operationalizing FPIC. For instance, wherever an activity, entity or project engages or impacts Indigenous rights, users should provide credible evidence that:
– the user recognizes that the process, content and form of FPIC may vary between Indigenous Peoples and will highly depend on a rights-holder’s unique system of governance and legal order and adapted the following requirements to align with that as needed. Some Nations may have established mechanisms for reviewing projects or activities on their territories—such as the Gitanyow Wilp Sustainability Assessment Process (https://www.gitanyowchiefs.ca/wilp-sustainability/sustainability-assessment-process/)–and the MSS Criteria should verify that the taxonomy-user has abided by them.
– the user accurately identified and engaging all affected Indigenous Peoples and appropriate rights-holders, consistent with their respective governance structures and legal orders;
– all necessary and relevant information was provided to the affected Indigenous Peoples in culturally appropriate and accessible formats (at the earliest possible planning stage)
– sufficient time was given for community deliberation / decision-making processes
– decisions were made through Indigenous Peoples' own representative institutions
– the community provided free/voluntary consent wherever Indigenous/Aboriginal rights are engaged, and as required under UNDRIP (not just domestic law)
– rightsholders had sufficient time to deliberate, and consent was sought and granted at an early planning stage (prior to the proponent finalizing plans for carrying out activities)
– documents that consent can be withdrawn or renegotiated if project circumstances materially change (noting the requirement that user must not only obtain FPIC once, but only proceed where FPIC was maintained and not revoked)
– rights-holder verification of Indigenous/Aboriginal rights were complied with, and that there was a meaningful and accessible avenue to identify, challenge, and seek review where a company’s assessment incorrectly concludes that they have obtained (and maintained) FPIC) not just relying on company self-reporting/disclosure.

Existing Indigenous-led guidance can further inform what MSS FPIC operationalization criteria should require. For enhancement of due diligence processes see the five steps included in the Tallgrass Institute’s Due Diligence questionnaire: https://www.tallgrassinstitute.org/fpic. For an example in the context of mining, the the First Nations Financial Management Board’s provides the following criteria recommendations for FPIC-disclosures in NI-43-101: (1) The traditional and colonial (settler) names of the Indigenous Peoples on whose lands the project is located; (2) A map depicting the territories; (3) A description of how the project impacts Indigenous rights; (4) Whether any agreements are in negotiation or have been reached; (5) Whether free, prior and informed consent has been provided for the project, and, if not, the reasons why and the issuer’s plan to obtain consent; (6) Any notice provided to the impacted First Nation(s); (7) The status of any consultation, including accommodation where necessary; (8) Whether the issuer has received notification from the Indigenous rightsholders withholding consent for the project. Source: First Nations Financial Management Board, Re: CSA Consultation Paper 43-101, Consultation on National Instrument 43-101, Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (12 September 2022) [letter] (“FNFMB letter”).

Additionally, the presence of “red flag” circumstances should automatically prevent an activity from receiving a taxonomy designation. The following are examples (non-exhaustive list) of circumstances that should disqualify an entity, activity or project from receiving any taxonomy designation:
• proceeds without FPIC where FPIC is required under UNDRIP
• infringes Aboriginal or treaty rights (as recognized under UNDRIP + s. 35/common law)
• proceeds over unresolved Indigenous objections
• is subject to ongoing Indigenous rights litigation or regulatory process alleging serious violations
• ignores Indigenous legal orders or governance processes
• has resulted in findings of human rights violations by courts or human rights bodies
• creates cumulative impacts on Aboriginal rights (taxonomy criteria need to recognize the cumulative impacts of activities on Indigenous rights, where individual projects may appear sustainable, but collectively, they undermine Aboriginal and treaty rights. So assessing this somehow before granting/refusing to grant a designation would be ideal (ie. cumulative impacts on traditional territories, Aboriginal title claims, exercise of Aboriginal/treaty rights, cultural practices, food security, Indigenous economies etc.).

11. Is there any other feedback you would like to provide on the proposed MSS/DNSH framework?

Providing Verification Measures and an Accessible Grievance Mechanism: In order to reduce the risk of misleading or inaccurate self-assessments by users regarding compliance with MSS criteria, WCEL recommends the establishment of a culturally competent grievance mechanism that enables affected Indigenous rights-holders to identify instances where users have failed to meet MSS requirements, including those relating to Indigenous rights as defined in UNDRIP as well as s. 35 Aboriginal and treaty rights. Any opposition or challenge by a rights-holder should preclude the granting of taxonomy-designations until rights-violations are verified to be resolved and evidence is provided of the entity, project or activity’s full alignment with UNDRIP and MSS criteria.

This is particularly crucial given the broader trend in corporate self-assessment, including in material securities disclosure and voluntary reporting (such as in Reconciliation Action Plans), of companies omitting, minimizing, or misrepresenting their impacts on Indigenous rights and the resulting legal, financial, operational, political and reputational risks. See Living in a Material World: Turning Corporate Indigenous Relations Communications from Token to Tangible (https://www.ubcic.bc.ca/reconciliation_action_plans).

12a. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Strongly agree

12b. Please explain your answer in the space below

WCEL supports a Green category that explicitly excludes the fossil fuel sector (i.e., oil and gas, including natural gas activities) from its definition of environmentally sustainable activities. The designation of fossil fuel activities as “green” risks not only undermining the environmental integrity of the taxonomy, but also directing capital toward activities that have historically and disproportionately impacted Indigenous territories, rights, and communities. Given the significant role that fossil fuel development has played in creating environmental and rights-based harms, including impacts on lands, waters, biodiversity, and Indigenous Peoples’ ability to exercise their inherent and constitutionally protected rights, such activities should not receive the market signal, credibility, or capital allocation benefits associated with taxonomy-aligned status. A sustainable finance taxonomy must ensure that the “green” category reflects activities that meaningfully advance sustainability and a just transition, rather than facilitating continued investment in fossil fuel-dependent activities.

Also note submissions to Questions 4b and 10, which include requiring Full UNDRIP Alignment in order to qualify for this "Green" label.

13a. Do you agree or disagree with this approach?

Select

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

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

See commentary throughout submissions with regard to excluding an abatement category, and excluding the fossil fuel sector (oil and gas, including natural gas) from the taxonomy overall.

16. Should any additional guardrails be considered?

As noted above and below, we disagree strongly with the creation of an abatement category, apparently for the sole purpose of including fossil fuel infrastructure in the taxonomy (certainly no other examples are provided in the discussion paper).

However, if an abatement category is included, the guardrails should include the full range of commitments that a responsible actor, on learning that their product was causing harm, would undertake. This should include, but not be limited to:

• Acknowledgement of legal responsibility and liability for harm caused by emissions from the product (Scope 3 emissions);
• Development and implementation of a plan to transition rapidly away from a fossil fuel business model; and
• Public support for climate action and disavowal of false solutions or efforts to oppose climate science.

Despite such guardrails, the oil and gas industry continues to be unaligned with what is reasonable in a climate context because of the industry’s incompatibility with a climate-safe future, as discussed in the Discussion Paper at p. 39. As such, WCEL affirms that the fossil fuel sector must be excluded altogether from any taxonomy or abatement category designations.

See Frumhoff, P.C., Heede, R. & Oreskes, N. The climate responsibilities of industrial carbon producers. Climatic Change 132, 157–171 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1472-5, available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S10584-015-1472-5, for discussion of responsibilities of fossil fuel companies.

History demonstrates that measures that support companies which are committed to maintaining an unsustainable and destructive business model will amount to greenwashing. By contrast, support for measures undertaken by a fossil fuel company following the example of the Danish National Oil and Gas Company during its transition to becoming the wind company, Ørsted, might arguably be appropriate.

17. Is there any other feedback you would like to provide on the proposed activity classification framework?

WCEL strongly disagrees with the creation of an abatement category for activities which directly harm the global atmosphere as well as human, constitutional, property and personal rights of Canadians and global citizens. Such a category is inconsistent with the statement that the Taxonomy aligns with human rights and other international obligations. At p. 11 of the discussion paper. For perspectives on international and human rights issues arising from climate change and fossil fuel use, see the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion (2025), available on-line at https://www.icj-cij.org/case/187.

The proposed taxonomy, by providing legitimacy and endorsing funding for related activities risks enabling these activities and the harm, or providing a basis for those responsible to evade liability or legal responsibility.

In particular, by providing standards that are said to be sustainable related to mitigation activities, the Taxonomy could set a standard of reasonableness that courts might look to in assessing whether fossil fuel companies or governments are liable in current climate litigation. Including such standards could consequently allow the defendants in lawsuits to escape legal responsibility. This type of litigation is not hypothetical, with dozens of cases against fossil fuel companies filed around the world and 11 BC municipalities pledging to work forwards a similar case here.

Litigation has been identified by then Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, in his Tragedy of the Commons speech as a way in which climate change might become relevant on an investment time scale. The paper argues that the taxonomy could be used for risk assessment without any content addressing that risk, which encourages investment without reference to such risks.

18a. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed approach for developing technical screening criteria?

Select

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?

In relation specifically to the Abatement Category, we strongly disagree. For most industries, Scope 2 and 3 emissions depend on a range of factors, some of which are beyond the proponent’s control. This is not the case for the oil and gas industry, where Greenhouse Gas emissions entering the atmosphere when burned (Scope 3) are the direct and inevitable result of the fossil fuel being removed from the ground. For oil, gas and coal, Scope 3 emissions are not incidental or contingent, and cannot be given secondary weight to Scope 1 emissions. The Supreme Court of the UK recently made this point in relation to Environmental Impact Assessment of oil infrastructure in Finch v. Surrey (UKSC, 2024), paras. 121-23, available at https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2022_0064_judgment_c3d44bb244.pdf:

Oil is a very different commodity from, say, iron or steel, which have many possible uses and can be incorporated into many different types of end product used for all sorts of different purposes. In the case of a facility to manufacture steel, it could reasonably be said that environmental effects of the use of products which the steel will be used to make are not effects of manufacturing the steel. That is because the manufacture of the steel is far from being sufficient to bring about those effects. Such effects will depend on innumerable decisions made “downstream” about how the steel is used and how products made from the steel are used. … But that is not the position here. The oil produced from the well site will not be used in the creation of a different type of object, in the way that a component part is incorporated – along with many other different and equally necessary components – in manufacturing a motor vehicle or aircraft. Refining the oil is simply a process that it inevitably undergoes on the pathway from extraction to combustion. Nor is there any element of conjecture or speculation about what will ultimately happen to the oil. It is agreed that it will inevitably be burnt as fuel. And a reasonable estimate can readily be made of the quantity of GHGs which will be released when that happens (Finch v. Surrey (2024).

The reality that Scope 3 emissions cannot be separated from, or given less priority, from the production of fossil fuels is closely tied to our strong opposition to the Abatement category. Abating Scope 1, production emissions, does little to address the bulk of emissions that directly results from production of fossil fuels. Pretending that it can legitimizes industry messaging that it will be sustainable if it reduces its Scope 1 emissions; more broadly it legitimizes an industry that is incompatible with a safe climate future.

More generally, we note that for other categories “where feasible” is vague and requires elaboration.

22. Overall, how satisfied are you with the proposed sustainable finance taxonomy framework?

Select