Thank you so much for the question.
Yes, absolutely, we've already seen in the design of Canada's climate policy that a number of policies get designed federally that do have provincial implications. In some cases, there are duplications, as well. A few examples include the work that went into creating methane equivalencies. There were the cases, for instance, in creating a federal clean fuel standard and provinces already have clean fuel standards of their own. There were the differences between the federal output-based pricing system as well as provincial systems for heavy emitters.
All those are cases where it's actually quite important to coordinate with the policy frameworks that are put in place in provinces. The one risk, if there's a lack of coordination, is duplication. You might end up regulating and essentially pricing, in some cases, the same molecule twice, which of course is a challenge. It also goes back to these principles of accounting that skew that.
The other issue that I think we're trying to see ahead on is that there is a lot of growth here in terms of trying to establish carbon markets. One key component of carbon markets is that we do need a national protocol that makes it clear what the conditions are to create an offset credit. One thing that does come into play is lists of technologies that are included in a base business-as-usual scenario—these are not considered able to produce additional carbon credits or emissions, simply because they're going to happen anyway because that technology's been tagged—versus technologies that are eligible for credit creation.
If there isn't certainty around that between the federal government and the provinces, it actually creates a lot of risks for the investment environment. You're going to have a hard time attracting companies based on that portion of the business model if there isn't certainty that those carbon credits can be guaranteed and recognized by both provincial and federal governments. That's an example of the potential complexities there.