There is a case I know very well, the EU taxonomy. It was supposed to be the early mover, the gold standard of taxonomies, as they said at the time. The inclusion of gas in taxonomy, which has been political, and was necessitated perhaps in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, led to this taxonomy losing a lot of credibility in the investment community.
It's very important that if you set a taxonomy, you respect a certain number of criteria. The EU taxonomy has some criteria that should be included, and maybe they should be respected a bit more. There is challenge before courts in the EU, for instance, and this taxonomy has set criteria that are science-based, including that there is a “do no significant harm” principle—i.e., any of the activities that are covered by the taxonomy cannot lead to significant harm to environmental objectives like climate change mitigation. Inclusion of fossil fuels will, of course, lead to significant harm to climate-change mitigation, and there's also the precautionary principle.
I'm not sure whether the precautionary principle is a principle under Canadian law. I know that in many jurisdictions and in international law, it's a principle of law. It is an important principle, because there are some things that we can't really foresee. For instance, the effect of methane flaring has been documented for years, but it's come to light relatively recently how devastating it was in terms of CO2 equivalence.
It's important that these three principles—being science-based, doing no significant harm and adhering to the precautionary principle—be respected in a future Canadian taxonomy, if taxonomy varies.