I guess I'll give a two-part answer here. First, the proper governance structure and proper consultation more broadly than just the Sustainable Finance Action Council is very important for defining a taxonomy. I think what colleagues on the floor have raised about ensuring that the final product aligns with what is scientifically agreed rather than being biased by any particular interest is important, so broader governance consultation is important. That being said, I will offer international examples on how this could be engaged in Canadian law in my opinion.
Bringing a taxonomy into Canadian law is very important because it's a voluntary initiative. It wouldn't have the same credibility or the same certainty for investors both in Canada and those looking to invest in Canada. What other jurisdictions have done is regulate the taxonomy formally into their policy process so that the definition of a taxonomy, the underlined categories, are formally introduced in regulation. That's certainly what I as an individual would recommend.
Then that regulated taxonomy structure is linked to reporting from financial institutions and funds. That tackles what's considered greenwashing, what a fund might claim to be aligned with, what other individuals have highlighted as a very fluid definition of ESG and, in fact, cleans it up because because a taxonomy is brought into law.
First of all, it's regulating a taxonomy, and then it's linking it to the disclosure requirements of groups to say what per cent of their investments are aligned with that regulated taxonomy.