I'll just address a couple of things here.
I don't think the Canadian professional accountants association is in fact a partisan body; I think they are a money-making body, and they collect fees. If you put something in front of them that says, “Here's a way we would like you to define something”, they'll find a way to be in the middle of it to make some funds. That's the nature of most of the intermediaries in the finance business. Likewise the people who will put together what you will call “sustainable funds”. They will be all things to all people.
Mr. Fragiskatos, you read out the definition, and I will say that the definition could be open to a different interpretation from everybody around this table. It means nothing. The whole “social” end of it depends on where you fit with what you think “social” means.
At the end of the day, sustainable finance is about taking money from a market return and giving it to chosen projects in one form or another. If you want to do that under the guise of climate emergency and climate change, then I beg you to do so openly. Tell Canadians what it costs. Tell them what we're doing to the economy and explain that this is our approach to it. That's easy and it's transparent. If you continue to shovel money in one door and out the other and make what we're doing with the economy look very opaque, Canadians are going to continue to think you're picking winners and losers throughout the economy, and that's what has Canadians upset right now.
Let's get back, then, to a level playing field where everybody can see exactly what is happening with this government's decisions around finances.
As for the Fraser Institute, I love it, Mr. Fragiskatos. I would challenge you to go back to the Fraser Institute and ask which government they would prefer to have in power at this point in time: one that is aiming to actually end the deficit and get back to balanced budgets, or one that has no concept of the deficits it wants to run for the foreseeable future.