Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks also to Ms. Pauzé, who is very familiar with my abiding interest in sustainable finance. I was quite pleased that she was introducing a motion in connection with this study, which I too am very eager to get to.
I am going to take a moment to say that I agree with Ms. Pauzé's motion, because I support the idea that the government has to pay attention to this in short order rather than wait for the committee's report. I do have some concerns, but they do not actually need to be stated in this letter. That said, I would still like to let my colleagues know what they are.
In October, the government announced major changes relating to sustainable finance. We finally have a science-based taxonomy, or path to a taxonomy. The government also announced rules concerning voluntary disclosure by big corporations, federal corporations. This is a very important adjustment and these are very important announcements.
Several aspects of the recommendations suggested in the letter are in line with the initiatives the government presented in October. For example, transparency, accountability and effectiveness in the financial system to support a net-zero transition are to be more robust. The taxonomy will also help considerably in addressing greenwashing. When the taxonomy is based on science, we can obviously expect that it will be implemented properly.
There are differences, and so there is the potential for tension, between our recommendations and the measures the government will be taking based on the announcements made in October regarding the taxonomy and disclosure.
I see that Ms. Pauzé has made suggestions relating to transparency and accountability. I think the government is also planning amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act, to make climate disclosure mandatory. For its part, the committee recommends enhanced transparency, particularly as regards pension funds and climate transition plans. These initiatives would make the government's proposal more robust.
Regarding the Canadian taxonomy, the purpose of creating voluntary guidelines for green and transition investments is to provide clear definitions and thereby reduce the risk of greenwashing, which is consistent with the committee's recommendation that there be a robust, science-based regulatory framework to combat greenwashing. I do not see any problem with that, nor do I see any problem with mobilizing private capital, because both initiatives, the government's and the one suggested by Ms. Pauzé, are intended to encourage the private sector to target its investments on climate objectives, basing decisions on a green, sustainable transition. A review of green obligations at ten years is a concrete step for funding sustainable projects, in line with the committee's objectives, and this is good.
I began by talking about what is aligned, about what is good. However, there are some potential discrepancies. The government has focused on voluntary guidelines relating to the Canadian taxonomy, while the committee seems to be recommending a robust regulatory framework to be provided in bills like Bill S‑243. This difference might create confusion while we wait for stakeholders to implement it. I wanted to point that out. I do not have any proposal to make, but I do still want this distinction to be recognized.
The government also did not mention an express review of the role of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, while the committee recommends an expanded interpretation of its mandate to include climate risks and transition plans. This is a new element that had not really been considered.
Third, there are gaps when it comes to public pension funds. The recent developments, in October, did not lay out specific measures concerning investments by public pension fund managers such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which seems to be a priority for Ms. Pauzé. I am simply pointing out that this is an element on which we differ.
Last, the proposed amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act do not expressly provide for the governance structure needed in order to ensure that transition plans are consistent with climate commitments. The committee would therefore recommend a more complete and binding framework. This is not something I am opposed to, but I do want to mention that there is a difference. In other words, action is taken more directly on finance by adding obligations.
I do not really have any amendments to propose at this stage. However, for the draft report that will be tabled in February, it will be important to point out that there are various measures and proposals at this time. I do want to thank our analysts in advance; they always do terrific work. One of these proposals is the bill introduced by Senator Rosa Galvez, which is excellent, but differs from the announcements made in October. The committee is probably also going to write a letter in which it proposes certain measures.
In conclusion, I think a strong, consistent approach must be taken that will attract more potential investments to Canada in our 21st century economy.