Thank you for the question.
Yes, I heard the testimony given by the officials from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, or ISED. A few points were raised. They said there may be constraints associated with the division of powers that might limit Parliament's ability to regulate greenwashing. After a brief review of the case law and the various sources in the literature, I do not think there seems to be any problem associated with Parliament's jurisdiction. From the perspective of both jurisdiction and freedom of expression, there is really no problem in going further and regulating environmental representations by businesses well. There have been a number of decisions that confirm this.
The officials also suggested that greenwashing rules were a sectoral scheme that would go somewhat against the spirit of the Competition Act, which is a comprehensive act covering all sectors of the Canadian economy. My answer is that greenwashing is a practice that could arise in all sectors of the Canadian economy. Today, all businesses are having to adopt carbon neutrality targets and improve their products' environmental performances. To my mind, therefore, greenwashing is a deceptive marketing practice that could emerge in all sectors, and the Competition Act, as a law that applies to all sectors, is ideal for tackling this problem.
Another point that was raised by the officials relates to the government's announcement last fall that it might be going to impose disclosure obligations relating to climate risks on private enterprises. They said this would enable them to tackle the greenwashing engaged in by organizations. Climate risk disclosure obligations are a step forward, but that relates only to climate risks and environmental performance. It therefore would not address environmental effects and it would not affect generic representations by businesses. There are all sorts of claims that can amount to greenwashing that would not be covered by this kind of regulatory scheme.
Moreover, it may take a lot of time for this scheme to come into force. We have not heard many details from the government about this. I would therefore tend to say that we have a very important opportunity to strike while the iron is hot and adopt a very broad provision regarding greenwashing that takes in all environmental claims.
Contrary to what we see in relation to somewhat more controversial issues, in this case there are a number of businesses that support greater predictability and a clearer regulatory framework, precisely to avoid greenwashing accusations. Businesses want to know what they are entitled to say, what they are not entitled to say, and how to be transparent in order to avoid accusations and risks, so they are able to enjoy the fruits of their investments in innovation. It is as good for business as it is for consumers. According to a survey done by Protégez-vous, 85% of Canadians support more stringent regulations on greenwashing, so there appears to be some consensus on the subject.
Do I still have a bit of time to answer the question?