Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a very great and unique subamendment talking about comparisons between different jurisdictions. I know that some of these different pension systems across the world operate differently. They have different rules, different contribution rates, different contribution timelines and different draw rates. However, it's still worth having those comparisons. Of course, one could argue that you could just pick up the annual report of another pension plan from a different country. Yes, theoretically, one could do that, but it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
It's important that we be able to compare and distill information drawn from these other jurisdictions and put it into one report so that Canadians can see and have a comparison that is more apples to apples. This is because reports will be written differently. There are going to be different types of information disclosed. The reports will be written in different formats and have different lengths. They're going to be in different languages. They're going to be in different formats of varying degrees and maybe with different reporting periods and different fiscal year end dates as well.
Also, of course, we're looking at being able to make it more comparable in terms of normalizing the asset classes those pension plans invest in. There is geographic diversification. These pension plans invest in all kinds of countries around the world, and they have different weights in those different countries in terms of the investment class and in terms of different asset classes altogether. Therefore, we would be able to normalize that.
To be able to normalize that information across those peer countries, including—without limitation to the United States—Australia and Sweden, and to be able to present that information to Canadians so that they can have an apples-to-apples comparison rather than an apples-to-oranges comparison is very important, because we do want to compare—