Thank you, Mr. Rhéaume.

Good afternoon.

We have been focusing on the International Energy Agency's net-zero scenario. According to the agency, 23% of the energy mix in 2050 will still be fossil fuels.

In Canada, 31% of decarbonization efforts would have to come from the oil and gas industry for us to achieve the net-zero emissions objective by 2050.

For electricity production, the figure is 16%. Effort is therefore also required from that standpoint. I'm not going to say any more about it now, but you're welcome to ask us questions later if you'd like to know more about electricity production.

But it's important not to forget that the challenge is enormous. In order to provide guidance, the federal government prepared a road map for the transition. I was about to say that this was recent, but the truth is that it's been around for quite a while. The road map includes strict requirements for emitters, and that's fine as far as it goes. What we really want is to decarbonize the industry. The road map also includes guidelines for projects for which companies want funding to decarbonize their activities. However, there's no clear and ironclad list of eligible projects. The road map helps companies to adopt a transition or decarbonization strategy. Here, the emphasis should probably be on decarbonization to avoid getting lost in a multitude of definitions, failing to agree on what is meant by a transition, and getting bogged down in minor details. It's best to remain pragmatic.

At AlphaFixe Capital, we have a list of exclusions, and the list includes extraction companies. Moreover, by signing the net-zero asset managers initiative, we committed ourselves to ensuring that by 2030, 100% of our portfolio assets would be aligned with a science-based net-zero plan in order to comply with the 1.5°C climate warming limit. What we have now are middle-market and extraction fossil energy companies. These include Enbridge and Suncor. I have specifically mentioned these two, but they're no worse than the others. Some companies are making considerable effort. If nothing changes, all these companies would have to be removed from our portfolios by 2030. The important thing to remember is that we are not alone in thinking that way. But if everyone tried to leave by the same door at the same time, it would represent a serious financial market stability risk for Canada.

Not only that, but we think the taxonomy would not only help companies understand what types of projects are consistent with a science-based transition or decarbonization strategy, but also help investors dialogue with these emitters by using concrete examples of the kinds of behaviour they should adopt as socially responsible companies.

I'm now going to return more specifically to our own activities.

While 23% of companies listed in the Canadian corporate bond index are directly linked to fossil fuels, these same companies account for 84% of the carbon intensity of this index. It's therefore obvious where the leverage lies in our market in terms of dialoguing with and influencing these companies.

One of our recommendations is to establish a clear and strict taxonomy to help fossil energy sector companies to adopt a credible and science-based net-zero or transition policy. We also suggest introducing regulations requiring a minimum percentage of Canadian pension fund assets to be invested in Canada. As Canadians, we are all concerned about this challenge and we all need this capital to decarbonize our economy.