Thank you very much.
First of all, I just want to thank you for being here. I think it's really inspiring to see a financial institution that is taking climate risks seriously, not just from the point of view of its own interests, but also, as I'm hearing in your opening comments and already in some answers to questions in terms of a sense of responsibility for the economy-wide effects of climate change, and a sense of the role that financial institutions can and I would go so far to say ought to play in the economy-wide mitigation of the costs of climate change. Thank you for that.
I have a question in line with that. We just had folks from OSFI here. We were talking a little bit about the work that financial institutions—some are just beginning to do it and others have been doing it for longer—are doing to develop climate scenario analysis, and how that could be mobilized eventually in order to try to figure out the role that financial institutions can play in lowering emissions economy-wide.
I'm wondering what you think about that. We can certainly imagine folks saying, that's not really the business of financial institutions—they should just pay attention to the bottom line and they should only be concerned about climate risk to the extent that it hurts their own return on investment. What I heard from you, though, is that your institution is engaging in some work to try to help clients lower their emissions. I got the sense that maybe it's not just to protect Vancity's own return, but also that there's a sense of larger responsibility there.
I'm wondering, if financial institutions are interested in being a positive force in reducing emissions economy-wide, does that mean it's a zero-sum game? Is that just a cost they have to take on out of the goodness of their heart, or do you think they can do that by developing products that realize a reasonable return for the institution and for its share owners, whether they are share owners of a credit unit or share owners in the more traditional sense?