Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understand, Mr. Leduc, that you do not have a social mandate and that the objective of your investment strategy is to achieve what the actuaries require of you to be able to pay the pensions. It's a complex calculation, but still, you need to pay attention to your image and the reputational risk. You are not going to invest heavily in a good company that uses child labour or engages in human exploitation, for example, a company that would benefit from what the Chinese are doing to the Uyghurs. I understand that, even though you do not have that explicit mandate, it is one of the things you take into account.
I was just talking to you about oil. You told me that you do not have a social mandate per se, but that you also invest in technologies. I imagine you were specifically talking about carbon capture, but many scientists have told us that those technologies are not particularly cost-effective and, in any case, not particularly reliable on a large scale.
If you're continuing to invest in a sector that presents a significant risk in terms of the energy transition, a high-emitting sector whose popularity and social licence are on the decline, isn't it to keep making money, a return on investment and dividends? Isn't that somewhat why you say that you invest in all kinds of technologies? Is it to make people believe or at least put out the perception, that dirty oil is a little less dirty than it actually is?