So it's my pleasure to introduce our next speaker. It's Mr. James O'Sullivan, President and CEO of Power Corporation of Canada. Well, good morning, Phil. Morning. Welcome. Thanks for joining us. And obviously you come into the Power CEO role with a fairly broad perspective of both the industry and the Power Group of companies. To start off, how do Power Corp and the operating companies create shareholder value and a collaborative culture from your perspective? Sure. Well, good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here, and I look forward to seeing many of you over the course of the day. It's always nice to return to Scotiabank. I'll take those in two parts, Phil. Let's start with how we create shareholder value. For me, the most important words are active ownership. We are active owners. Power Corp has had a mission statement for more than 10 years. It's on our website. It declares us as active owners. That's our mission. And I actually think, Phil, that in the fullness of time, you and your peers and investors in the room should assess us based on the quality of that active ownership. I would go further and say that where Power Corp should trade, what the discount to our net asset value should be, should be a function of how the market assesses the quality of our active ownership. Those are very important words and I am going to reference them perhaps one or two more times as we continue this conversation. Let me speak for a moment about what I mean by active ownership. It is clearly the obvious four things, strategy, capital allocation, key people decisions, and risk. On strategy, we lean in. The hard to reverse choices about how our businesses position themselves in the market, we are very interested in those and deeply involved in those. Capital allocation, dividend policy, share buybacks, mergers and acquisitions, you will not be surprised to hear we are very involved in. Key people decisions. We spend a very significant amount of time building the team that we have built right across the group. The fourth that has probably grown the most over the past decade is risk. We lean in on risk. Those four are very good examples of how we engage as an active owner. I think the one that people do not fully appreciate is how Power Corp delivers opportunity to its businesses. I am going to give you an example, and I think I am in a good position, too, because I just finished six years as CEO of IGM. I am going to describe for you how Power Corp delivers active ownership vertically into IGM and how it delivers active ownership across the group of companies, including IGM. I would say to you, and let me pose a couple of questions. Would IGM own Wealthsimple, but for Power Corp? No. That is active ownership. Would IGM own Rockefeller, but for Power Corp? No. That is active ownership. China AMC, Rockefeller, Wealthsimple, I think are all examples of businesses that IGM owns in part because of the active ownership of Power Corp. That is a good example of us going vertically into the group and I think adding significant value to one public company in particular. We also add value, Phil, horizontally across the group. I am very proud of what this group did and what IGM did in particularly in fintech over the past several years. Investing in the Portage funds. Partnering with Conquest, with nesto, with ClearEstate, with PolicyBook. Could any of that happened without the active ownership of Power Corp? No. None of this is to take anything away from what the leadership at IGM did and what the leadership of IGM is doing, but it is to make a very important point. We are active owners, and I think as you assess the value of Power Corp, you need to assess the quality of that active ownership, whether it is adding value, and based on that assessment, you should decide what discount to net asset value, if any, Power Corp should trade at. That is a bit of a message on active ownership because I really do think those are the key words on how we add value. You spoke about a collaborative culture, I believe. I will be very brief on that because we do have a collaborative culture, and I think it is a very important observation. I would describe people in the group, from the family, through the Boards, through executive management. If I had to point to three characteristics that we look for in people, and I believe we have in our people, they would be these. Our people are intellectually curious. Our people are constitutionally competitive, and our people are gracious. I think the culture is very important. If you build a culture around people who are intellectually curious, constitutionally competitive, and gracious, you've got great people that can and will work together. Maybe most importantly, Phil, if you do all of that ties right back into your ability to be an active owner down the group and right across the group. I think you've led with a very important question, and I spent a few minutes on it, but I do think it's very important that people understand how I see us adding value and how I see our culture, because ultimately it's your job to figure out what all of this adds up to in the market. Excellent. Still early days, but what are your thoughts on top priorities? Should investors expect, again, any shift in strategy under your leadership? No. I said on the Q2 call that the operative words would be continuity and maintaining what is evident momentum. I think the momentum is crystal clear in the public company stocks. Continuity, maintaining momentum are clearly the focus. But when I think about how I'm going to add value, what my contribution will be over the length of my tenure, working with my leadership team, Jake Lawrence, Claude Généreux, and others, I guess I'm thinking of three things, Phil. The first is, and maybe the most important, we're going to sustainably grow this dividend. That's a commitment. That's important, and it's a commitment. We will sustainably grow the dividend. Number two, we will sustainably grow the net asset value. I distinguish between the two because we do have businesses that do not yet generate earnings and that do not yet generate dividends. And yet they can, and they will, and they must kind of grow in value. As they do, our net asset value will increase. So number one is sustainably grow the dividend. Number two is grow the net asset value. Number three is going to be shrink the discount to net asset value at which we trade. I think there are reasonable kind of strategies that we can execute against to achieve each of those three things. We had a Power Corp Board meeting, as you would expect, at the end of Q2. I shared with the Board that in many respects, I come into this chair kind of blessed with opportunity and optionality because I see clear pockets of growth. I see clear pockets of where we might simplify. I see other opportunities, too. I will just give you a bit of a feel for those. There are companies in this industry who do not have attractive internal outlets for surplus capital, who do not have divisions or businesses that are growing at objectively very attractive growth rates. That is not us. So growth opportunities. Empower. That is a remarkable opportunity. The number two record keeper in the U.S., where there is still a long tail of smaller industry participants. An early innings but rapidly growing wealth business. Watch out. There is lots of opportunity for us to deploy capital into Empower, both organically and inorganically, and watch Empower grow. Wealthsimple. Wealthsimple is rapidly carving out its place amongst the largest financial institutions in this country. That may sound ambitious, but that is the march they are on. They are carving out their place amongst the largest financial institutions in this country. Mike Katchen's leadership is taking them there. Rockefeller. Rockefeller is everything we hoped it would be. That was a bit of a controversial acquisition way back when, right? People said, "James, you are trading at 6x-7x EBITDA. What are you doing paying 20 x?" I thought that was a very good question. So we said, "Okay, we are going to do something, but we are going to do it in a risk-smart way." We did it in a risk-smart way. Then kind of 2.5 years later, we have doubled our money. 2.5 years later, we have taken several hundred million dollars of a recap out of the company that we have used to fund a full 5% NCIB out of IGM. Rockefeller continues to go from strength to strength. Iconic brand, best-in-class management team, and an economic model that clearly works. So you have Empower, you have Wealthsimple, you have Rockefeller. We have alternatives platforms. I am very focused on our alternatives platforms. We will talk about alts separately. I think alts is going through a consolidation phase. My goal for each of Sagard, Power Sustainable, and Northleaf, as we move through this consolidation phase, is for each of those businesses to emerge stronger. Now, why would not they? Think about the connectivity that they have to a global insurer. Think about the connectivity they have to wealth management through IGM. These are things that alts platforms die for and very much want. So I see lots of growth opportunities, Phil. I see simplification opportunities. I see other opportunities for us to deploy capital, buying back stock at meaningful discounts to NAV, if that is where we are going to trade. I really think the plate I've been handed is a great plate and it's full of opportunities and our team is going to execute against them. If we look forward a little bit, how do you see Power Corp's core markets transforming over the next decade? Again, how well do you think its companies are currently positioned to lead in them? Yeah, that's a huge question, and I'm giving answers that are too long. I think we're in the right industry. For the 35 years that I've been in this business, I've only seen financial services grow as a share of national and global GDP. Financial services is a great industry. I think we're in the right verticals. I very much think we're in the right verticals. We help people lead good and better financial lives. We help people prepare for retirement. We provide retirement solutions that are a meaningful part, I think, of people's lives. So we've got the right industry. I think we're in the right verticals. I think we're in the right markets, geographic markets, and we've got very good diversification as a result. Something David Harney referred to that I think is very important is we've got a really nice mix, I think, of on-balance sheet businesses and off-balance sheet businesses, and we're committed to both. It's funny, when I think about AI and the risks of AI to various industries, I say, "I'm actually glad that we have a mix of businesses, some of which are on-balance sheet and some of which are off-balance sheet," because on-balance sheet businesses that require sophistication and capital have a bit of a unique moat in their own right. Of course, the flavor has been off-balance sheet businesses, but I think a mix of the two is ultimately optimal. The one other thing, kind of macro thing that I'd point to, Phil, is with David Harney in the chair and Damon Murchison in the chair, these are two fellows that lead with customer. They really do, and I can tell you this from the board meetings. They lead with customer. I put myself in the shoes of customers of financial services organizations globally, and I think customers of financial services organizations are looking for three things. Damon talked about personalization. That's the customer saying, "Know me. You got to know me." The second thing that I think they're looking for is a great customer experience. That's the customer saying, "Delight me." So know me, delight me. The third thing that I think they're looking for is they're saying, "Give me a good value proposition." In other words, treat me fairly. For me, that's a bit of a rallying cry, and I know, and I listen to David Harney and to Damon Murchison, and watch us as a group focus on these three things so that customers can say that for all of our financial services businesses, "They know me, they delight me, and they treat me fairly." Those are three extremely important things. I think if we're in the right industries, verticals, and geographies, and then we go straight to the customer and we deliver those three things so that they do say, "They know me, delight me, and treat me fairly," I think we're going to be configured within that macro environment, Phil, just perfectly. Perfect. We'll shift gears a little bit and we'll talk about some operating company themes here. This one's going to hit fairly close to home, but do you think Power's maximized the operational synergies between GWL and IGM? No. I think there's a fair bit that has been achieved, and it's a perfect example of Power and the public companies trying to add value horizontally across the group. It wasn't that many years ago where Canada Life sold their Canadian asset management business to Mackenzie. Mackenzie now manages a large portion of assets for Canada Life. That's a very good example of working together. When I think about these two organizations, I say, "Wow." What does IGM bring to Canada Life? Well, IGM brings all kinds of traditional and asset management capabilities that Canada Life can avail of, either through their distribution channels or through their general account. I think IGM brings an enormous distribution opportunity for Canada Life's insurance products. Equally, I think Canada Life brings a ton to IGM. They can design product for IGM. They're a distribution channel for Mackenzie Investments and Northleaf's asset management products. Again, this is back to kind of the culture and collaboration and effective active ownership. I think there is more to be done across the group companies, including Canada Life and IGM. Between David Harney and Damon Murchison, you've got two fellows who I can tell you are laser-like focused on clients. As that focus continues, they're going to see opportunities to do more together, is my expectation. Excellent. Again, alternative asset management, obviously, it's a growth opportunity for Power Group. There's platforms at the Power level with Sagard, as well as IGM's Northleaf. Do you think those platforms are better left alone, or there are opportunities to combine? Do you see any strategic gaps in the overall product line that you'd look to fill? The first thing I'd say is alternatives platforms are quintessentially people businesses. It's not for me to decide. It would be reckless for me to decide the future of three platforms, if you will. The future of those three platforms need to be determined by the leadership of those three platforms. My view is, as I said earlier, that we're going through a consolidation phase. I actually like consolidation phases in industry because phase one is kind of a growth phase where every tree grows to the sky. Then you pick up The Wall Street Journal, and you read that there's 14,000 private equity firms in the U.S., or whatever the number was, and you think, "Really? Wow. When did it get so big?" Then you move into a consolidation phase, which I believe is what we're in now. What I like about consolidation phases is that it produces winners and it produces losers. Think about Sagard, Power Sustainable, and Northleaf in the context of a global consolidation phase, if you will, for alternatives. What do they have going for them? Strong ownership. That's hugely important. Active ownership. So they've got connectivity to a global insurer, connectivity to a global insurer's general account, connectivity to wealth distribution, connectivity to retail product creation through Mackenzie Investments, the Mackenzie Northleaf funds being a prime example. As I said earlier, my goal for our three alts platforms is for these platforms to emerge from this consolidation phase, for however long it lasts, substantially stronger. I think they're on their way. Northleaf is a very profitable business, strong leadership. Sagard is growing rapidly and very successfully. Paul Desmarais III has declared a goal of CAD 100 billion by 2030. He is well on the way. Power Sustainable put out a very important press release this morning. It is a statement of ambition for Power Sustainable. It is a statement of ambition for Canada, and it is very well-timed. They are going to put their shoulder up against the wheel to execute against it, and they will have my support in doing so. I look at the three platforms and I see a lot there. I am committed, Phil, to seeing these three platforms emerge stronger as we move through this consolidation phase. Exactly how the alts businesses are ultimately configured within Power Corp and what the number of them is, as I say, that will not be and cannot be a pronouncement from on high. We have great leadership in each of these businesses, and they are smart people, and this will be figured out over time. Excellent. Can we talk about how AI adds value across the Power Group and really what you see as the biggest untapped opportunities, including expectations for the AI fund announced this summer? Yeah. I want to draw an analogy back to fintech. I think it is important to start there. David Harney spoke directly to AI, and for me, there is a really important analog to fintech and what we did as a group in fintech. How we exhibited, once again, really good active ownership in fintech. All of this applies, I think, very directly to AI. What we did in fintech was we started by setting up a fund. Paul III set up a fund, Portage. We started to invest in fintech through that fund. Great-West Life invested, IGM invested, Power invested. Away we went, and it has generated, to say the least, very, very attractive returns. We did not just invest in the fund to earn financial returns. We invested in the fund because we wanted to get to know the space, because we wanted to build commercial partnerships with companies that emerged in that space. That is exactly what happened at IGM. Again, we spoke about it earlier. Conquest, nesto, ClearEstate, PolicyBook. All of those can be connected to this Power-wide initiative, this active ownership initiative. I think that is a very important point. We start by investing in a fund. We get financial returns. Then we seek commercial partnerships to strengthen the core businesses. I can tell you and Damon can tell you, IG is a stronger business today as a result of its commercial partnerships with fintech. Then thirdly, and maybe most importantly, what we sought to do in AI through this, or sorry, in fintech through this strategy, was at least modestly, maybe moderately reshape our culture. Solve for the problem of incumbency. Why is it that it's old legacy companies that often have the technology, tomorrow's technology sitting in a back office or a back room, but they can't deploy it, they can't use it? The case studies of this are numerous. It's a cultural issue. What we really wanted to do was have our people engage directly with fintech people, and at least modestly or moderately sharpen our culture, reshape our culture to have more of an external mindset. The point I'm making is that in fintech, this is exactly what we achieved, and in AI, that's exactly what we're going to do. We start with the AI fund. CAD 150 million, three by 50, and away we go. Out of that will come opportunities for partnership. Out of that will come relationships. Out of that will come a sharper culture right across this group that addresses the opportunity and the challenges of AI very, very directly. It's early days, but I'm really glad that we set a template in fintech, because while it's not perfectly analogous, we're going to do something very similar now in AI. Okay. Can we talk about Wealthsimple and really, again, what role you think it might play within the Power Group over time? Well, I view Wealthsimple now as a foundation stone. Just as Canada Life, London Life, Great-West Life, IG, Mackenzie were foundation stones for the 20th century. I view Wealthsimple as a foundation stone for the 21st century. As I said, under Mike Katchen's leadership, I'm confident this company is in the process of rapidly carving out its space amongst the largest financial institutions in the country. So it's a foundation stone, and it's been a real source of value creation, both at the Power Corp. level and at the IGM level. Phil, we're deeply committed to that property and proud of its progress and proud of Mike's leadership of that business. Okay. As you move from the operating company level to the top of the house, has your perspective on Wealthsimple changed, including how it's structured within the Power Group? Yeah. It's an interesting question. It's held in two places. It's held at Power Corp and it's held in IGM. I suppose where I'd start there is that let's at least partially acknowledge Wealthsimple being held in two places as a feature, not a bug. Okay. Because it's as a result of deploying two public companies' resources against what was at the time a high-risk venture opportunity that we were and are in a position now to control Wealthsimple and to have the ownership position that we do. I actually view the way we deployed capital into Wealthsimple as another example of strong, active ownership. It's why we have the holding in it now that we do, as I say. Having said that, simplification has been a running theme within the group now for a number of years, and it will continue. Okay. I promise you it will continue. Certainly, there is a case for Wealthsimple rather to reside in one place, not two places. We got to figure out what that place is. Whoever the buyer is needs to figure out how to finance it. Because what I don't want to do along the way is we cannot and would not change the essence of what Wealthsimple is. Wealthsimple has remarkable momentum in attracting clients, in generating revenue, and they run a tight ship. But they're at a point in their life cycle where they reinvest dollars. They reinvest significant dollars in customer acquisition, and that's exactly what they need to do. If it were to reside in one place, we'd have to figure out what's the place and how does that party finance it. In that context, perhaps it's something we can do. But in the meantime, I think it's of enormous benefit to each of Power and IGM to own the stakes that we do. Okay. Power Corp entered 2026 with significant levels of excess cash and continue to generate further excess liquidity through the year. What are your views on capital priorities? I guess specifically, how do you think about balancing investment in the existing businesses, including M&A at current valuations versus return on capital via ongoing buybacks and some of the dividend increases? Yeah. Sustainably increase the dividend, grow net asset value, shrink the trading discount. Sustainably grow the dividend. We are going to do that by encouraging earnings growth in the operating businesses. We will invest in the businesses, supporting M&A if, as, and when that is required. Supporting those businesses is critically important. Sustainably grow the dividend. Grow the net asset value. That is also going to be investing in the businesses and supporting M&A. That clearly is a priority when you look at that three-part framework of mine. Number three is shrink the discount, and I think there are two things we can do there. If, as, and when we are trading at meaningful discounts, buy back stock. That is underway as we speak. The second thing we can do is continue to engage in good active ownership and communicate that good active ownership, and then you as investors can decide what discount, if any, you think we should trade at to net asset value. That will be your job ahead. We will try to do the rest. All right. Do you want to share your views on the NAV discount and where you think it should trade at? Not where it is. Look, I pose this as a question. I put this out there to you as a group. I fundamentally understand that markets prefer owning something directly rather than indirectly. I fundamentally understand that. But I also say to you, when you get to the Power Corp level and figure out where we should trade relative to the sum of the component pieces, I think the operative question is, what are they doing with all of this? Are they adding value? How are they adding value? And I think through active ownership, we do add value. And I think the best and fullest expression of how we lean in on strategy, capital, people, talent, and distribute opportunities across the group is through the Power Corp stock. The rest is up to the investment community, and I will respect their judgment. Okay. Just in terms of final thoughts, what levels of returns do you think investors should generally expect? More importantly, what factors need to align to extend this strong outperformance with confidence over the next five years? There are things I control and things I do not control, and obviously I do not control market levels or general industry multiples. But I do see a reasonably clear path for us to continue to execute against the medium-term targets of our subsidiaries. That should translate into 9% plus earnings growth. Pick a dividend yield, say 3%, there is 12%. There are bits of the business that will be a bit low. There are parts that will be higher. But I do not think it is unrealistic to think of Power Corp, multiple held constant, as a 12% plus grower over the medium term to the long term. And I know the family and my board have expectations of me to deliver and in a way that is not inconsistent with that. I am not expected to be a guardian of what has been achieved, remarkably well achieved over the past five, 10, and 20 years. I'm expected to grow this further. My commitment, and I know Jake's commitment and Claude Généreux's commitment, is to do precisely that. Excellent. Well, James, it's been a very insightful conversation. Again, like to thank you personally for carving out time today to speak with us and meet with investors. On behalf of Scotiabank Global Banking and Markets, I'd also like to thank the entire Power Group for your continued support and participation in today's event. Thank you. Well, thank you, Phil. It's a pleasure to be here. Excellent. We're going to take a short break, and we're going to reconvene with Manulife at 10 after 10, followed by iA Financial Group and Element Fleet.