Université Laval
PA-10: Sustainable Investment

Specific to green energy, we have fragmentary information that allows us to state that 0.7% of our investments are in this sector if we consider that 20% or more of the company's revenues are sufficient to qualify. Alternatively, if we adopt a more stringent criterion of 50% or more of the company's revenues, we hold 0.1% of our investments in such companies.

Upon selection, the investment committee consider the carbon footprint of the fund, the ratification of the UNPRI by the fund managers, the quality of its sustainable investment policy and its participation in responsible investment associations.

As for ongoing relation with investment managers, our annual review includes the same considerations as for the selection process.

The University currently does not have segregated stocks funds and therefore cannot vote directly. However, it is our belief that proxy voting is one the strongest action a responsible investor can take. We therefore question our external manager during the annual reviews regarding their voting policies and, when using an external service (ISS, Glass Lewis, etc.) encourage them to switch to the responsible / climate policy of said service provider. Furthermore, we introduced for the past annual review a questionnaire which included questions about key subjects / votes.

The Master Trust is an member of the following networks:
■ UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI)
■ RIA Canada – Responsible Investment Association Canada
■ Ceres Investor Network on Climate Risk and Sustainability
■ Climate Action 100+
■ Investing to Address Climate Change : A Charter for Canadian Universities

Also, the institution was a signatory of the 2021 Global Investor Statement to Governments on the Climate Crisis to pressure world leaders during COP26.

The institution has set specific carbon footprint reduction targets for its public equities portfolio. Although not targeting specific companies by name, this policy implies the exclusion of the biggest carbon emitters, indiscriminately of its industry.

We maintain that a strong carbon footprint reduction target is a positive/negative screen. Other regular negative screens, notably « tobacco companies, alcohol companies, gambling companies, weapons manufacturers, nuclear power companies and resource extractors (coal, oil and gas)" are generally identified through third parties, such as MSCI, who identify companies as such based on thresholds, as large listed companies rarely work in just one very specific industry. Carbon footprint reduction targeting is in every way similar. It negatively screens companies with poor environmental records / high carbon footprint. Additionally, this specific screen applies across all industries, rather than just "resource extractors". In that regard, we have to point out that your definition of "negative screens" includes "Companies with especially poor […] environmental records ».