A recent report by the Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine (IREC) commissioned by OXFAM Québec (1) shows that the carbon footprint of Canada’s eight biggest banks is 1.9 billion tons, or 2.6 times Canada’s GHG emissions, and that if they joined together to form a new State, it would be the fifth largest GHG emitter in the world. This report seems to directly contradict the commitments the bank made last year in response to our shareholder proposal to set intermediate targets and adopt a plan to achieve them. While we recognize that the bank is making real efforts to support and accelerate the climate transition, it could do better, and even set an example for other companies. Two findings from the IREC report merit mention: “First, not only have none of the largest Canadian deposit-taking institutions pledged, either in the short or medium term, to withdraw from the fossil fuel industry, but they all moreover continue to present themselves as participants in the energy transition and sustainable financing of activities, whether it be to decarbonize fossil fuel extraction, transformation and/or consumption processes, or to support the diversification of “green” portfolios of companies in this industry, namely in green technologies and renewable energy sources. Secondly, even when it comes to their financial commitments to the energy and environmental transition, Canadian IDDs have still not set very ambitious goals: for example, the CAD 850 billion pledged in total by BMO, RBC, Scotia, CIBC and TD for 2020-2030, while not a negligible amount, will ultimately only represent two thirds of the assets they had initially pledged for fossil fuels alone between 2016 and 2020, exceeding CAD 1300 billion. All in all, many of the mutual funds and ETFs of Canada’s eight largest deposit-taking institutions, including ESG-focused or “environment” funds, are still not aligned with the targets of the Paris Agreement and exceed the maximum exposure to carbon-producing industries that would make limiting global warming to less than two degrees possible.” The bank—which is one of the banks named in the report, namely in recommendation #4—enjoys significant financial strength and must carry out equally important responsibi