Intern - Investments

Key takeaways from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan 2026 AGM. May 1, 2026 At its April 16, 2026 Annual General Meeting (AGM), Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP) leadership emphasized three priorities: investing in Canada, defence spending and its newly released climate strategy. You can watch a recording of the AGM and member Q&A session here. The meeting took place shortly after OTPP released its updated 2026-2030 Climate Strategy, meaning the AGM was one of the first opportunities for beneficiaries to directly question leadership on what those commitments mean in practice. While OTPP's new strategy has the fund moving in a smart and strategic direction to focus on real-world decarbonization, it abandons much of OTPP's previous ambition and leadership. It waters down OTPP's net-zero commitment, strips out nearly all portfolio climate targets, ignores large parts of the portfolio, and lacks adequate criteria for transition investments. The strategy is a major step backwards that leaves the door open to new OTPP investments in gas and pipelines. For more on OTPP's flawed climate strategy, read this analysis from Shift. Several Ontario teachers attended the AGM and questioned OTPP leadership directly about the fund's drift from climate ambition. This rare opportunity to engage decision-makers offered critical insight into how the fund manages billions of dollars of retirement savings - and how those decisions align (or don't) with members' concerns on climate risk and Indigenous rights. Their interventions grounded the discussion in the real-world impacts of OTPP's investment decisions. Below are the most important takeaways from both the AGM's formal presentation and the member Q&A, which together reveal a growing gap between OTPP's climate commitments and its continued openness to high-carbon and controversial investments. "Nation-building" projects may include LNG and fossil fuel expansion In the formal presentation at the beginning of the meeting, OTPP leadership repeatedly emphasized the fund's interest in "nation-building projects" in Canada: "We will continue... conversations... with the federal and provincial governments to discuss commercially attractive nation-building projects." In the Q&A, Patrick Templeton, a retired Toronto District School Board (TDSB) teacher, stood up and spoke to the urgency of the climate crisis on behalf of members impacted by it: "You've seen the temperature graphs, and you've seen the floods, you've seen the fires... we know about the climate emergency which we are all living through. So the question is: The pension plan says that it is having regular meetings with the federal and Ontario governments, which are pressuring pension funds to invest in so-called nation-building energy and infrastructure projects. Can you please confirm that the OTPP will not invest retirement savings in proposed LNG terminals, oil and gas pipelines, or any other project that expands or prolongs the use of fossil fuels?" OTPP board chair Steve McGirr wavered in his response, saying that "there will be LNG projects, which will be looked at... umm, these are gonna be very difficult from the point of view of screening." McGirr did not expand on what kind of "screening" process OTPP uses to assess potential investments in fossil fuel projects. When pressed directly on whether OTPP would rule out investments in proposed LNG terminals, oil and gas pipelines, or any other project that expands or prolongs the use of fossil fuels, OTPP CEO Jo Taylor's answer was more clear: "Would we discount looking at gas and liquefied natural gas as a project? No we wouldn't." In other words, OTPP is leaving the door open to using teachers' retirement savings to make new investments in fossil fuel infrastructure. Taylor also indicated that LNG is an area of active consideration, noting that: "Gas is probably an area where we spent more time in terms of looking at new projects..." Despite acknowledging the climate emergency, OTPP's response focused narrowly on financial returns and internal screening processes, rather than alignment with climate science or safe emissions reduction pathways. This means that despite its climate commitments, OTPP is actively considering new fossil fuel infrastructure, including LNG and pipelines - projects widely understood to expand and prolong fossil fuel use, the primary driver of the climate crisis. The climate concerns of teachers should be heightened by rumours that pension funds are being arm-twisted by the federal government to invest in LNG Canada - the most polluting LNG facility in the world. OTPP continues to invest billions in fossil fuels Karen Templin, a retired teacher from the TDSB, stood up to ask OTPP leadership about fossil fuel investments: "We do know that fossil fuels are fueling the climate crisis, which is going to impact the lives of our children and grandchildren. And while the companies that are investing in them may even be at risk of becoming stranded assets, as the rest of the world moves on to renewables. So my question is: how much of my pension plan is invested in oil, gas, coal and pipelines, especially since it looks like we're getting new investments in these things too." CEO Jo Taylor stated that: "Fossil fuels are less than 3% of the plan, in terms of our direct investment." This amounts to over $8 billion of OTPP's $279.4 billion in assets under management as of December 31, 2025. While framed by executives as "relatively low," this represents billions of dollars of teachers' retirement savings invested in the industries primarily responsible for the climate crisis. Jo Taylor also acknowledged stranded asset risk of high-carbon assets, stating that: "in terms of stranded assets, that is absolutely a risk... [we aim] to divest before it becomes one of those stranded assets." This framing suggests OTPP's approach prioritizes timing its exit to protect returns, rather than addressing the underlying climate risks or committing to a genuine transition away from these industries. No commitment to protect Indigenous rights in investment decisions OTPP beneficiary Betty de Groot, a retired teacher from Dufferin-Peel, asked whether OTPP will honour the spirit of its Indigenous Action Plan and commit to invest only in companies and projects that respect Indigenous sovereignty and the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Jo Taylor's response stopped far short of any commitment: "I would be slightly reticent to ever say we will only do something with certain criteria because that is a significant restriction on what we can apply to the more widespread investment activities..." And: "Is it something we would want to say today is going to be the only criteria we apply to investment? I think that's probably quite difficult to say I can give that commitment." OTPP confirmed it does not have a binding policy ensuring Indigenous rights protections across its investment portfolio, meaning teachers' retirement savings could still be invested in projects that proceed without Free, Prior and Informed Consent. Instead, OTPP leadership emphasized flexibility and returns, even when asked about legally protected Indigenous rights. Defence spending framed as "investible" and government-aligned OTPP leadership signaled growing openness to defence sector investments, despite current exposure at less than 1% of the fund. Framing defence as "a growing focus for governments globally and our own", they highlighted that the Canadian government has explicitly asked pension funds to support national security priorities - pointing to a likely expansion of teachers' retirement savings in defence companies tied to global conflict and militarization - along with the significant emissions these activities drive. While OTPP maintains that it applies screening processes, its framing of defence as both financially attractive and aligned with government priorities raises important questions about how geopolitical pressures may shape investment decisions. Notably, this mirrors the framing used for "nation-building" infrastructure - where government alignment and return potential are prioritized, even when investments may carry significant climate, environmental and social risks. It is bizarre and problematic that OTPP's CEO says the fund is prioritizing defence investments because it's "being asked to do it by our local government." OTPP's duty is to invest in the best interests of working and retired teachers, not assist the government in advancing its defence-industrial strategy or building so-called "nation-building projects". Key takeaways Across multiple exchanges at the AGM, a consistent pattern emerges: OTPP emphasizes investment flexibility, returns and screening processes, while avoiding firm exclusions or binding commitments - whether on fossil fuels, LNG expansion, or Indigenous rights. For beneficiaries raising urgent concerns about the climate crisis and social responsibility, the responses suggest that teachers' retirement savings may continue to be invested in ways that are misaligned with both climate science and member expectations. Perhaps it's time for OTPP executives to review the pension fund's own climate strategy and take more seriously the "do no significant harm" principle it purports to integrate. Take Action Over 346,000 teachers and retirees from across Ontario are counting on OTPP to manage their pension in their best long-term interests. OTPP can either protect plan members' retirement security and invest in a safe climate future, or cave to political pressure and fossil fuel interests to invest in gas expansion.

Canada's largest pension funds have reported weak private equity performance for 2025, but consultant Alexander Beath argues the poor results may reflect flawed benchmarking rather than actual underperformance. Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan recorded a 5.3% loss on its PE portfolio, whilst Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System saw a 2.5% loss. Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's buyout portfolio returned just 2.3%, missing its benchmark by over 10 percentage points. Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan gained 0.6%, whilst Alberta Investment Management Corporation's PE portfolio returned 3%. Beath contends these pensions measure PE performance against benchmarks heavily weighted towards large-cap stocks, particularly the Magnificent Seven, which saw massive 2025 returns. This makes PE appear worse by comparison, despite industry-wide headwinds from slow dealmaking and valuation declines.