METRO INC. 2023-2024 Proxy Voting Records

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,280,994 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,224,137 for, 56,857 withheld. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,280,994 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,280,994 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,280,994 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,224,137 for, 56,857 withheld. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,280,994 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,224,137 for, 56,857 withheld. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,280,994 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,224,037 for, 56,957 withheld. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,280,994 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

The 54 asset managers below reported 24,224,137 for, 56,857 withheld. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 54 asset managers. All 54 are in the interactive database (link above).

Description as filed by funds: SP 2: HOLD ANNUAL MEETINGS OF THE COMPANY IN PERSON WITH VIRTUAL MEETINGS AS COMPLEMENTS

The 42 asset managers below reported 1,916,401 for, 20,647,835 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 42 asset managers. All 42 are in the interactive database (link above).

Description as filed by funds: SP 1: REPORT ON CAGE-FREE EGG GOAL

The 42 asset managers below reported 469,440 for, 22,094,796 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 42 asset managers. All 42 are in the interactive database (link above).

Description as filed by funds: SP 4: REPORT ON ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES

The 42 asset managers below reported 452,153 for, 22,112,083 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 42 asset managers. All 42 are in the interactive database (link above).

Description as filed by funds: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION APPROACH

Fund voting reports and institutional-manager reports both cover this item. An institutional manager can report shares that a fund it advises also reports, so the two are shown separately below and never added together, and their sum is not shown (fund and manager reports combined may count the same shares twice). The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Fund voting reports, all 42 managers: 22,564,236 for. Showing the 25 largest; every one is in the interactive database (link above).

Institutional-manager reports, all 5 managers: 6,184,395 for.

Fund voting reports and institutional-manager reports both cover this item. An institutional manager can report shares that a fund it advises also reports, so the two are shown separately below and never added together, and their sum is not shown (fund and manager reports combined may count the same shares twice). The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Fund voting reports, all 7 managers: 898,475 for, 10,074 abstained.

Institutional-manager reports, all 18 managers: 15,003,413 for, 112,502 against.

Fund voting reports and institutional-manager reports both cover this item. An institutional manager can report shares that a fund it advises also reports, so the two are shown separately below and never added together, and their sum is not shown (fund and manager reports combined may count the same shares twice). The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Fund voting reports, all 6 managers: 808,209 for.

Institutional-manager reports, all 4 managers: 7,448,463 for, 2,655 against.

Description as filed by funds: RATIFY ERNST & YOUNG LLP AS AUDITORS

The 42 asset managers below reported 22,556,236 for, 8,000 withheld. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 42 asset managers. All 42 are in the interactive database (link above).

Description as filed by funds: SP 3: AUDITOR ROTATION

The 42 asset managers below reported 250,256 for, 22,313,980 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Showing the 25 largest of 42 asset managers. All 42 are in the interactive database (link above).

Description as filed by funds: APPOINTMENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, CHARTERED PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS, AS AUDITORS OF THE CORPORATION

The 7 asset managers below reported 908,549 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 6 asset managers below reported 808,209 for. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 6 asset managers below reported 4,342 for, 803,867 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 6 asset managers below reported 4,342 for, 803,867 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 6 asset managers below reported 4,342 for, 803,867 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 6 asset managers below reported 14,600 for, 789,267 against, 4,342 withheld. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Description as filed by funds: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL: CANADIANS PURCHASED OVER CAD109 BILLION OF GROCERY PRODUCTS FROM SUPERMARKETS AND OTHER GROCERY STORES IN 2022, UP FROM CAD97 BILLION IN 2019.7 SINCE 2020 CANADIANS HAVE EXPERIENCED A PROLONGED PERIOD OF FOOD PRICE INFLATION, AND IN THIS ENVIRONMENT METRO ALONG WITH OTHER RETAILERS SUCCEEDED IN GROWING THEIR AVERAGE PROFIT MARGIN. BACKLASH AGAINST ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES CAN HARM A COMPANY'S PUBLIC REPUTATION AND INCREASE PRESSURE FOR NEW REGULATION. IN OCTOBER 2022 THE CANADIAN COMPETITION BUREAU LAUNCHED A STUDY OF GROCERY STORE COMPETITION IN CANADA, WHERE THE COUNTRY'S FIVE LARGEST GROCERY RETAILERS CONTROL 80% OF THE MARKET. THE STUDY FOCUSED ON PROMOTING GREATER RETAIL GROCERY COMPETITION AS THE BUREAU BELIEVES MORE COMPETITION CAN LEAD TO LOWER PRICES, MORE CHOICES, AND BETTER CONVENIENCE FOR CONSUMERS. THE BUREAU ISSUED ITS REPORT IN JUNE 2023, FINDING THAT CANADA'S LARGEST GROCERS' FOOD GROSS MARGINS GENERALLY INCREASED BY A MODEST YET MEANINGFUL AMOUNT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, INDICATING A SIGN OF A LACK OF COMPETITION IN CANADA'S GROCERY INDUSTRY. THE BUREAU FOCUSED ITS ANALYSIS ON FOOD GROSS MARGINS BUT INDICATED IT WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO UNDERTAKE A MORE EXPANSIVE ANALYSIS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW GROCERS PRICED SPECIFIC PRODUCTS, AND MORE BROADLY TO UNDERSTAND GROCERY COMPETITION IN CANADA. THE IMPEDIMENT TO THIS EXPANSIVE ANALYSIS WAS THE FAILURE OF CANADA'S GROCERY RETAILERS TO PROVIDE THE BUREAU WITH THE INFORMATION IT REQUESTED. NOTABLY, THE BUREAU INCLUDED A SECTION SPECIFICALLY ON THE RETAILERS' COOPERATION WITH THE STUDY: DID CANADA'S GROCERY GIANTS COOPERATE WITH THE BUREAU'S STUDY THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF COOPERATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION SHARED WITH THE BUREAU BY CANADA'S GROCERY GIANTS DURING THIS STUDY THE BUREAU IS NOT ABLE TO DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION IT WAS PROVIDED, OWING TO THE CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPETITION ACT. HOWEVER, IN GENERAL, THE BUREAU CAN SAY THAT THE LEVEL OF COOPERATION VARIED SIGNIFICANTLY, AND WAS NOT FULSOME. IN MANY INSTANCES, THE BUREAU WAS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN COMPLETE AND PRECISE FINANCIAL DATA, DESPITE ITS REPEATED REQUESTS. IN JUNE 2023, A CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ISSUED A REPORT ON FOOD PRICE INFLATION. THE REPORT MADE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO POTENTIAL ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES, INCLUDING INCREASING THE BUREAU'S INFORMATION GATHERING POWERS, REVIEWING COMPETITIVE THRESHOLDS FOR MERGERS, AND ESTABLISHING A COMMISSION WITH A MANDATE TO ANALYZE DATA RELATING TO PRICE FORMATION AND MARGINS IN TRANSACTIONS ALONG THE AGRI-FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN. WHILE WE ARE ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTIVE OF POSITIVE PROFIT AND RETURNS, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE BOARD IS ADDRESSING RISKS TO THE LONG-TERM HEALTH OF OUR COMPANY AND ITS BRANDS FROM GOVERNANCE AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES RELATED TO POTENTIALLY ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES. WE BELIEVE SHAREHOLDERS WOULD BENEFIT FROM MORE INFORMATION ABOUT OUR COMPANY'S MANAGEMENT OF THESE RISKS. RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 ON HOW IT OVERSEES RISKS AND COMPLIANCE RELATED TO ANTICOMPETITIVE PRACTICES. THE REPORT SHOULD BE PREPARED AT REASONABLE EXPENSE AND SHOULD OMIT CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

The 5 asset managers below reported 43,523 for, 48,906 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Description as filed by funds: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL: IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CALL IN OTHER AUDITORS, DEPENDING ON THE DURATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS, GIVEN THE NUMBER OF SHAREHOLDERS WHO VOTED TO ABSTAIN ON THIS ISSUE AT THE LAST ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

The 5 asset managers below reported 18,031 for, 74,398 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Description as filed by funds: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL: IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL MEETINGS BE HELD IN PERSON, AND THAT VIRTUAL MEETINGS BE ADDED AS A COMPLEMENT TO, BUT NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR, IN-PERSON MEETINGS

The 5 asset managers below reported 90,990 for, 1,439 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

Description as filed by funds: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS RESOLUTION IS A SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL: THIS PROPOSAL SIMPLY SEEKS DETAILS ABOUT ONE OF METRCYS CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY PLANS. AS BACKGROUND: IN 201 7, METRO ADOPTED A RESPONSIBLE PROCUREMENT FRAMEWORK AND SUPPLIER CODE OF CONDUCT. ONE OF THE FOUR PRINCIPLES THEY'RE BASED ON IS "RESPECT FOR ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE," WHICH METRO SAYS AIMS TO PREVENT "ALL FORMS OF ABUSE" IN ITS SUPPLY CHAIN YET, ANIMALS STILL ROUTINELY SUFFER IN METRO'S SUPPLY CHAIN. TAKE EGGS, FOR EXAMPLE. MOST EGG-LAYING HENS SPEND THEIR LIVES LOCKED IN CAGES. SOME ARE SO SMALL AND CRAMPED, THE ANIMALS CAN'T EVEN SPREAD THEIR WINGS. THE ABUSE IS EXTREME-AND COMPANIES LIKE LOBLAW, TIM HORTONS, MCDONALD'S, STARBUCKS, AND MANY OTHERS ARE SWITCHING TO 100% CAGE-FREE EGGS. IN 2016, METRO PLEDGED TO SOURCE 100% CAGE-FREE EGGS BY 2025; BUT IT RESCINDED THAT PROMISE IN 2021. ACCORDING TO METRO'S 2022 CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY REPORT, NEARLY 10% OF ITS STORES STILL DON'T OFFER ANY CAGE-FREE EGGS AND A THIRD OF ITS OWN LIFE SMART BRAND EGGS STILL COME FROM ANIMALS LOCKED IN CAGES. AS FOR METRO'S NEXT STEPS? METRO NOW JUST SAYS, "WE. PLAN TO INCREASE OUR OFFERING OF CAGE-FREE EGGS." BUT METRO DOESN'T DISCLOSE WHAT THAT PLAN ENTAILS OR HOW IT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED. AND SHAREHOLDERS HAVE NO WAY TO MEASURE PROGRESS, BECAUSE METRO DOESN'T PROVIDE ITS SPECIFIC CURRENT OR TARGETED CAGE-FREE EGG PERCENTAGES. WE THINK THAT IF A COMPANY CLAIMS TO HAVE A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING A SERIOUS ISSUE IN ITS SUPPLY CHAIN, SHAREHOLDERS OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT THAT PLAN ENTAILS AND BE CLEARLY AND REGULARLY INFORMED OF PROGRESS. (FOR EXAMPLE, LOBLAW, SOBEYS, COSTCO, WALMART, AND OTHERS DISCLOSE THEIR OVERALL CAGE-FREE EGG PERCENTAGES.) BUT NOT METRO. AFTER YEARS OF PLEDGING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, METRO NOW JUST VAGUELY SAYS IT PLANS TO INCREASE ITS SALE OF CAGE-FREE EGGS. THEREFORE, SHAREHOLDERS ASK METRO TO DISCLOSE: THE CURRENT TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF EGGS IT SELLS FROM CAGE-FREE ANIMALS, WHAT SPECIFIC ACTIONS IT TOOK IN FURTHERANCE OF ITS CAGE-FREE PLEDGE BETWEEN ANNOUNCING ITS COMMITMENT IN 2016 AND RESCINDING IT IN 2021, AND DETAILS OF ITS ACTION PLAN (MOVING FORWARD) FOR INCREASING ITS CAGE- FREE OFFERINGS-INCLUDING ANY STRATEGIES, BENCHMARKS, AND DELIVERABLES IT HAS FOR MEETING THAT GOAL. THESE DISCLOSURES SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN THREE MONTHS AND OMIT PROPRIETARY INFORMATION TO BE CLEAR, THIS PROPOSAL SEEKS ONLY INCREASED TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATION-NOT POLICY CHANGES. IT'S AS MUCH ABOUT METRO'S ACCOUNTABILITY TO SHAREHOLDERS AS IT IS THE COMPANY'S ANIMAL WELFARE ACTIONS. AND THE REQUESTED CLARITY IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT-FIRST, BECAUSE OF THE COMPANY'S HISTORY OF HAVING RESCINDED ITS ORIGINAL PLEDGE FOR CAGE-FREE EGG CONVERSION, AND SECONDLY, BECAUSE ANIMAL WELFARE IS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE BEHIND METRO'S RESPONSIBLE PROCUREMENT FRAMEWORK AND SUPPLIER CODE OF CONDUCT

The 5 asset managers below reported 43,523 for, 48,906 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 2 asset managers below reported 816,120 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 2 asset managers below reported 795,370 for, 20,750 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 2 asset managers below reported 816,120 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.

The 2 asset managers below reported 816,120 against. The figure above is FOR ÷ (FOR + AGAINST + WITHHELD) of the shares these managers voted; abstained and unvoted shares are in neither half, and these managers are a subset of all shareholders, not the meeting result.