Thank you so much, Madame Pauzé, for the question.
I believe the statement by Rich Kruger is an intentionally misleading one. To the extent that oil and gas companies are misaligned with the recommendations of the International Energy Agency on science-aligned 1.5°C pathways in which no fossil fuel developments are to be sanctioned after 2021, it is very obvious that they are pursuing short-term profit at the expense of the health of the environment.
The interesting thing is that this exact kind of trade-off is something that oil and gas executives are very aware of. Imperial Oil did modelling in the 1990s in documents, which have now been made public, regarding the economy-wide effects of a national carbon price. This information is available in reporting by Geoff Dembicki in his recent book, The Petroleum Papers.
The results of the modelling that Imperial Oil did found that, while a national carbon price would raise the overall national GDP in the long term by stimulating the development of new sectors, it would actually reduce Imperial Oil's profits directly for the business lines it was currently in business for. It then decided to spend the next few decades lobbying against robust climate policy, which is why we're in the situation we're in now—in addition to the behaviour of many other companies in that regard.