Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 9th, 2024

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Perfect. Thank you.

Actually, I'm curious about that piece.

I did actually have a question, and I will start with Cenovus. It's actually about the most recent ESG report that they put out in 2023, which seems to be missing the letter E.

The report reads:

This report differs from our previous Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reports in that it does not include information regarding Cenovus’s environmental performance and plans due to recent changes to Canada’s Competition Act. We have made the decision to defer reporting on our recent environmental activities.

The Competition Act changes we're talking about are that, when you make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence.

I would like to know from Cenovus what portions of the report you withheld because you didn't feel that you had the evidence that would support them under the Competition Act rules?

[Jon McKenzie]

Thank you for the question.

First, I would say that nothing has changed at Cenovus in terms of the work we're doing with regard to carbon emissions and our commitment to the environment. What has changed, however, is Bill C-59. Bill C-59 was a piece of legislation that came in without consultation and without an introductory period that requires all environmental representation—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

No, I asked, actually.... I'm sorry, but I have very little time. My question wasn't about what the regulation says. It was actually about what was withheld from the report that couldn't be backed up under the rules.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

On a point of order, you talked it out. He was trying to answer your question. He was explaining exactly why. Let him—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, that's not a point of order.

Ms. Dabrusin, you have the floor. Please go ahead with your question.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I was just hoping he could explain to me what was held back that couldn't be backed up by the evidence in that report.

[Jon McKenzie]

Again, I take a bit of issue with the way you phrased your question in that what we've taken out of the report are pieces that we're waiting for clarification on under Bill C-59, and in particular, what that bill means by recognized international standards.

Once we have some guidance from the committee, we will be making an assessment as to whether we can start to re-release that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. McKenzie.

That round of questioning time is up. We'll now go to Monsieur Simard for six minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McKenzie, I hope you can hear me okay. Is the interpretation working for you? Can you hear what I'm saying? Maybe you can nod your head.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to lose my speaking time. I just want to make sure that the witness can hear the interpretation properly.

Mr. McKenzie, can you hear the interpretation?

[Jon McKenzie]

I can't hear you. I apologize. I didn't do very well in high school French. I tried my best.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'm sorry, but I want to stop the clock anyway. I don't want to lose my time for that. I'd like the witness to hear the interpretation for the question I'm going to ask him.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. McKenzie, can you hear the interpretation? Can you give us a thumbs up that you can?

[Jon McKenzie]

I can't hear any interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're going to suspend for a moment while we get this sorted out.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Monsieur Simard, I paused your time. Please, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for you, Mr. McKenzie, now that the interpretation is working.

I know you're with the Pathways Alliance. One of your colleagues, Derek Evans, recently gave advice to Mr. Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, saying that, all in all, carbon pricing would be essential, in his opinion. I find that interesting. I think we do need to put a price on carbon. For the fun of it and without being petty, we asked Mr. Poilievre in the House if he agreed with Mr. Evans. I can read it verbatim:

Mr. Speaker, he sounds like another useless lobbyist saying stupid things.

I'm not the one saying this; it's Mr. Poilievre.

I do not listen to big corporate lobbyists like him. … I know that big corporations and sometimes even very big corporations have no problem forcing workers to pay more tax on their gas but, personally, I cannot do that. I work for workers and consumers. That is why we are going to axe the tax.

He was talking, of course, about the carbon tax.

So I have to ask you this. You're a big oil company, and you want to reduce your carbon emissions. Do you agree with carbon pricing? If so, do you consider yourself a useless lobbyist?

[Jon McKenzie]

With regard to the carbon tax, our position has been quite clear.

To reiterate it once again, what we've said publicly is that a carbon tax can be an effective tool to reduce carbon emissions. However, it needs to be universally applied, and it can't be done to the detriment of making industry uncompetitive.

One of the issues that we have with the carbon tax is that it's not universally applied across the globe. It's applied across Canada, and we're talking about carving out certain pieces of the economy and certain industries for special treatment, which does make them uncompetitive.

The problem, again, is that we compete in the global world and we are applying a carbon tax only nationally, which does make our industry less competitive globally.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

We could debate this, but I think there's a fairly simple principle in the environmental community, which is the polluter pays principle. The higher our emissions, the more likely we are to be held financially accountable for them. I'll leave that to your judgment, and take into account the fact that you're in favour of carbon pricing.

I'd now like to hear your comments on another issue.

I read in some articles that Suncor was prepared to abandon the carbon capture and sequestration strategies it was putting forward to reduce its emissions, because the costs were too high.

Do you personally believe that reducing the carbon intensity of the oil sector is something that is achievable in the short term, from a financial point of view?

[Jon McKenzie]

One of the things we have said, and I think this is important to remember, is that our industry exports almost everything that we produce. If we are going to make a meaningful dent in the emissions that we contribute as an industry—and they are about 25% of our national emissions—under the timelines that have been spoken to, carbon capture and sequestration is probably one of the only technologies that gets us there in the time frames that we have allowed.

The issue we've spoken to is again one of competitiveness. What we need is a public-private partnership where the federal government, the provincial government and industry come together to solve this problem on behalf of Canadians.

The right answer is that Canada still needs—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Unfortunately, I don't have much time, and I'd like to come back to one point, although I find what you're telling me very interesting.

I have a very simple question for you: Do you think low-carbon oil isn't competitive without public money?

I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

[Jon McKenzie]

Canadian oil and gas is very competitive on the world market, but the more regulation we put around it and the more things we do unilaterally that the rest of our global peers are not subject to will continue to make it less competitive. That's where the TMX pipeline comes in. It gives us the egress that we need to get our products to market in an effective way.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you. We'll now go to our next round.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Singh.

You have six minutes.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a question to Mr. McKenzie.

Your colleague from Suncor recently bragged that, thanks to Trudeau's TMX pipeline, “the sun is shining” and it's time to make hay for big oil. However, the sun isn't shining on Jasper or the 200,000 other Canadians forced to flee their homes because of floods, fires and climate disasters.

Do you accept a shared responsibility for Jasper burning down, for homes flooding and for the hurricanes that are tearing through communities?

[Jon McKenzie]

When we see those kinds of tragedies on television and we see the people who are directly affected by it, I think everybody's heart goes out to them and everybody feels very sorry for the victims of these kinds of natural disasters—

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

I appreciate that, but you share responsibility.