Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 16th, 2023

[Rich Kruger]

I think it's two things. It's good for business and it's the right thing to do. When those things can overlap, we are sufficiently incentivized to spend money to research and to pursue new business opportunities. We do think the decarbonization of our existing hydrocarbon business and looking for new alternate fuel sources, energy sources, is quite frankly just good business.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You guys are working to achieve net-zero GHG emissions from your operations by 2050. I'm wondering if you want to elaborate on that point here at the very end. You've made some statements on that to clarify what other people have said. Other people have made misleading statements about what you have said. I'm wondering if you have any more comments on that.

[Rich Kruger]

It would be to say that our commitments haven't changed in that. We have targets for 2030. We have the commitments for 2050. We're collaborating with others in industry to achieve those.

A lesson learned for me in this is that, if anything I've said was misinterpreted, I have the responsibility to ensure that, for my employees, for my customers, for folks in this room, we're clear. For clarity, Suncor remains committed to reducing and decarbonizing its existing hydrocarbon business and being a part of the longer-term energy transition for the future.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Kruger.

We'll now move to Ms. Dabrusin for five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Kruger.

My first question is that it is my understanding that Suncor has committed to reaching net zero by 2050. Is that correct?

[Rich Kruger]

Yes.

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

What metrics are you using to measure that? How are you measuring, tracking and reporting to the public your progress in that regard?

[Rich Kruger]

They are scope 1 and scope 2 emissions.

We report routinely in our sustainability report, which we've now put out for 25-plus years, and in our climate report, which is six-plus years, the emissions from our operations on an operated basis, on an equity basis. We detail at length the actions we're taking, whether it's fuel switching or whether it's renewables and blending. We are measuring those and reporting them actively and publicly each and every year. We have been reporting them for some time.

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

Part of the reason why I'm asking is that my understanding is that you had a chief sustainability officer.

[Rich Kruger]

She's sitting right next to me.

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

Right, and my understanding is that the position is not going to continue. Am I correct?

[Rich Kruger]

No, you're incorrect. I'm glad you said this, because she's right next to me.

I also read that I had let her go. I did not let her go. She's down the hall from me, and I value her greatly. She is choosing to retire after a very successful 20-year career. Someone she has mentored for the last five years will be our chief sustainability officer as she retires. I appreciate your bringing that up, because that is incorrect.

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

I appreciate that clarification.

The thing is, I heard you earlier talking about how you went to see your doctor. You were talking about how you take care of yourself. Your doctor's advice was to take care of yourself today. That kind of stuck with me, because when I'm thinking about Canadians taking care of themselves today, I think about the fact that we have seen people from Fort McMurray literally fleeing wildfires. Their homes have been burned. They have faced massive upheaval from natural disasters. Also, this summer, we saw it right across our country. We saw wildfires, hurricanes, droughts and flooding.

At the time of the statement you made, which really triggered this study, there were literally people fleeing Yellowknife, going right by the oil sands, to flee for safety further south in Alberta. Do you understand at least that saying at that time that there was a need for a change of tone and direction didn't feel like taking care of ourselves in that moment? Wouldn't you agree?

[Rich Kruger]

I guess I'd be curious as to who here actually listened to or read what I had to say, because I think, if you did that, I don't think I'd be asked this question.

That said, I want to emphasize my empathy for the people who have suffered the loss. It's been horrible—no question about it. I don't mean to be dismissive of that at all, but when I look at what I said about the importance of being strong and being safe for my employees and environmentally responsible today so we can be a part of the future, I continue to stand by those comments. Obviously, that I'm here and how they were interpreted.... That was never the intent at all. We want to be—we plan to be—part of the solution to this for Canada, for Canadians, for the future.

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

Knowing that in Canada what we're facing when we're talking about emissions is that oil and gas is the largest source of emissions in our country. It's at the top. Our government has been clear that emissions are what we're after, because that's what the planet sees—emissions.

When you're looking at that and when you're looking at the natural disasters we're facing across our country, do you not believe that, as a responsible corporate citizen, one of your top priorities must be to be driving down emissions quickly and—you talked about energy—looking at all forms of energy that we can be using to drive down emissions?

[Rich Kruger]

I do believe that is a responsibility and a commitment. That hasn't changed. That's why in my opening comments I detailed the literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year we are spending to do that. That's why—because I think it's good for business and it's the right thing to do. We're in agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Kruger.

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Now we'll go to Monsieur Simard for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Kruger, I have to tell you that I'm a little confused. I was talking to you earlier about the clean fuel regulations, which apply to your industry. You told me that you were unfamiliar with them and that you had not done an analysis. It seems to me that I would be interested in regulations that apply to an industry I'm involved in. That's the first thing that puzzles me.

I also know very well that the clean fuel regulations will have an impact on your production costs. That said, I am also well aware that this impact far outweighs your desire to decarbonize the oil and gas sector.

This means one of two things: Either your and the Pathways Alliance's desire to decarbonize the oil and gas sector is a sham and it's being used to greenwash as you continue to produce oil and gas; or you're a very poor manager, since you haven't bothered to look at the fuel regulations the Canadian government is going to apply.

I'd like you to explain the reasoning behind that.

[Rich Kruger]

I'm not sure what the question is, but I'll gladly comment on it. The judgment of whether I'm a great manager, I guess that's for someone else to determine.

I'm very aware of the clean fuels regulations. What I said was that we are complying with them, and in terms of analyzing them.... You're linking Pathways and the clean fuels regulations, and I have to admit, maybe this is my gap. I'm not quite sure of the two of those. Pathways relates to providing—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The link is quite simple, sir: They are linked because they aim to reduce emissions in your industry. You're trying to use carbon capture strategies to achieve net zero by 2050. The clean fuel regulations seek to reduce emissions in your sector.

Why, on the one hand, would you reject a solution that costs you less, namely the clean fuel regulations, but on the other, choose a solution devoting 10% of your capital expenditures to reducing your carbon footprint? I don't understand that. I see the impact of implementing carbon capture strategies on your production costs as exponential and very high. That makes sense to you, but the clean fuel regulations make no sense to you.

I beg your pardon for what I said to you earlier, but—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there is a relevance thing here again, but it also sounds like my colleague doesn't understand the differences between upstream and downstream, and the different aspects of each of the policies—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I don't interrupt—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Maybe we can stay on topic.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

No, wait a minute. I'm going to finish what I started.

I don't interrupt when my colleagues ask questions. I give them a modicum of respect, and I'd like to be entitled to that modicum of respect as well.