As The Energy Mix Weekender reported Sunday, the sudden, unexplained loss of $500,000 in confirmed funding has left The Resilience Institute (TRI) scrambling to decide which front-line projects and staff jobs will be affected.

“We’re going to have to back out of several relationships. We have commitments to communities. We have commitments to staff,” Laura S. Lynes, TRI’s president and CEO, told The Energy Mix. “We have at least four multi-partner initiatives where we have committed to coming to the table with staff, and in some cases with funding, to do multi-year project work in small, rural and Indigenous communities across Canada. That’s the work that is at risk.”

We don’t just take money from anybody. We enter into relationships very consciously. And this has thrown us.

– Laura S. Lynes, president and CEO of The Resilience Institute

Some of those projects involve front-line research with Indigenous communities in Treaty 7 territory in southern Alberta, and in the heart of oil-sands extraction in the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo. Lynes said she’s heard of several other charities that received similar treatment, but their boards are afraid to speak up.

TRI’s programming portfolio includes:

• Stories of Resilience, a “thematic learning program” to collect stories of climate resilience that can “change our hearts and minds” and “if shared, have the potential to change futures”

• Front-line, multi-year climate-resilience initiatives with several Indigenous communities and groups across Canada, including many in Alberta such as Fort McKay First Nation, in Wood Buffalo where Suncor operates and Piikani Nation in Treaty 7, where Suncor’s head office is located,  as well as coastal communities in Atlantic Canada

• Roots for Resilience, a national  partnership with the Canadian Red Cross to reduce vulnerability to climate disasters in small, rural and Indigenous communities by bringing climate adaptation and disaster-risk-reduction strategies together

• A review of community housing, poverty and insurance in a changing climate that is partly supported by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

• A program on nature-based climate solutions that uses the ecologically and culturally significant plant sweetgrass “as a connector between partners”

The chronology of a breakup

When the Canada’s Clean50 newsletter brought the story to a wider audience earlier Friday, executive director Gavin Pitchford wrote that TRI – recipient of the Clean50’s 2025 Project of the Year award – “has been ghosted by Suncor Energy, their substantial multi-year promised funding cancelled without any warning.”

Suncor Energy Foundation (SEF) cancelled the pledge “after it was due and without an explanation,” Pitchford added, and “with some not-so-veiled threats from Suncor’s lawyers who suggested that complaining publicly would be ‘flying too close to the sun.’”

Lynes traced the chronology of the breakup in a LinkedIn post last week, and in a more detailed interview Friday evening. “I had hoped not to have to share this information, but our charity has experienced an unexpected setback that we have been unable to resolve,” she began. “The intent in sharing this information is to ensure that the consequences of this setback do not reflect on our good reputation with Indigenous and rural communities, or with the many academic, corporate, and other institutional partners that we have the privilege to collaborate with.”

More than five years ago, TRI began accepting funding from SEF, a separate legal entity set up by Calgary-based Suncor Energy, Canada’s second-biggest oil-sands company.

At the time, TRI thought it was working with a like-minded partner. “We don’t just take money from anybody. We enter into relationships very consciously. And this has thrown us,” she told The Energy Mix.

Following a strategic review in early 2024, shortly after fossil industry veteran Rich Kruger took over as Suncor Energy CEO, SEF “assured us that our work aligned fully with their updated funding priorities,” Lynes wrote on LinkedIn.

RELATED

Banks reverse course and pour more money into fossil fuels

Most Canadians want the government to prioritize clean energy over oil and gas

How Orsted ditched coal and became a titan of offshore wind

Several past grant recipients saw their relationships with the foundation end at that point, but TRI was invited “to submit a renewal for a three-year term and a total of $900,000, emphasizing the importance of long-term planning.” That pledge was approved in March 2024, and TRI received a first instalment of $400,000 shortly afterwards.

TRI was supposed to meet with its Suncor Foundation representative in December. After multiple attempts to reach them, the charity sent in its annual written update, then got back “this very strange request for more information, but it was almost like a form,” Lynes recalled. “It didn’t have anything to do with our update . . . it just seemed like a witch hunt, to be honest.”

Among the questions on the form, shared with The Energy Mix, Suncor asked whether any TRI senior leadership or board members received consulting or professional fees from the organization, and whether any current or former SEF staff had received “any personal benefit” from the charity.

“The question was not did we contact any SEF staff. It was whether there was any direct or indirect benefit to any Suncor Energy staff,” Lynes said. “And of course it was no. Of course not. We’re a national, registered charity. We follow the rules.”

After TRI filled out and returned the questionnaire, SEF cut ties. Weeks after a second instalment on the pledge was due in April 2025, “we were informed that our work no longer aligned with SEF’s strategy and no further funding would be provided,” Lynes wrote. “We had not received any explanation for this abrupt shift from full alignment to none. While we understand that things change and relationships break up, we also believe that how you break up matters.”

Suncor’s reputation for ‘trust-based’ philanthropy

Before long, TRI learned that other charities and post-secondary institutions, not all of them working in the climate space, had received similar treatment. “The concern is, quite honestly, that it’s not just about us,” Lynes said. “Suncor was known for its trust-based philanthropy. They were leaders in it. And the way they’re behaving? Corporations don’t do that.”

Even if Suncor’s strategy changed that quickly and drastically, “why not just pay out the charities?” Lynes asked. “Five-hundred-thousand dollars for them is a rounding error, and it was a commitment. So I don’t see how they could get in trouble for paying that out.”

TRI has no legal recourse because the funding was a pledge, not a contract. The purpose of that legal distinction, Lynes explained, is to protect individual donors or small businesses that make commitments in good faith but legitimately can’t follow through when circumstances change.

We are in the business to make money and as much of it as possible, and everybody starting with me needs to see how they do that.

– Richard Kruger, CEO of Suncor Energy

“It is not there to protect billion-dollar corporations that can pay a pledge,” Lynes said. “They’ve used that clause to get out of [their commitment], and that affects others.”

Sources have told The Energy Mix that Suncor has fired all the foundation’s former staff except for one administrator. The senior adviser responsible for TRI’s funding, Dani DeBoice, announced on LinkedIn in November 2024 that her 10-year stint at Suncor had come to an end.

A warning not to fly ‘too close to the sun’

After receiving only minimal responses to two lawyers’ letters to SEF, the second one “maybe a bit nicer than a demand letter,” Lynes said she issued two LinkedIn posts – one on the TRI page, the other on her own professional profile – that explained the situation without calling Suncor out by name. “We are shocked to learn that one of our major donors has informed us of a decision to renege on a multi-year pledge,” she wrote. “We had no advanced warning, no chance to prepare. It is our understanding that many other charities across Canada are suddenly experiencing the same circumstance from this same donor. The corporation is known for its integrity and business ethic so, we are hoping that they will do the right thing.”

The two posts received just a handful of responses.

“It is not ok to turn your back on commitments, period. Especially with charities and even more appalling is with a charity that works with communities (Indigenous and non-Indigenous),” wrote TRI board member Justin Bourque, president and founder of Fort McMurray–based Âsokan Generational Developments. “I hope they realize this and do the right thing.”

“A poignant analogy and reminder, Laura,” wrote former SEF executive director Laurie Hewson, in response to Lynes’s personal post on the situation. “How to transition well, and with minimal impact to others, is something for all of us to be reminded of.”

“This is appalling, Richard Kruger,” added communications consultant Sofi Papamarko. “Do the right thing and donate $900,000 of your nearly $40-million annual salary to The Resilience Institute to make good on your promises.”

That’s when things got heated.

“Within 24 hours, their lawyer called our lawyer,” expressing concern about the institute’s social media activity, Lynes recounted. “Our lawyer said, ‘Are you talking about two posts that don’t even mention Suncor or SEF?’ And their lawyer said it’s a small community, and people can make inferences.”

When TRI responded that Suncor was fretting over its reputation when this was a matter of integrity, “the lawyer said we want you to know that your client is on our radar and they’re flying too close to the sun. End of conversation.”

“We were very clear in our messaging that we do not have any interest in making them look bad,” Lynes told The Energy Mix. “We have an interest in making sure this circumstance does not reflect poorly on our reputation and on us financially. What I would really love to see is for Suncor to say, ‘We made a mistake, we’re sorry, here’s the funding, and we all move forward in good ways.’ Maybe somebody made a mistake. But to double down on that and be defensive . . . who does this to charities?”

A month after he took over as CEO in April 2023, Kruger made it clear that Suncor’s operating philosophy was about to change. “I consider myself to be reasonably decisive and very competitive,” and “I play to win,” Kruger told analysts in May. “We are in the business to make money and as much of it as possible, and everybody starting with me needs to see how they do that.”

Suncor, which reported $1.6 billion in profits on record production for the first three months of this year, has not responded to a Friday-afternoon email and voicemails to its media team from The Energy Mix, requesting comment for this story. Suncor Energy Foundation sent an auto-reply indicating it can’t reply to all queries.

Suncor’s website still brags about the more than $24 million SEF distributed in 2023, and the more than $284 million it handed out in the 25-plus years since its inception. “The Suncor Energy Foundation (SEF) believes in connecting business and community strengths to make a positive difference in society,” the website states. “Through partnerships and relationships with those who are seeking solutions, we aim to spark change and propel progress for generations ahead.”

But a link to the foundation’s 2023 contributions report no longer points to the actual document. A link to its voluntary employee donations program, SunCares, states that “due to changes to the Competition Act, pending regulatory guidance, this document is provided for historical information purposes only and does not constitute an active or current representation of Suncor Energy Inc. Suncor fully disclaims any liability for the use of such information for any purpose.”

That was a reference to new anti-greenwashing provisions that prompted the Pathways Alliance, of which Suncor is a member, to scrub all messaging from its website after legislation passed Parliament in June 2024. Lawyers representing anti-greenwashing organizations have repeatedly responded that companies won’t face any pushback if they just tell the truth about their activities, and the federal Competition Bureau confirmed last month that the legislation allows any marketing claims that aren’t false.

Mitchell Beer is the founding publisher of The Energy Mix.

This article was first published by The Energy Mix. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style. Read the original story here. 

The post Suncor abruptly cancels funding for Canadian climate-resilience charity appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Politicians have called on the public to “buy Canadian,” provinces have ordered U.S. products removed from shelves, and Canadian retailers have seen a surge in domestic sales. Yet the importance of agricultural adaptations for achieving greater Canadian self-reliance has largely been overlooked.

The federal government’s plan for building a stronger agrifood sector is mainly based on financial safeguards and loan options for affected farmers and supply-chain management of existing products. The broad topic of agricultural innovation is barely mentioned at all.

At a time of changing geopolitical and physical environments, we must ensure the long-term resilience of Canada’s farms. An important step toward achieving this complex and multifaceted goal would be to diversify the country’s crop production.

Over-reliance on a few crops leaves Canada vulnerable

Anyone browsing their supermarket’s produce section will quickly discover just how few of the products are grown in Canada. This is ironic; as most gardeners know, many imported fruits and vegetables can grow extremely well in Canada.

Canada imports around 50% of vegetables and 75% of fruits from abroad, much of it from the United States. This has not traditionally caused concern since the agrifood sector has a net trade surplus. But among Canadian crops, just two – canola and wheat – dominate total earnings.

Canada’s need for imports leaves it vulnerable, but so does its need for exports.

In 2019, for instance, after the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, China imposed harsh trade restrictions on Canadian canola. That year, canola exports to China fell by 70%. Today, Canada faces similar issues with 100% tariffs imposed by China on canola products.

Instead of just bailing out farmers affected by current events, governments should help those who are interested to diversify and grow crops that can be sold domestically.

Crop diversification yields multiple benefits

Even before the current tariffs, there were good reasons for diversifying Canadian agriculture and growing food locally.

The nutritional value of vegetables decreases during storage and transport, suggesting that local produce may be healthier. Similarly, crop diversity can be an important tool for improving plant and soil health and so increasing yields while ensuring environmental sustainability.

In a meta-analysis of 5,156 experiments from across the globe, researchers in France and the Netherlands showed that crop diversification typically enhanced net productivity, soil function and ecosystem services. It had the greatest effect on water quality and organism-induced damage; weed reduction, pest reduction, disease control and associated crop damages showed 33% to 60% average improvements.

To sustain momentum, the government needs to proactively fund targeted, large-scale feasibility studies and provide training, recruitment and transition funding for those interested in novel crop systems.

– Karen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Department of Biological Sciences, MacEwan University

The benefits in terms of soil health and productivity may be compounded by intercropping plant species with fungi. Preliminary results from my current research project suggest that edible saprotrophic fungi could be used as a tool for maintaining soil health while minimizing the use of environmentally problematic soil amendments.

Diversification studies include a range of different land-management techniques, some of which involve elaborate intercropping approaches that might be difficult to implement on an industrial scale. However, even relatively simple crop-rotation approaches have a positive impact on soil carbon, nutrient levels, microbial activity, biodiversity and net productivity, potentially leading to increased profitability.

Diversifying crops increases Canada’s climate resilience

Longstanding arguments for crop diversification have been compounded by climate-change-induced food insecurity. Increases in the frequency and severity of wildfires and droughts suggest that relying on regions like California for food imports might be poor long-term planning.

Similarly, parts of Canada face an increased risk of weather-induced crop failure. Crop species may no longer be a good match for the current climatic conditions where they’re grown. Canola and wheat, for instance, are vulnerable to drought and heat stress during the flowering period.

Crop diversification has long been used to minimize the impacts of climate insecurities in developing countries with less access to artificial irrigation and soil amendments. Switching to crops that can handle extreme weather events, like some beans, legumes and grains, could similarly increase Canada’s climate resilience. Additionally, using crop-rotation strategies based on a greater diversity of crops grown may help maintain higher yields during adverse weather.

Helping farmers embrace change

Canada is a world leader in agricultural research and ranks fifth globally with respect to articles published but is further behind when it comes to implementation on farms.

Despite the high benefit-to-cost ratios of applications of agricultural research, only 6% of Canadian farmers are willing to adopt new approaches before they have been tested at scale. Meanwhile, almost 30% are reluctant to change approaches at all.

This is hardly surprising. Change is always associated with risks. For instance, while the majority of studies show a net benefit of diversification strategies, there are huge, context-dependent variations in the outcomes. Climate, soil, crop species and microbial communities all matter in ways that can be difficult to predict.

Related

Trump’s tariffs threaten Canada’s food security. It’s time to go local.

Why New York City’s last dairy switched from cows to nuts

‘Humanely raised’ meat claims often don’t mean much

Most farmers do not have the resources to retool their farms for new crops and assume the risks. Many face financial struggles and rising debt. This is due in part to higher production costs and lower commodity prices caused by large corporations controlling both the sales of farm supplies and the purchase of agricultural products.

Skilled labour shortages and issues with retaining younger workers may also undermine the willingness and ability to diversify with new crops. Qualified migrant workers with agricultural backgrounds could help, but restrictive immigration policies make finding workers challenging.

Reactive government assistance that just keeps farmers above water will not address the challenges of a changing global trade environment and climate. To sustain momentum, the government needs to proactively fund targeted, large-scale feasibility studies and provide training, recruitment and transition funding for those interested in novel crop systems.

Agriculture is part of the foundation for our society. We have become accustomed to having access to plenty of fresh food, but this is not the global or historical norm.

Canada’s food supply is maintained by farmers both at home and abroad who, for generations, have worked long days at low wages to feed us. If they do not receive the support required to adapt to our changing world, we might all discover how valuable food really is.

Karen Christensen-Dalsgaard is an assistant professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at MacEwan University in Alberta. 

This story first appeared in The Conversation; it has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style. Read the original article here.

The post ‘Buy Canada’ isn’t enough. For real self-reliance, we need more diverse crops. appeared first on Corporate Knights.