Ottawa’s emissions cap—all pain, no gain

From the Fraser Institute

By: Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari and Tegan Hill

According to a recent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the cap could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, eliminate up to 151,000 jobs by 2030, reduce federal government revenue by up to $151 billion between 2030 and 2040, and reduce Alberta government revenue by up to $127 billion over the same period.

According to an announcements last week by Premier Danielle Smith, the Alberta government will use the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act to challenge Ottawa’s proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030.

Premier Smith, who said the cap will harm the economy and represents an overstep of federal authority, also plans to prevent emissions data from individual oil and gas companies from being shared with Ottawa. While the federal government said the cap is necessary to fight climate change, several studies suggest the cap will impose significant costs on Canadians without yielding detectable environmental benefits.

According to a recent report by Deloitte, a leading audit and consulting firm, the cap will force Canadian firms to curtail oil production by 626,000 barrels per day by 2030 or by approximately 10.0 per cent of the expected production—and curtail gas production by approximately 12.0 per cent.

Deloitte estimates that Alberta will be hit hardest, with 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario will lose 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec will lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, the country will experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of the value of the entire economy (GDP), translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. Canada’s inflation-adjusted GDP growth in 2023 was a paltry 1.3 per cent, so a 1 per cent reduction would be a significant economic loss.

Deloitte’s findings echo previous studies. According to a recent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the cap could reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, eliminate up to 151,000 jobs by 2030, reduce federal government revenue by up to $151 billion between 2030 and 2040, and reduce Alberta government revenue by up to $127 billion over the same period.

Similarly, another recent study published by the Fraser Institute found that the cap would reduce production and exports, leading to at least $45 billion in lost economic activity in 2030 alone, accompanied by a substantial drop in government revenue.

Crucially, these huge economic costs to Canadians will come without any discernable environmental benefits. Even if Canada entirely shut down its oil and gas industry by 2030, eliminating all GHG emissions from the sector, the resulting reduction in global GHG emissions would amount to a mere four-tenths of one per cent with virtually no impact on the climate or any detectable environmental, health or safety benefits.

Given the demand for fossil fuels, constraining oil and gas production and exports in Canada would likely merely shift production to other countries with lower environmental and human rights standards such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Consequently, global GHG emissions would increase, not decrease. No other major oil and gas-producing country has imposed a similar cap on its leading export sector.

The Trudeau government’s proposed cap, which still must pass the House and Senate, would further strain an already struggling Canadian economy, and to make matters worse, do virtually nothing to improve the environment. The government should cancel the cap plan given the economic costs and nonexistent environmental benefits.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Report: Oil sands, Montney growth key to meet rising world energy demand

Don't Miss

Luxury Vancouver Homes at the Center of $100M CAD Loan and Chinese Murder Saga

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

The Digital Services Tax Q&A: “It was going to be complicated and messy”

Alberta / 7 hours ago

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

International / 7 hours ago

Elon Musk forms America Party after split with Trump

Alberta

Pierre Poilievre – Per Capita, Hardisty, Alberta Is the Most Important Little Town In Canada

Published on July 6, 2025

Todayville

From Pierre Poilievre

The tiny town of Hardisty, Alberta (623 people) moves $90 billion in energy a year—that’s more than the GDP of some countries.

Energy

If Canada Wants to be the World’s Energy Partner, We Need to Act Like It

Published on July 6, 2025

Todayville

Photo by David Bloom / Postmedia file

From Energy Now

By Gary Mar

Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here

With the Trans Mountain Expansion online, we have new access to Pacific markets and Asia has responded, with China now a top buyer of Canadian crude.

The world is short on reliable energy and long on instability. Tankers edge through choke points like the Strait of Hormuz. Wars threaten pipelines and power grids. Markets flinch with every headline. As authoritarian regimes rattle sabres and weaponize supply chains, the global appetite for energy from stable, democratic, responsible producers has never been greater.

Canada checks every box: vast reserves, rigorous environmental standards, rule of law and a commitment to Indigenous partnership. We should be leading the race, but instead we’ve effectively tied our own shoelaces together.

In 2024, Canada set new records for oil production and exports. Alberta alone pumped nearly 1.5 billion barrels, a 4.5 per cent increase over 2023. With the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) online, we have new access to Pacific markets and Asia has responded, with China now a top buyer of Canadian crude.

The bad news is that we’re limiting where energy can leave the country. Bill C-48, the so-called tanker ban, prohibits tankers carrying over 12,500 tons of crude oil from stopping or unloading crude at ports or marine installations along B.C.’s northern coast. That includes Kitimat and Prince Rupert, two ports with strategic access to Indo-Pacific markets. Yes, we must do all we can to mitigate risks to Canada’s coastlines, but this should be balanced against a need to reduce our reliance on trade with the U.S. and increase our access to global markets.

Add to that the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) which was designed in part to shorten approval times and add certainty about how long the process would take. It has not had that effect and it’s scaring off investment. Business confidence in Canada has dropped to pandemic-era lows, due in part to unpredictable rules.

At a time when Canada is facing a modest recession and needs to attract private capital, we’ve made building trade infrastructure feel like trying to drive a snowplow through molasses.

What’s needed isn’t revolutionary, just practical. A start would be to maximize the amount of crude transported through the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, which ran at 77 per cent capacity in 2024. Under-utilization is attributed to a variety of factors, one of which is higher tolls being charged to producers.

Canada also needs to overhaul the IAA and create a review system that’s fast, clear and focused on accountability, not red tape. Investors need to know where the goalposts are. And, while we are making recommendations, strategic ports like Prince Rupert should be able to participate in global energy trade under the same high safety standards used elsewhere in Canada.

Canada needs a national approach to energy exporting. A 10-year projects and partnerships plan would give governments, Indigenous nations and industry a common direction. This could be coupled with the development of a category of “strategic export infrastructure” to prioritize trade-enabling projects and move them through approvals faster.

Of course, none of this can take place without bringing Indigenous partners into the planning process. A dedicated federal mechanism should be put in place to streamline and strengthen Indigenous consultation for major trade infrastructure, ensuring the process is both faster and fairer and that Indigenous equity options are built in from the start.

None of this is about blocking the energy transition. It’s about bridging it. Until we invent, build and scale the clean technologies of tomorrow, responsibly produced oil and gas will remain part of the mix. The only question is who will supply it.

Canada is the most stable of the world’s top oil producers, but we are a puzzle to the rest of the world, which doesn’t understand why we can’t get more of our oil and natural gas to market. In recent years, Norway and the U.S. have increased crude oil production. Notably, the U.S. also increased its natural gas exports through the construction of new LNG export terminals, which have helped supply European allies seeking to reduce their reliance on Russian natural gas.

Canada could be the bridge between demand and security, but if we want to be the world’s go-to energy partner, we need to act like it. That means building faster, regulating smarter and treating trade infrastructure like the strategic asset it is.

The world is watching. The opportunity is now. Let’s not waste it.

Gary Mar is president and CEO of the Canada West Foundation