Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.

The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.

According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.

For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.

Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.

Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 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 would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)

And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?

In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #KennethGreen #TrudeauGovernment EmissionReductionPlan FederalOilAndGasEmissionsCap GHGEmissionsCap oilandgas

Up Next

Is the Price of Reconciliation that we Must Pretend to Believe a Lie?

Don't Miss

Court Shoots Down Biden Admin’s Mass Amnesty Order For Hundreds Of Thousands Of Illegal Migrants

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

Clearing the Path: Why Canada Needs Energy Corridors to Compete

Economy / 5 hours ago

Support For National Pipelines And LNG Projects Gain Momentum, Even In Quebec

Education / 5 hours ago

Our Kids Are Struggling To Read. Phonics Is The Easy Fix

2025 Federal Election

Next federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation

Published on March 28, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

With the tariff war continuing and the federal election underway, Canadians should understand what the last federal government seemingly did not—a strong Alberta makes for a stronger Canada.

And yet, current federal policies disproportionately and negatively impact the province. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.

Meanwhile, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues and national programs than they receive back in spending on transfers and programs including the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) because Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population.

For instance, since 1976 Alberta’s employment rate (the number of employed people as a share of the population 15 years of age and over) has averaged 67.4 per cent compared to 59.7 per cent in the rest of Canada, and annual market income (including employment and investment income) has exceeded that in the other provinces by $10,918 (on average).

As a result, Alberta’s total net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times as much as the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians. That’s a massive outsized contribution given Alberta’s population, which is smaller than B.C. and much smaller than Ontario.

Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP is particularly significant. From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of total CPP payments paid to retirees in Canada while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Albertans made a cumulative net contribution to the CPP (the difference between total CPP contributions made by Albertans and CPP benefits paid to retirees in Alberta) of $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than the net contribution of B.C., the only other net contributing province to the CPP. Indeed, only two of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP contribute more in payroll taxes to the program than their residents receive back in benefits.

So what would happen if Alberta withdrew from the CPP?

For starters, the basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent (typically deducted from our paycheques) for Canadians outside Alberta (excluding Quebec) would have to increase for the program to remain sustainable. For a new standalone plan in Alberta, the rate would likely be lower, with estimates ranging from 5.85 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In other words, based on these estimates, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians while the payroll tax would have to increase for the rest of the country while the benefits remained the same.

Finally, despite any claims to the contrary, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta’s demographic advantage, which fuels its outsized contribution to the CPP, will only widen in the years ahead. Alberta will likely maintain relatively high employment rates and continue to welcome workers from across Canada and around the world. And considering Alberta recorded the highest average inflation-adjusted economic growth in Canada since 1981, with Albertans’ inflation-adjusted market income exceeding the average of the other provinces every year since 1971, Albertans will likely continue to pay an outsized portion for the CPP. Of course, the idea for Alberta to withdraw from the CPP and create its own provincial plan isn’t new. In 2001, several notable public figures, including Stephen Harper, wrote the famous Alberta “firewall” letter suggesting the province should take control of its future after being marginalized by the federal government.

The next federal government—whoever that may be—should understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation. For a stronger Canada, especially during uncertain times, Ottawa should support a strong Alberta including its energy industry.

Alberta

Province announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits

Published on March 28, 2025

Government of Alberta

Expanding urgent care across Alberta

If passed, Budget 2025 includes $17 million in planning funds to support the development of urgent care facilities across the province.

As Alberta’s population grows, so does the demand for health care. In response, the government is making significant investments to ensure every Albertan has access to high-quality care close to home. Currently, more than 35 per cent of emergency department visits are for non-life-threatening conditions that could be treated at urgent care centres. By expanding these centres, Alberta’s government is enhancing the health care system and improving access to timely care.

If passed, Budget 2025 includes $15 million to support plans for eight new urgent care centres and an additional $2 million in planning funds for an integrated primary and urgent care facility in Airdrie. These investments will help redirect up to 200,000 lower-acuity emergency department visits annually, freeing up capacity for life-threatening cases, reducing wait times and improving access to care for Albertans.

“More people are choosing to call Alberta home, which is why we are taking action to build capacity across the health care system. Urgent care centres help bridge the gap between primary care and emergency departments, providing timely care for non-life-threatening conditions.”

Adriana LaGrange, Minister of Health

“Our team at Infrastructure is fully committed to leading the important task of planning these eight new urgent care facilities across the province. Investments into facilities like these help strengthen our communities by alleviating strains on emergency departments and enhance access to care. I am looking forward to the important work ahead.”

Martin Long, Minister of Infrastructure

The locations for the eight new urgent care centres were selected based on current and projected increases in demand for lower-acuity care at emergency departments. The new facilities will be in west Edmonton, south Edmonton, Westview (Stony Plain/Spruce Grove), east Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Cold Lake and Fort McMurray.

“Too many Albertans, especially those living in rural communities, are travelling significant distances to receive care. Advancing plans for new urgent care centres will build capacity across the health care system.”

Justin Wright, parliamentary secretary for rural health (south)

“Additional urgent care centres across Alberta will give Albertans more options for accessing the right level of care when it’s needed. This is a necessary and substantial investment that will eventually ease some of the pressures on our emergency departments.”

Dr. Chris Eagle, chief executive officer, Acute Care Alberta

The remaining $2 million will support planning for One Health Airdrie’s integrated primary and urgent care facility. The operating model, approved last fall, will see One Health Airdrie as the primary care operator, while urgent care services will be publicly funded and operated by a provider selected through a competitive process.

“Our new Airdrie facility, offering integrated primary and urgent care, will provide same-day access to approximately 30,000 primary care patients and increase urgent care capacity by around 200 per cent, benefiting the entire community and surrounding areas. We are very excited.”

Dr. Julian Kyne, physician, One Health Airdrie

Alberta’s government will continue to make smart, strategic investments in health facilities to support the delivery of publicly funded health programs and services to ensure Albertans have access to the care they need, when and where they need it.

Budget 2025 is meeting the challenge faced by Alberta with continued investments in education and health, lower taxes for families and a focus on the economy.

Quick facts

The $2 million in planning funds for One Health Airdrie are part of a total $24-million investment to advance planning on several health capital initiatives across the province through Budget 2025.
Alberta’s population is growing, and visits to emergency departments are projected to increase by 27 per cent by 2038.
Last year, Alberta’s government provided $8.4 million for renovations to the existing Airdrie Community Health Centre.