Mounting evidence suggests emissions cap will harm Canadians

In a recent interview with CTV, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he may eliminate Bill C-69, which imposes uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects, and eliminate the cap on oil and gas emissions, so energy projects can “move forward.” Of course, actions speak louder than words and Canadians will have to wait and see what the Carney government will actually do. But one thing’s for certain—reform is needed now.

Last year, when the Trudeau government proposed to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector, it insisted this was essential for fighting climate change and building a strong thriving economy. However, a recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) suggests this policy—which would require oil and gas producers to reduce their emissions by 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030—could lead to significant job losses, reduced production in the sector, and more broadly, less prosperity for Canadians.

The PBO’s findings add to mounting evidence indicating that the emissions cap will harm Canada’s already struggling economy while yielding virtually no measurable environmental benefits.

Oil and gas form the backbone of Canada’s economy and trade. As the country’s main export, the sector contributed nearly $8 billion in income taxes to federal and provincial governments while adding $74.3 billion to the overall economy in 2024. More importantly, the oil and gas sector provides employment for more than 140,000 Canadian families, offering well above-average salaries.

Several studies have assessed the potential impact of the proposed GHG cap. While estimates vary, they all reach the same conclusion: the cap will force the industry to cut oil and gas production and, in turn, negatively affect the entire economy.

The PBO projects that, under the proposed cap, Canadian firms will be required to cut oil and gas production by 4.9 per cent between 2030 and 2032, compared to what production levels would have been without the policy. As a result, an estimated 54,000 fulltime jobs would be lost, and by 2032 Canada’s economy (measured by inflation-adjusted GDP) will be 0.39 per cent smaller than it otherwise would have been.

There’s also a recent report by Deloitte, which found the cap will reduce oil production by 626,000 barrels per day by 2030 and lead to a decline in oil and gas production of 10 per cent and 12 per cent, respectively. Overall, the country will experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of the value of the entire economy (GDP), translating into the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues.

Similarly, a study by the Conference Board of Canada and presented by the Government of Alberta, suggests that the cap’s negative effect would ripple across the economy, resulting in the loss of 151,000 jobs by 2030. Between 2030 and 2040, Canada’s GDP losses could total up to $1 trillion, resulting in the loss of up to $151 billion in revenues for the federal government.

Finally, a recent study found that capping oil and gas emissions would result in significant economic loss without generating measurable environmental benefits. Specifically, even if Canada were to shut down its entire energy industry by 2030—thus removing all GHG emissions from the sector—the resulting global reduction in emissions would be a mere four-tenths of one per cent, a figure too small to impact the Earth’s climate.

The available evidence indicates that the proposed GHG cap could come at a high economic cost while delivering limited environmental benefits.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Up Next

New fiscal approach necessary to reduce Ottawa’s mountain of debt

Don't Miss

Regulatory reform key to Canada’s energy future

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

SERIOUS AND RECKLESS IMPLICATIONS: An Obscure Bill Could Present Material Challenge for Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector

International / 1 hour ago

Trump confronts South African president about widespread killing of White farmers in the country

National / 2 hours ago

The State of Confederation: Provinces are pushing back against federal overreach

Alberta

SERIOUS AND RECKLESS IMPLICATIONS: An Obscure Bill Could Present Material Challenge for Canada’s Oil and Gas Sector

Published on May 22, 2025

Todayville

From Energy Now

By Tammy Nemeth and Ron Wallace

Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments

Senator Rosa Galvez’s recent op-ed in the National Observer champions the reintroduction of her Climate-Aligned Finance Act (Bill S-243) as a cornerstone for an “orderly transition” to achieving a low-carbon Canadian economy. With Prime Minister Mark Carney—a global figure in sustainable finance—at the helm, Senator Galvez believes Canada has a “golden opportunity” to lead on climate-aligned finance. However, a closer examination of Bill S-243 reveals a troubling agenda that potentially risks not only crippling Canada’s oil and gas sector and undermining economic stability, but one that could impose unhelpful, discriminatory measures. As Carney pledges to transform Canada’s economy, this legislation would also erode the principles of fairness in our economic and financial system.

Introduced in 2022, Bill S-243 seeks to “reshape the logic of capital markets” by mandating that all federally regulated financial institutions, banks, pension funds, insurance companies and federal financial Crown Corporations align their investment portfolios with Canada’s climate commitments, particularly with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The Bill’s provisions are sweeping and punitive, targeting emissions-intensive sectors like oil and gas with what could only be described as an unprecedented regulatory overreach. It requires institutions to avoid financing “new fossil fuel supply infrastructure” and to plan for a “fossil-free future,” effectively discouraging investment in Canada’s energy sector. To that end, it imposes capital-risk weights of 1,250% on debt for new fossil fuel projects and 150% or more for existing ones, making such financing prohibitively expensive. These measures, as confirmed by the Canadian Bankers’ Association and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in 2023 Senate testimony, would have the effect of forcing Canadian financial institutions to exit oil and gas financing altogether. It also enshrines into law that entities put climate commitments ahead of fiduciary duty:

“The persons for whom a duty is established under subsection (1) [alignment with climate commitments] must give precedence to that duty over all other duties and obligations of office, and, for that purpose, ensuring the entity is in alignment with climate commitments is deemed to be a superseding matter of public interest.”

While the applicability of the term used in the legislation that defines a “reporting entity” may be a subject of some debate, the legislation would nonetheless direct financial institutions to put “climate over people”.

There are significant implications here for the Canadian oil and gas sector. This backbone of the economy employs thousands and generates billions in revenue. Yet, under Bill S-243, financial institutions would effectively be directed to divest from those companies if not the entire sector. How can Canada become an “energy superpower” if its financial system is directed to effectively abandon the conventional energy sector?

Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow Canadian Energy Focused Newsletter Here
Delivered to You: It’s Free! Sign Up for the EnergyNow US Energy Focused Newsletter Here

Beyond economics, Bill S-243 raises profound ethical concerns, particularly with its boardroom provisions. At least one board member of every federally regulated financial institution must have “climate expertise”; excluded from serving as a director would be anyone who has worked for, lobbied or held shares in a fossil fuel company unless their position in the fossil fuel company was to help it align with climate commitments defined in part as “planning for a fossil fuel–free future.” How is “climate expertise” defined? The proposed legislation says it “means a person with demonstrable experience in proposing or implementing climate actions” or, among other characteristics, any person “who has acute lived experience related to the physical or economic damages of climate change.” Bill S-243’s ideological exclusion of oil and gas-affiliated individuals from the boards of financial institutions would set a dangerous precedent that risks normalizing discrimination under the guise of environmental progress to diminish executive expertise, individual rights and the interests of shareholders.

Mark Carney’s leadership adds complexity to this debate. As the founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, Carney has long advocated for climate risk integration in finance, despite growing corporate withdrawal from the initiative. Indeed, when called to testify on Bill S-243 in May 2024, Carney praised Senator Galvez’s initiative and generally supported the bill stating: “Certain aspects of the proposed law are definitely achievable and actually essential.” If Carney’s Liberal government embraces Bill S-243, or something similar, it would send a major negative signal to the Canadian energy sector, especially at a time of strained Federal-Provincial relations and as the Trump Administration pivots away from climate-related regulation.

Canada’s economy and energy future faces a pivotal moment. Bill S-243 is punitive, discriminatory and economically reckless while threatening the economic resilience that the Prime Minister claims to champion. A more balanced strategy, one that supports innovation without effectively dismantling the financial underpinnings of a vital industry, is essential. What remains to be seen is will this federal government prioritize economic stability and regulatory fairness over ideological climate zeal?

Tammy Nemeth is a U.K.-based energy analyst. Ron Wallace is a Calgary-based energy analyst and former Permanent Member of the National Energy Board.

Alberta

Don’t stop now—Alberta government should enact more health-care reform

Published on May 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Mackenzie Moir

It’s unusual to see a provincial government take on health-care reform. But not so in Alberta, where major reforms have been underway for almost a year. The province has long struggled with lengthy waits for non-emergency care and a majority (58 per cent) of Albertans last year were unsatisfied with the government’s handling of health care.

And who could blame them?

The median wait last year in Alberta was 19.2 weeks to see a specialist (after getting a referral from a family doctor) followed by the same amount of time to receive treatment. This combined 38.4-week wait marked the longest delay for non-emergency care in Alberta since data were first published more than 30 years ago. Also last year, an estimated 208,000 patients waited for care in Alberta. These waits are not benign and can result in prolonged pain and discomfort, psychological distress, and can impact our ability to work and earn money.

In fact, according to our new study, last year health-care wait times in Alberta cost patients $778 million—or more than $3,700 per-patient waiting. This estimate, however, doesn’t include leisure time after work or on weekends. When this time was included in the calculation, the total cost of these waits balloons to more than $2.3 billion or around $11,000 per patient.

Again, to its credit, the Smith government has not shied away from reform. It’s reorganized one of province’s largest employers (Alberta Health Services) with the goal of improving health-care delivery, it plans to change how hospitals are funded to deliver more care, and it continues to contract out publicly funded surgeries to private clinics. Here, the government should look at expanding, based on the success the Saskatchewan Surgical Initiative (SSI), which helped increase that province’s surgical capacity by delivering publicly funded surgeries through private clinics and shortened the median health-care wait from 26.5 weeks in 2010 to 14.2 weeks by 2014.

The SSI also “pooled” referrals in Saskatchewan together and allowed patients to choose which specialist they wanted to see for treatment, and patients received estimates of how long they would wait before choosing.

In Alberta, however, family doctors still refer patients to one specific specialist at a time yet remain potentially unaware of other appropriate doctors with shorter waits. But if Alberta also put specialist wait lists and referrals into one list, and provided updated wait times information, a family doctor could help patients choose a specialist with a shorter wait time. Or better yet, if Albertans could access that information online with an Alberta health card, they could make that decision on their own while working with their family doctor.

Make no mistake, change is in the air for health care in Alberta. And while key policy changes are now underway, the Smith government should consider more options while this window for reform remains open.