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

High grocery bills? Blame Ottawa, not Washington

Health / 21 mins ago

RFK calls out World Health Organization directly as a compromised body beholden to China

COVID-19 / 30 mins ago

Freedom Convoy trucker Harold Jonker acquitted of all charges

Business

High grocery bills? Blame Ottawa, not Washington

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Sylvain Charlebois

Blaming the U.S. won’t cut it. Canada’s food inflation crisis is largely a result of Ottawa’s poor policy choices

It was expected, but still jarring. In April, food inflation in Canada surged to 3.8 per cent—a full 2.1 percentage points above the national inflation rate and nearly double the U.S. rate of two per cent. Once again, food is the primary driver behind headline inflation, amplifying affordability concerns across the country.

But this isn’t just a story of global disruption or seasonal cycles. It’s increasingly clear that Canada’s food inflation is largely homegrown—a direct result
of domestic policy missteps, particularly tariffs and protectionist procurement practices.

Since March, when both Canada and the United States introduced a new round of tariffs, the difference in outcomes has been striking. U.S. food inflation has continued to cool, while Canada’s has nearly tripled over the same period—a divergence that should raise serious red flags in two integrated economies.

Drill into the 3.8 per cent figure and the underlying pressure becomes obvious. Meat prices climbed 5.8 per cent year-over-year, with beef up a staggering 16.5 per cent. Egg prices rose 3.9 per cent, while fresh fruit and vegetable prices increased by five per cent and 3.7 per cent, respectively. These are not one-off anomalies—they reflect sustained cost increases made worse by awed policy.

Canada’s earlier decision to implement counter-tariffs— retaliatory taxes on U.S. imports in response to American trade moves— disrupted long-standing cross-border supply chains. To avoid higher import costs, grocers pivoted away from U.S. suppliers, particularly in fresh produce and frozen foods, and turned to costlier or less efficient alternatives. That shift is now showing up on Canadians’ grocery bills.

Fortunately, there’s been a course correction. According to Oxford Economics, a global forecasting and analysis firm, Prime Minister Mark Carney has quietly rolled back many of the counter-tariffs that had been inflating food costs. The move, while politically sensitive, was economically sound and long overdue. Early signs suggest that pressure on the supply chain is beginning to ease, and over time, this could help stabilize prices.

Still, Canada’s food inflation stands out. Among G7 nations, it now ranks second highest, behind only Japan. Food price increases in France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S. remain well below ours.

Why? Because this isn’t just about external shocks. It’s about domestic choices. Tariffs, procurement rules and limited trade flexibility have shaped a uniquely Canadian inflation story. And unlike the U.S., Canada lacks the economic leverage to absorb policy mistakes without consequences.

That’s why Carney’s reversal offers more than short-term relief; it’s an opportunity to rethink our approach entirely. Symbols and slogans are no
substitute for sound policy. Ensuring access to affordable, nutritious food should be a national priority, pursued with pragmatism, not posturing.

Canadians should welcome the shift, but they also deserve honesty. This inflationary spiral didn’t just happen to us. We helped cause it. And it’s not
governments or grocery chains who shoulder the cost—it’s families at the checkout counter.

Moving forward, federal and provincial governments must coordinate more effectively, communicate with greater clarity, and stop masking economic
missteps with patriotic branding.

There’s nothing wrong with buying Canadian. But “maplewashing”—where companies overstate or exaggerate a product’s connection to Canada in order to appear more Canadian—risks distorting markets and eroding public trust. Grocers should not abuse consumer goodwill.

Ottawa’s slogans—“Elbows Up,” “Canada’s Not For Sale”—may have mobilized support during a volatile moment, but rhetoric has its limits. When it blinds policymakers to the real-world effects of their actions, it becomes dangerous.

Canada’s food inflation crisis didn’t have to unfold this way. Now that we have a chance to reset, let’s not waste it.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Canadian professor and researcher in food distribution and policy. He is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast. He is frequently cited in the media for his insights on food prices, agricultural trends, and the global food supply chain.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Business

Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

Taxpayers Federation releases pension and severance figures for 2025 federal election

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its calculations of estimated pension and severance payments paid to the 110 members of Parliament who were either defeated in the federal election or did not seek re-election.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t feel too bad for the politicians who lost the election because they’ll be cashing big severance or pension cheques,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Thanks to past pension reforms, taxpayers will not have to shoulder as much of the burden as they used to. But there’s more work to do to make politician pay affordable for taxpayers.”

Defeated or retiring MPs will collect about $5 million in annual pension payments, reaching a cumulative total of about $187 million by age 90. In addition, about $6.6 million in severance cheques will be issued to some former MPs.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. Trudeau is also taking a $104,900 severance payout because he did not run again as an MP.

The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90. The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.

“Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and that means reforming pensions and ending the pay raises MPs take every year,” Terrazzano said. “A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension.

“The government must end the second pension for all future prime ministers.”

There are 13 former MPs that will collect more than $100,000-plus a year in pension income. The pension and severance calculations for each defeated or retired MP can be found here.

Some notable severance / pensions

Name Party Years as MP Severance Annual Starting Pension Pension to Age 90

Bergeron, Stéphane BQ 17.6 $ 99,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00

Boissonnault, Randy LPC 7.6 $ 44,200.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 2,775,000.00

Dreeshen, Earl CPC 16.6 $ $ 95,000.00 $ 1,938,000.00

Mendicino, Marco * LPC 9.4 $ 66,000.00 $ 3,586,000.00

O’Regan, Seamus LPC 9.5 $ 104,900.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 3,927,000.00

Poilievre, Pierre ** CPC 20.8 $ 136,000.00 $ 7,087,000.00

Singh, Jagmeet NDP 6.2 $ 140,300.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 2,694,000.00

Trudeau, Justin *** LPC 16.6 $ 104,900.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 8,400,000.00

* Marco Mendicino resigned as an MP on March 14th, 2025

** Pierre Poilievre announced that he would not take a severance