Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Ottawa’s emissions cap—all pain, no gain

Published

5 minute read

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.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

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

Alberta

Cross-Canada NGL corridor will stretch from B.C. to Ontario

Published on

Keyera Corp.’s natural gas liquids facilities in Fort Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy Keyera Corp.

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Will Gibson

Keyera ‘Canadianizes’ natural gas liquids with $5.15 billion acquisition

Sarnia, Ont., which sits on the southern tip of Lake Huron and peers across the St. Clair River to Michigan, is a crucial energy hub for much of the eastern half of Canada and parts of the United States.

With more than 60 industrial facilities including refineries and chemical plants that produce everything from petroleum, resins, synthetic rubber, plastics, lubricants, paint, cosmetics and food additives in the southwestern Ontario city, Mayor Mike Bradley admits the ongoing dialogue about tariffs with Canada’s southern neighbour hits close to home.

So Bradley welcomed the announcement that Calgary-based Keyera Corp. will acquire the majority of Plains American Pipelines LLP’s Canadian natural gas liquids (NGL) business, creating a cross-Canada NGL corridor that includes a storage hub in Sarnia.

“As a border city, we’ve been on the frontline of the tariff wars, so we support anything that helps enhance Canadian sovereignty and jobs,” says the long-time mayor, who was first elected in 1988.

The assets in Sarnia are a key piece of the $5.15 billion transaction, which will connect natural gas liquids from the growing Montney and Duvernay plays in B.C. and Alberta to markets in central Canada and the eastern U.S. seaboard.

Map courtesy Keyera Corp.

NGLs are hydrocarbons found within natural gas streams including ethane, propane and pentanes. They are important energy sources and used to produce a wide range of everyday items, from plastics and clothing to fuels.

Keyera CEO Dean Setoguchi cast the proposed acquisition as an act of repatriation.

“This transaction brings key NGL infrastructure under Canadian ownership, enhancing domestic energy capabilities and reinforcing Canada’s economic resilience by keeping value and decision-making closer to home,” Setoguchi told analysts in a June 17 call.

“Plains’ portfolio forms a fully integrated cross Canada NGL system connecting Western Canada supply to key demand centres across the Prairie provinces, Ontario and eastern U.S.,” he said.

“The system includes strategic hubs like Empress, Fort Saskatchewan and Sarnia – which provide a reliable source of Canadian NGL supply to extensive fractionation, storage, pipeline and logistics infrastructure.”

Martin King, RBN Energy’s managing director of North America Energy Market Analysis, sees Keyera’s ability to “Canadianize” its NGL infrastructure as improving the company’s growth prospects.

“It allows them to tap into the Duvernay and Montney, which are the fastest growing NGL plays in North America and gives them some key assets throughout the country,” said the Calgary-based analyst.

“The crown assets are probably the straddle plants in Empress, which help strip out the butane, ethane and other liquids for condensate. It also positions them well to serve the eastern half of the country.”

And that’s something welcomed in Sarnia.

“Having a Canadian source for natural gas would be our preference so we see Keyera’s acquisition as strengthening our region as an energy hub,” Bradley said.

“We are optimistic this will be good for our region in the long run.”

The acquisition is expected to close in the first quarter of 2026, pending regulatory approvals.

Meanwhile, the governments of Ontario and Alberta are joining forces to strengthen the economies of both regions, and the country, by advancing major infrastructure projects including pipelines, ports and rail.

A joint feasibility study is expected this year on how to move major private sector-led investments forward.

Continue Reading

Business

B.C. premier wants a private pipeline—here’s how you make that happen

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”)

The Eby government has left the door (slightly) open to Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the British Columbia’s northern coast. Premier David Eby said he isn’t opposed to a new pipeline that would expand access to Asian markets—but he does not want government to pay for it. That’s a fair condition. But to attract private investment for pipelines and other projects, both the Eby government and the Carney government must reform the regulatory environment.

First, some background.

Trump’s tariffs against Canadian products underscore the risks of heavily relying on the United States as the primary destination for our oil and gas—Canada’s main exports. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. Clearly, Canada must diversify our energy export markets. Expanded pipelines to transport oil and gas, mostly produced in the Prairies, to coastal terminals would allow Canada’s energy sector to find new customers in Asia and Europe and become less reliant on the U.S. In fact, following the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion between Alberta and B.C. in May 2024, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent.

However, Canada’s uncompetitive regulatory environment continues to create uncertainty and deter investment in the energy sector. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas investors, 68 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment in Canada compared to only 41 per cent of respondents for the U.S. And 59 per cent said the cost of regulatory compliance deters investment compared to 42 per cent in the U.S.

When looking at B.C. specifically, investor perceptions are even worse. Nearly 93 per cent of respondents for the province said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment while 92 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over protected lands deters investment. Among all Canadian jurisdictions included in the survey, investors said B.C. has the greatest barriers to investment.

How can policymakers help make B.C. more attractive to investment?

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”), Bill C-48 (which effectively banned large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast, limiting access to Asian markets), and the proposed cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector (which will likely lead to a reduction in oil and gas production, decreasing the need for new infrastructure and, in turn, deterring investment in the energy sector).

At the provincial level, the Eby government should abandon its latest GHG reduction targets, which discourage investment in the energy sector. Indeed, in 2023 provincial regulators rejected a proposal from FortisBC, the province’s main natural gas provider, because it did not align with the Eby government’s emission-reduction targets.

Premier Eby is right—private investment should develop energy infrastructure. But to attract that investment, the province must have clear, predictable and competitive regulations, which balance environmental protection with the need for investment, jobs and widespread prosperity. To make B.C. and Canada a more appealing destination for investment, both federal and provincial governments must remove the regulatory barriers that keep capital away.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X