Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Ottawa’s emissions cap another headache for consumers and business

Published

6 months ago

6 minute read

From Resource Works

Ottawa’s emissions cap for oil and gas aims to cut emissions but risks raising costs for consumers and disrupting industry stability.

Ottawa has brought down a new emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, with a mandate to reduce emissions by 35 percent from 2019 levels by 2030 to support the federal government’s climate targets. While the federal government is celebrating the cap as a big step towards a more sustainable future, it is going to make life harder for consumers and businesses alike.

This cap is coming in at a time when the oil sector is finally gaining greater stability due to the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline (TMX), and the mandate would undermine that progress and press greater costs upon households and industries that are already adjusting to high inflation and uncertainty in world markets.

Now that TMX is operational, Canada’s oil producers have grown their access to international markets, most importantly in Asia and the West Coast of the United States. Much-needed price stability now exists for Western Canadian Select (WCS), cutting the discount against the U.S. West Texas Intermediate benchmark, enabling Canadian oil to compete more effectively.

Newfound stability means that Canadian consumers and businesses have benefited from slightly lower prices, and that industry has grown less dependent on a more limited domestic demand. However, Ottawa’s emissions cap does threaten this new balance, and the sector now has to deal with compliance costs that could be passed down to consumers.

In order to meet the cap’s targets, Canadian oil producers must heavily invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, which is costly but essential. Major CCS projects include Shell’s Quest and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line, both of which are already operational.

The Pathways Alliance is a coalition of six major oil sands companies and is preparing to invest in one of the world’s largest networks for carbon storage. These efforts are crucial for reducing emissions, despite requiring vast amounts of capital.

Those in the industry are worrying that the emissions cap will push resources away from production and, instead, towards compliance, adding costs that will be borne by fuel prices and other consumer products.

Ottawa has portrayed the cap as an essential measure for meeting the federal government’s climate goals, with Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson labeling it “technically achievable.” Nonetheless, industry players argue that the timeline does not align with the practicalities of scaling CCS and other strategies aimed at decarbonizing.

Strathcona Resources executive chairman Adam Waterous pointed out the “stroke-of-the-pen” risk, in which shifting political landscapes imperil ongoing investments in carbon capture. Numerous oil producers feel that without certainty in carbon price stability, Ottawa’s cap will result in an unstable business environment that will push investment away from production.

Business leaders do not share the federal government’s optimism about the cap and see it as a one-sided approach that fails to reckon with market realities. The Pathways Alliance, which includes companies like Suncor Energy and Canadian Natural Resources, has been frustrated in its multiple attempts to get federal support to fund its $16.5-billion CCS project.

Rather than imposing these new limits, energy industry advocates argue that the government should provide targeted incentives like “carbon contracts for difference” (CCfDs), which help to stabilize carbon credit prices and reduce financial risk among investors. These measures would enable the energy sector to decarbonize without putting a greater burden on consumers.

The cap’s timing also raises concerns about the Canada-U.S. relationship. Canada has traditionally been a stable supplier of energy and helps to bolster U.S. energy security. However, as the U.S. increases its reliance on Canadian oil, the cap could disrupt this trade relationship. Lowered production levels would leave the economies of both the U.S. and Canada vulnerable, potentially disrupting energy prices and supply stability.

For households across Canada, the emissions cap could mean further financial strain. The higher costs of compliance passed to oil producers will mean higher prices at the pump and more expensive heating costs at a time when Canadian consumers are already struggling financially.

Businesses will also face increasing operating costs, which will be passed down to consumers via more expensive goods and services. Furthermore, higher costs and reduced production will erode Canada’s competitive advantage in the global energy market, slowing economic growth and risking job losses in the energy sector.

So, while Ottawa can laud its emissions cap as a necessary action on the climate, the implications for consumers and businesses are tremendous. Working with industry to find pragmatic, collaborative solutions is how Ottawa can avoid creating more financial burdens for Canadians.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 2 hours ago

Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal

Business / 2 hours ago

New federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan

Automotive / 2 hours ago

New federal government should pull the plug on Canada’s EV revolution

Business

Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal

Published on April 30, 2025

By

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

During Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the U.S. is prepared to move forward with a minerals agreement with Ukraine. President Trump has framed the deal as a way to recover U.S. aid and establish an American presence to deter Russian threats.

Key Details:

  • Bessent confirmed during a Cabinet meeting that the U.S. is “ready to sign this afternoon,” even as Ukrainian officials introduced last-minute changes to the agreement. “We’re sure that they will reconsider that,” he added during the Cabinet discussion.

  • Ukrainian Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko was reportedly in Washington on Wednesday to iron out remaining details with American officials.

  • The deal is expected to outline a rare earth mineral partnership between Washington and Kyiv, with Ukrainian Armed Forces Lt. Denis Yaroslavsky calling it a potential turning point: “The minerals deal is the first step. Ukraine should sign it on an equal basis. Russia is afraid of this deal.”

Diving Deeper:

The United States is poised to sign a long-anticipated rare earth minerals agreement with Ukraine, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced  during a Cabinet meeting on Wednesday. According to Bessent, Ukrainians introduced “last minute changes” late Tuesday night, complicating the final phase of negotiations. Still, he emphasized the U.S. remains prepared to move forward: “We’re sure that they will reconsider that, and we are ready to sign this afternoon.”

As first reported by Ukrainian media and confirmed by multiple Ukrainian officials, Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko is in Washington this week for the final stages of negotiations. “We are finalizing the last details with our American colleagues,” Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal told Telemarathon.

The deal follows months of complex talks that nearly collapsed earlier this year. In February, President Trump dispatched top officials, including Bessent, to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine to hammer out terms. According to officials familiar with the matter, Trump grew frustrated when Kyiv initially refused U.S. conditions. Still, the two sides ultimately reached what Bessent described as an “improved” version of the deal by late February.

The effort nearly fell apart again during Zelensky’s February 28th visit to the White House, where a heated Oval Office exchange between the Ukrainian president, Trump, and Vice President JD Vance led to Zelensky being removed from the building and the deal left unsigned.

Despite those setbacks, the deal appears to be back on track. While no public text of the agreement has been released, the framework is expected to center on U.S.-Ukraine cooperation in extracting rare earth minerals—resources vital to modern manufacturing, electronics, and defense technologies.

President Trump has publicly defended the arrangement as a strategic and financial win for the United States. “We want something for our efforts beyond what you would think would be acceptable, and we said, ‘rare earth, they’re very good,’” he said during the Cabinet meeting. “It’s also good for them, because you’ll have an American presence at the site and the American presence will keep a lot of bad actors out of the country—or certainly out of the area where we’re doing the digging.”

Trump has emphasized that the deal would serve as a form of “security guarantee” for Ukraine, providing a stabilizing American footprint amid ongoing Russian aggression. He framed it as a tangible return on the billions in U.S. aid sent to Kyiv since the start of Russia’s 2022 invasion.

Continue Reading

Business

New federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan

Published on April 30, 2025

By

Fr0m the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

As part of his successful election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised a “very different approach” to fiscal policy than that of the Trudeau government. But when you peel back the rhetoric and look at his plan for deficits and debt, things begin to look eerily similar—if not worse.

The Carney government’s “responsible” new approach is centered around the idea of “spending less” in order to “invest more.” The government plans to separate spending into two budgets: the operating budget (which appears to include bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers and benefits) and the capital budget (which includes any spending that “builds an asset”). The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 (meaning operating spending will be fully covered by revenues) while funding the capital budget through borrowing.

Aside from the fact that this clearly complicates federal finances, this “very different” approach to spending actually represents more of the same by continuing to pursue endless borrowing and a larger role for the government in the economy.

The chart below compares projected annual federal budget balances for the next four years, from both the 2024 Fall Economic Statement (FES)—the Trudeau government’s last fiscal update—and the 2025 Liberal Party platform. Importantly, deficits from the 2025 platform show the overall budget balance including both operating and capital spending.

Let’s start with the similarities.

In its final fiscal update last fall, the Trudeau government planned to borrow tens of billions of dollars each year to fund annual spending, with no end in sight. Based on its election platform, the Carney government also plans to run multi-billion-dollar deficits each year with no plan to balance the overall budget. The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.

In the current fiscal year (2025/26) the Trudeau government had planned to run a $42.2 billion deficit. The Carney government now plans to increase that deficit to $62.3 billion. Trudeau’s most recent fiscal plan forecasted annual deficits from 2025/26 to 2028/29 representing a cumulative $131.4 billion in federal government borrowing. Over that same period, the Carney government now plans to borrow a cumulative $224.8 billion.

The Carney government’s fiscal plan does include a number of tax changes that are expected to lower revenues in years to come—including (but not limited to) a personal income tax cut, the elimination of the GST for some first-time homebuyers, and the cancelling of the planned capital gains tax hike. But even if you exclude these factors from the overall budget, the Carney government still plans to borrow $52.9 billion more than the Trudeau government had planned over the next four years.

By continuing (if not worsening) this same approach of endless borrowing and rising debt, the Carney government will impose real costs on Canadians. Indeed, 16-year-olds can already expect to pay an additional $29,663 in personal income taxes over their lifetime as a result of debt accumulation under the previous federal government, before accounting for the promised increases.

One of the key promises made by Prime Minister Carney is that his government will take a different approach to fiscal policy than his predecessor. While we won’t know for certain until the new government releases its first budget, it appears this approach will continue the same costly habits of endless borrowing and rising debt.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X