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

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Resets The Energy Policy Playing Field

Carbon Tax / 2 hours ago

Canada’s Carbon Tax Is A Disaster For Our Economy And Oil Industry

Crime / 14 hours ago

The Left Thinks Drug Criminalization Is Racist. Minorities Disagree

Business

Dallas mayor invites NYers to first ‘sanctuary city from socialism’

Published on July 5, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Bethany Blankley

After the self-described socialist Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor in New York, Dallas Mayor Eric Johnson invited New Yorkers and others to move to Dallas.

Mamdani has vowed to implement a wide range of tax increases on corporations and property and to “shift the tax burden” to “richer and whiter neighborhoods.”

New York businesses and individuals have already been relocating to states like Texas, which has no corporate or personal income taxes.

Johnson, a Black mayor and former Democrat, switched parties to become a Republican in 2023 after opposing a city council tax hike, The Center Square reported.

“Dear Concerned New York City Resident or Business Owner: Don’t panic,” Johnson said. “Just move to Dallas, where we strongly support our police, value our partners in the business community, embrace free markets, shun excessive regulation, and protect the American Dream!”

Fortune 500 companies and others in recent years continue to relocate their headquarters to Dallas; it’s also home to the new Texas Stock Exchange (TXSE). The TXSE will provide an alternative to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq and there are already more finance professionals in Texas than in New York, TXSE Group Inc. founder and CEO James Lee argues.

From 2020-2023, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington MSA reported the greatest percentage of growth in the country of 34%, The Center Square reported.

Johnson on Thursday continued his invitation to New Yorkers and others living in “socialist” sanctuary cities, saying on social media, “If your city is (or is about to be) a sanctuary for criminals, mayhem, job-killing regulations, and failed socialist experiments, I have a modest invitation for you: MOVE TO DALLAS. You can call us the nation’s first official ‘Sanctuary City from Socialism.’”

“We value free enterprise, law and order, and our first responders. Common sense and the American Dream still reside here. We have all your big-city comforts and conveniences without the suffocating vice grip of government bureaucrats.”

As many Democratic-led cities joined a movement to defund their police departments, Johnson prioritized police funding and supporting law and order.

“Back in the 1800s, people moving to Texas for greater opportunities would etch ‘GTT’ for ‘Gone to Texas’ on their doors moving to the Mexican colony of Tejas,” Johnson continued, referring to Americans who moved to the Mexican colony of Tejas to acquire land grants from the Mexican government.

“If you’re a New Yorker heading to Dallas, maybe try ‘GTD’ to let fellow lovers of law and order know where you’ve gone,” Johnson said.

Modern-day GTT movers, including a large number of New Yorkers, cite high personal income taxes, high property taxes, high costs of living, high crime, and other factors as their reasons for leaving their states and moving to Texas, according to multiple reports over the last few years.

In response to Johnson’s invitation, Gov. Greg Abbott said, “Dallas is the first self-declared “Sanctuary City from Socialism. The State of Texas will provide whatever support is needed to fulfill that mission.”

The governor has already been doing this by signing pro-business bills into law and awarding Texas Enterprise Grants to businesses that relocate or expand operations in Texas, many of which are doing so in the Dallas area.

“Texas truly is the Best State for Business and stands as a model for the nation,” Abbott said. “Freedom is a magnet, and Texas offers entrepreneurs and hardworking Texans the freedom to succeed. When choosing where to relocate or expand their businesses, more innovative industry leaders recognize the competitive advantages found only in Texas. The nation’s leading CEOs continually cite our pro-growth economic policies – with no corporate income tax and no personal income tax – along with our young, skilled, diverse, and growing workforce, easy access to global markets, robust infrastructure, and predictable business-friendly regulations.”

Business

National dental program likely more costly than advertised

Published on July 4, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

At the beginning of June, the Canadian Dental Care Plan expanded to include all eligible adults. To be eligible, you must: not have access to dental insurance, have filed your 2024 tax return in Canada, have an adjusted family net income under $90,000, and be a Canadian resident for tax purposes.

As a result, millions more Canadians will be able to access certain dental services at reduced—or no—out-of-pocket costs, as government shoves the costs onto the backs of taxpayers. The first half of the proposition, accessing services at reduced or no out-of-pocket costs, is always popular; the second half, paying higher taxes, is less so.

A Leger poll conducted in 2022 found 72 per cent of Canadians supported a national dental program for Canadians with family incomes up to $90,000—but when asked whether they would support the program if it’s paid for by an increase in the sales tax, support fell to 42 per cent. The taxpayer burden is considerable; when first announced two years ago, the estimated price tag was $13 billion over five years, and then $4.4 billion ongoing.

Already, there are signs the final cost to taxpayers will far exceed these estimates. Dr. Maneesh Jain, the immediate past-president of the Ontario Dental Association, has pointed out that according to Health Canada the average patient saved more than $850 in out-of-pocket costs in the program’s first year. However, the Trudeau government’s initial projections in the 2023 federal budget amounted to $280 per eligible Canadian per year.

Not all eligible Canadians will necessarily access dental services every year, but the massive gap between $850 and $280 suggests the initial price tag may well have understated taxpayer costs—a habit of the federal government, which over the past decade has routinely spent above its initial projections and consistently revises its spending estimates higher with each fiscal update.

To make matters worse there are also significant administrative costs. According to a story in Canadian Affairs, “Dental associations across Canada are flagging concerns with the plan’s structure and sustainability. They say the Canadian Dental Care Plan imposes significant administrative burdens on dentists, and that the majority of eligible patients are being denied care for complex dental treatments.”

Determining eligibility and coverage is a huge burden. Canadians must first apply through the government portal, then wait weeks for Sun Life (the insurer selected by the federal government) to confirm their eligibility and coverage. Unless dentists refuse to provide treatment until they have that confirmation, they or their staff must sometimes chase down patients after the fact for any co-pay or fees not covered.

Moreover, family income determines coverage eligibility, but even if patients are enrolled in the government program, dentists may not be able to access this information quickly. This leaves dentists in what Dr. Hans Herchen, president of the Alberta Dental Association, describes as the “very awkward spot” of having to verify their patients’ family income.

Dentists must also try to explain the program, which features high rejection rates, to patients. According to Dr. Anita Gartner, president of the British Columbia Dental Association, more than half of applications for complex treatment are rejected without explanation. This reduces trust in the government program.

Finally, the program creates “moral hazard” where people are encouraged to take riskier behaviour because they do not bear the full costs. For example, while we can significantly curtail tooth decay by diligent toothbrushing and flossing, people might be encouraged to neglect these activities if their dental services are paid by taxpayers instead of out-of-pocket. It’s a principle of basic economics that socializing costs will encourage people to incur higher costs than is really appropriate (see Canada’s health-care system).

At a projected ongoing cost of $4.4 billion to taxpayers, the newly expanded national dental program is already not cheap. Alas, not only may the true taxpayer cost be much higher than this initial projection, but like many other government initiatives, the dental program already seems to be more costly than initially advertised.