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

The Conventional Energy Sector and Pipelines Will Feature Prominently in Alberta’s Referendum Debate

Business / 10 mins ago

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

Alberta / 45 mins ago

Why Some Albertans Say Separation Is the Only Way

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

*** The Pension to Age 90 includes Trudeau’s MP pension and his secondary Prime Minister’s pension

Business

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

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Apparently, despite a few days of conflicting statements from the government, the Carney government now plans to table a budget in the fall. If the new prime minister wants to reduce Ottawa’s massive debt burden, which Canadians ultimately bear, he must begin to work now to reduce spending.

According to the federal government’s latest projections, from 2014/15 to 2024/25 total federal debt is expected to double from $1.1 trillion to a projected $2.2 trillion. That means $13,699 in new federal debt for every Canadian (after adjusting for inflation). In addition, from 2020 to 2023, the Trudeau government recorded the four highest years of total federal debt per person (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history.

How did this happen?

From 2018 to 2023, the government recorded the six highest levels of program spending (inflation-adjusted, on a per-person basis) in Canadian history—even after excluding emergency spending during COVID. Consequently, in 2024/25 Ottawa will run its tenth consecutive budget deficit since 2014/15.

Of course, Canadians bear the burden of this free-spending approach. For example, over the last several years federal debt interest payments have more than doubled to an expected $53.7 billion this year. That’s more than the government plans to spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. And it’s money unavailable for programs including social services.

In the longer term, government debt accumulation can limit economic growth by pushing up interest rates. Why? Because governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing, and this competition puts upward pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates deter private investment in the Canadian economy—a necessary ingredient for economic growth—and hurt Canadian living standards.

Given these costs, the Carney government should take a new approach to fiscal policy and begin reducing Ottawa’s mountain of debt.

According to both history and research, the most effective and least economically harmful way to achieve this is to reduce government spending and balance the budget, as opposed to raising taxes. While this approach requires tough decisions, which may be politically unpopular in some quarters, worthwhile goals are rarely easy and the long-term gain will exceed the short-term pain. Indeed, a recent study by Canadian economist Bev Dahlby found the long-term economic benefits of a 12-percentage point reduction in debt (as a share of GDP) substantially outweighs the short-term costs.

Unfortunately, while Canadians must wait until the fall for a federal budget, the Carney government’s election platform promises to add—not subtract—from Ottawa’s mountain of debt and from 2025/26 to 2028/29 run annual deficits every year of at least $47.8 billion. In total, these planned deficits represent $224.8 billion in new government debt over the next four years, and there’s currently no plan to balance the budget. This represents a continuation of the Trudeau government’s approach to rack up debt and behave irresponsibly with federal finances.

With a new government on Parliament Hill, now is the time for federal policymakers to pursue the long-ignored imperative of reducing government debt. Clearly, if the Carney government wants to prioritize debt reduction, it must rethink its fiscal plan and avoid repeating the same mistakes of its predecessor.