Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale

From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson and Elmira Aliakbari

Forcing down Canadian oil and gas emissions within a short time span (five to seven years) is sure to exact a heavy economic price, especially when Canada is projected to experience a long period of weak growth in inflation-adjusted incomes and GDP per person.

After two years of deliberations, the Trudeau government (specifically, the Environment and Climate Change Canada department) has unveiled the final version of Ottawa’s plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from the oil and gas sector.

The draft regulations, which still must pass the House and Senate to become law, stipulate that oil and gas producers must reduce emissions by 35 per cent from 2019 levels by between 2030 and 2032. They also would establish a “cap and trade” regulatory regime for the sector. Under this system, each oil and gas facility is allocated a set number of allowances, with each allowance permitting a specific amount of annual carbon emissions. These allowances will decrease over time in line with the government’s emission targets.

If oil and gas producers exceed their allowances, they can purchase additional ones from other companies with allowances to spare. Alternatively, they could contribute to a “decarbonization” fund or, in certain cases, use “offset credits” to cover a small portion of their emissions. While cutting production is not required, lower oil and gas production volumes will be an indirect outcome if the cost of purchasing allowances or other compliance options becomes too high, making it more economical for companies to reduce production to stay within their emissions limits.

The oil and gas industry accounts for almost 31 per cent of Canada’s GHG emissions, while transportation and buildings contribute 22 and 13 per cent, respectively. However, the proposed cap applies exclusively to the oil and gas sector, exempting the remaining 69 per cent of the country’s GHG emissions. Targeting a single industry in this way is at odds with the policy approach recommended by economists including those who favour strong action to address climate change.

The oil and gas cap also undermines the Trudeau government’s repeated claims that carbon-pricing is the main lever policymakers are using to reduce GHG emissions. In its 2023 budget (page 71), the government said “Canada has taken a market-driven approach to emissions reduction. Our world-leading carbon pollution pricing system… is highly effective because it provides a clear economic signal to businesses and allows them the flexibility to find the most cost-effective way to lower their emissions.”

This assertion is vitiated by the expanding array of other measures Ottawa has adopted to reduce emissions—hefty incentives and subsidies, product standards, new regulations and mandates, toughened energy efficiency requirements, and (in the case of oil and gas) limits on emissions. Most of these non-market measures come with a significantly higher “marginal abatement cost”—that is, the additional cost to the economy of reducing emissions by one tonne—compared to the carbon price legislated by the Trudeau government.

And there are other serious problems with the proposed oil and gas emissions gap. For one, emissions have the same impact on the climate regardless of the source; there’s no compelling reason to target a single sector. As a group of Canadian economists wrote back in 2023, climate policies targeting specific industries (or regions) are likely to reduce emissions at a much higher overall cost per tonne of avoided emissions.

Second, forcing down Canadian oil and gas emissions within a short time span (five to seven years) is sure to exact a heavy economic price, especially when Canada is projected to experience a long period of weak growth in inflation-adjusted incomes and GDP per person, according to the OECD and other forecasting agencies. The cap stacks an extra regulatory cost on top of the existing carbon price charged to oil and gas producers. The cap also promises to foster complicated interactions with provincial regulatory and carbon-pricing regimes that apply to the oil and gas sector, notably Alberta’s industrial carbon-pricing system.

The Conference Board of Canada think-tank, the consulting firm Deloitte, and a study published by our organization (the Fraser Institute) have estimated the aggregate cost of the federal government’s emissions cap. All these projections reasonably assume that Canadian oil and gas producers will scale back production to meet the cap. Such production cuts will translate into many tens of billions of lost economic output, fewer high-paying jobs across the energy supply chain and in the broader Canadian economy, and a significant drop in government revenues.

Finally, it’s striking that the Trudeau government’s oil and gas emissions cap takes direct aim at what ranks as Canada’s number one export industry, which provides up to one-quarter of the country’s total exports. We can’t think of another advanced economy that has taken such a punitive stance toward its leading export sector.

In short, the Trudeau government’s proposed cap on GHG emissions from the oil and gas industry lacks any solid scientific, economic or policy rationale. And it will add yet more costs and complexity to Canada’s already shambolic, high-cost and ever-growing suite of climate policies. The cap should be scrapped, forthwith.

Authors:

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#DraymondGreen #ElmiraAliakbari #FraserInstitute #JockFinlayson CanadaOilAndGasSector OttawaEmissionCap

Up Next

On gender, Alberta is following the science

Don't Miss

COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.

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

A Nation of Announcements: Canada’s Government of Empty Promises

Health / 1 hour ago

DMSO Heals the Eyes and Transforms Ophthalmology

Opinion / 2 hours ago

Carry-On Carney And The Trials Of Brian Peckford

Energy

CAPP calls on federal government to reset energy policy before it’s too late

Published on October 26, 2025

Todayville

CAPP CEO warns that Canada’s energy advantage is slipping away through incrementalism and policy paralysis

The productivity fix starts with pragmatism

Lisa Baiton, President and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that Canada is in danger of squandering its global energy advantage through hesitation and half-measures. Representing the upstream oil, gas, and LNG producers that account for more than 20 percent of Canada’s total balance of trade, she said the sector directly employs 450,000 Canadians and supports more than 900,000 jobs nationwide.

“Our industry contributes over one-fifth of Canada’s entire balance of trade,” Baiton said. “Yet we’re operating in a global environment where state actors like Russia, China, and OPEC are weaponizing resources, controlling markets, and coercing trade. Even our closest ally, the United States, is reminding us that we can’t rely on a single customer.”

She argued that the world’s energy order is shifting in ways Canada has been slow to recognize. “Institutional investors are now talking less about energy transition and more about energy addition,” she said, citing Blackrock’s Larry Fink. “Global energy demand is rising across the north and south — and with the AI revolution driving new consumption — we’re going to need all forms of energy for decades to come.”

Baiton said that despite encouraging words from Ottawa about the importance of natural resources, policy still lags reality. “We have a prime minister who recognizes the role of oil and gas in national security and Indigenous reconciliation, but words alone don’t attract capital. Without a clear policy reset, Canada will miss the investment window.”

Incrementalism will be the death of us

Baiton’s warning was blunt: Canada’s productivity crisis and its policy gridlock are converging into a national risk. “We’ve woken up to the threats, but we’re falling back into our usual Canadianism — plodding along,” she said. “This window of opportunity won’t stay open long, and incrementalism will be the death of Canada.”

She said a “pragmatic policy reset” is required, one that reflects the resources Canada actually has and moves with speed. “Supernaturalism will be our death,” she said. “We have to get out of our own way.”

Baiton called for an overhaul of policies built during a previous decade aimed at making oil and gas “existential.” Canada, she said, now has a government that understands “you can’t have national security without energy security,” and that the resource sector is key to funding the military and rebuilding economic strength.

Oil and gas: Canada’s fastest path to growth

She pointed out that Canada ranks last among OECD nations in growth and competitiveness, and said oil and gas is “the only sector that can be leveraged fast enough” to reverse that trajectory. The industry, she added, is already a national leader in Indigenous partnerships. It’s the largest employer of Indigenous peoples, the largest user of Indigenous supply chains, and a growing field for Indigenous private equity ownership.

But without a policy reset, Baiton said, that progress will stall. “We need to take on key policies like the proposed emissions cap, which is already scaring investors, and fix permitting timelines that run nine to sixteen years. In Germany, it took three years to build three LNG import terminals. In Canada, one project can take 21 years from discovery to dollar.”

The message from Baiton was clear: Canada must rediscover the discipline to build, not just talk about building. The productivity fix starts with speed, pragmatism, and confidence in Canada’s own energy advantage.

Business

Trans Mountain executive says it’s time to fix the system, expand access, and think like a nation builder

Published on October 26, 2025

Todayville

Mike Davies calls for ambition and reform to build a stronger Canada

A shift in ambition

A year after the Trans Mountain Expansion Project came into service, Mike Davies, Senior Director of Marine Development at Trans Mountain, told the B.C. Business Summit 2025 that the project’s success should mark the beginning of a new national mindset — one defined by ambition, reform, and nation building.

“It took fifteen years to get this version of the project built,” Davies said. “During that time, Canadian producers lost about $50 billion in value because they were selling into a discounted market. We have some of the world’s largest reserves of oil and gas, but we can only trade with one other country. That’s unusual.”

With the expansion now in operation, that imbalance is shifting. “The differential on Canadian oil has narrowed by about $13 billion,” he said. “That’s value that used to be extracted by the United States and now stays in Canada — supporting healthcare, reconciliation, and energy transformation. About $5 billion of that is in royalties and taxes. It’s meaningful for us as a society.”

Davies rejected the notion that Trans Mountain was a public subsidy. “The federal government lent its balance sheet so that nation-building infrastructure could get built,” he said. “In our first full year of operation, we’ll return more than $1.3 billion to the federal government, rising toward $2 billion annually as cleanup work wraps up.”

At the Westridge Marine Terminal, shipments have increased from one tanker a week to nearly one a day, with more than half heading to Asia. “California remains an important market,” Davies said, “but diversification is finally happening — and it’s vital to our long-term prosperity.”

Fixing the system to move forward

Davies said this moment of success should prompt a broader rethinking of how Canada approaches resource development. “We’re positioned to take advantage of this moment,” he said. “Public attitudes are shifting. Canadians increasingly recognize that our natural resource advantages are a strength, not a liability. The question now is whether governments can seize it — and whether we’ll see that reflected in policy.”

He argued that governments have come to view regulation as a “free good,” without acknowledging its economic consequences. “Over the past decade, we’ve seen policy focus almost exclusively on environmental and reconciliation objectives,” he said. “Those are vital, but the public interest extends well beyond that — to include security, economic welfare, the rule of law, transparency, and democratic participation.”

Davies said good policy should not need to be bypassed to get projects built. “I applaud the creation of a Major Projects Office, but it’s a disgrace that we have to end run the system,” he said. “We need to fix it.”

He called for “deep, long-term reform” to restore scalability and investment confidence. “Linear infrastructure like pipelines requires billions in at-risk capital before a single certificate is issued,” he said. “Canada has a process for everything — we’re a responsible country — but it doesn’t scale for nation-building projects.”

Regulatory reform, he added, must go hand in hand with advancing economic reconciliation. “The challenge of our generation is shifting Indigenous communities from dependence to participation,” he said. “That means real ownership, partnership, and revenue opportunities.”

Davies urged renewed cooperation between Alberta and British Columbia, calling for “interprovincial harmony” on West Coast access. “I’d like to see Alberta see B.C. as part of its constituency,” he said. “And I’d like to see B.C. recognize the need for access.”

He summarized the path forward in plain terms: “We need to stem the exit of capital, create an environment that attracts investment, simplify approvals to one major process, and move decisions from the courts to clear legislation. If we do that, we can finally move from being a market hostage to being a competitor — and a nation builder.”