Stories

Resource rich, investment poor

Matthew Lau
November 23, 2017
The math is not hard. New StatsCan data highlights an indelible link between lower taxes and less regulation and higher levels of investment and the productivity, jobs and growth that flow from it. The data also shows that natural resources remain, by far, Canada’s star attraction for investment. So why, wonders Matthew Lau, are Canadian governments working so hard to discourage resource investment with higher taxes and paralyzing regulation?
Stories

Resource rich, investment poor

Matthew Lau
November 23, 2017
The math is not hard. New StatsCan data highlights an indelible link between lower taxes and less regulation and higher levels of investment and the productivity, jobs and growth that flow from it. The data also shows that natural resources remain, by far, Canada’s star attraction for investment. So why, wonders Matthew Lau, are Canadian governments working so hard to discourage resource investment with higher taxes and paralyzing regulation?
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

What drives business investment? Even after the precipitous decline in the price of oil in the second half of 2014, the answer in Canada is still natural resources. As newly released data from Statistics Canada shows, in 2016 business investment per capita was highest in the energy-producing provinces; around $21,400 in Newfoundland and Labrador, $15,800 in Alberta, and $11,900 in Saskatchewan. By comparison, British Columbia came in at $5,300, Ontario at $4,700, and Quebec and the Maritimes did even worse.

Investment matters because it drives job creation and makes workers more productive, which raises wages. So it’s bad news for Ontarians and Quebeckers that their provinces are among Canada’s laggards when it comes to investment growth. Real business investment increased by 52 percent in Alberta and 82 percent in Saskatchewan from 2000 to 2016 despite sharp declines in the last couple years. By comparison, real investment growth was only 24 percent in Ontario and 15 percent in Quebec over the same time period.

As Mark Milke noted recently in the Financial Post in his analysis of the latest census data, resource-rich provinces have seen not only high levels of business investment growth, but also high income growth and declining poverty rates. “Snubbing opportunities in developing natural resources,” he concluded, “comes at the expense of additional jobs and better incomes for the poor and middle-class working families.”

Sadly, even governments that have grown fat off the return from resource investment habitually forget this lesson. Consider the experience of Alberta and Saskatchewan before the oil price decline. From 2000 to 2007, business investment grew by 75 percent in Alberta compared to 39 percent in Saskatchewan. But from 2007 to 2014 the positions flipped, with Saskatchewan’s 104 percent investment growth surpassing Alberta’s 39 percent.

Taxes help explain how this happened. In 2000, the Alberta government appointed a committee to review the province’s business taxes. As the provincial budget delivered the following year noted, “the Committee concluded that Alberta should respond to the world-wide trend to lower corporate income taxes. If we don’t, we risk losing increasingly mobile capital and highly skilled people.” Alberta eliminated the financial institutions capital tax that year and began lowering its 15.5 percent corporate tax rate, which fell to 10 percent by 2006. Business investment boomed.

Likewise in Saskatchewan, the period with the fastest growth in business investment also coincided with the reduction of economically damaging taxes. Investment began rising in 2005, then really took off in 2006 when the then-NDP government announced the elimination of the corporate capital tax, an increase in the small business pre-tax threshold, and a reduction in the corporate income tax rate from 17 percent to 12 percent by 2008.

Unfortunately, today Alberta, Saskatchewan and most other Canadian governments are moving in the wrong direction. Just look at TransCanada Pipelines’ cancelled Energy East project. Sure the low price of oil was a factor in the $15.7 billion project’s demise, but after Ottawa browbeat the National Energy Board into including upstream and downstream carbon emissions in its assessment of the project, TransCanada also blamed “existing and likely future delays resulting from the regulatory process, the associated cost implications” and other challenges.

Alberta’s NDP government complained loudly about the NEB’s “historic overreach”. But that was just the pot calling the kettle black. Thanks in large part to its own tax and regulatory impositions, oil sands investment has fallen by half in just two years, from $23.4 billion in 2015 to an estimated $12.1 billion this year. A 2016 survey by the Fraser Institute found energy executives’ perceptions of Alberta’s policies worsened significantly from 2014 to 2016, and they showed it by cutting investment.

On taxes, the NDP-Green coalition government in British Columbia is now emulating neighbouring NDP Alberta in raising corporate taxes. They’ve also announced plans to make the province’s carbon tax more expensive. And last year, Newfoundland and Labrador tacked another point onto its corporate tax and New Brunswick – where business investment is among the lowest in Canada – made its own situation worse by hiking its corporate tax from 14 percent to 16 percent.

In which provinces are measures being taken to encourage business investment? Seemingly none. Even in Saskatchewan, where the incumbent Saskatchewan Party government is generally friendly toward natural resource development, a corporate tax cut announced in the 2017 budget last spring was recently reversed. Alas, most provinces and certainly the federal government – which is guaranteeing a more burdensome tax bill tomorrow with its profligate spending today – seem determined to drive investment away.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Want to Fix Canada’s Screwed-Up Income Tax System? Start By Taxing Families

Equity has lately become the quintessential goal of all government policies. Every Canadian, regardless of position, place or identity, must be seen to be treated fairly by their public institutions. But how can a tax system – surely the most central of all government activities – be considered fair if it requires some families to pay thousands more in taxes than other families with exactly the same income? With Ottawa eagerly adding to the bloat of its ludicrously-complex and costly Income Tax Act, it’s time to confront the glaring inequity at the heart of Canada’s tax system. Peter Shawn Taylor looks back to the last time someone offered a solution to this problem – and finds we need this wisdom now more than ever.

Fists of Ham: Why the Liberals Keep Trying (and Failing) to Control the Internet

Folk wisdom holds that bad things come in threes. Now we have conclusive proof. The federal Liberals’ trio of ham-fisted bills aimed at bringing the internet to heel – the Online Streaming Act, Online News Act and Online Harms Act – are obvious and spectacular failures that are doing or will do great damage to Canadians. Peter Menzies takes a close look at the flaws of this calamitous trio, paying special attention to the threat posed to free expression in Canada by the recently unveiled Online Harms Act. For an administration that prides itself on its modernity, how has the Justin Trudeau government gone so wrong nearly three decades into the digital era?

Why India Could Become the Next Global Superpower: Part II

With America in decline at home and its influence waning abroad, the question of which nation might be the next global superpower has gained urgency. While the world arguably needs a dominant power to protect global order and prevent regional conflicts from spiralling, this can’t just be any country with sufficient arms and ambition. America’s replacement should be a moral superpower, one that safeguards freedom and enables prosperity for every nation, as the U.S. has done for the last 80 years. In the first installment of this two-part series, Lynne Cohen proposed that India could fulfill that role. She put forth 10 characteristics that together make a moral superpower, and dug into the first five, examining India’s economic and demographic strengths. In this second part, Cohen focusses on politics and power, assessing India’s performance on the final five criteria, starting with perhaps the most important – military might.

More from this author

Trudeau’s Economic Incompetence in Seven Charts

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but a good chart can explain billions. With just a few simple lines, a chart can bring complicated economic facts into sharp focus – revealing, for example, the growing gap in living standards between Canada and the U.S. since 2015. Or the $127 billion in excess spending by the federal Liberals even before the pandemic hit. Or the impact of the recent spike in inflation. Using seven custom-created charts, Matthew Lau illustrates and explains the financial devastation wrought by the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies throughout the Canadian economy. Troublingly, Lau’s final three charts suggest the worst is yet to come.

Erin O'Toole won the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada by promoting a "big tent", but what does that coalition mean?

An Unwise Union: How Workers Will Suffer From Erin O’Toole’s Embrace of Big Labour

Erin O’Toole became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada on the strength of his Big Tent vision for the party. But how big should that tent be? Recently O’Toole surprised commentators by extolling the benefits of the union movement and repeating many of its claims as Conservative policy. Matthew Lau charts the origin of this unorthodox political strategy, and its worrisome economic implications. If the Conservatives want to attract workers’ votes, he argues, they should start by recognizing the damage done by unions to growth and job creation.

The Right To Be Fat: Pushing Back Against Government Overreach

Would beloved comic actor John Candy have lived longer if government forced him to eat less? What about Orson Welles? Or Luciano Pavarotti? Perhaps. Would they have been happier or more successful? We’ll never know the answer to the first, and as to the second, almost certainly not. Candy built his career around a lovable portliness, Welles often played menacing fat men and Pavarotti’s girth helped him belt out arias. A few extra pounds, in other words, offers both advantages and disadvantages − and it should be up to the individual to decide how to balance the scales. As governments ramp up policies designed to put their citizenry on a diet, Matthew Lau sallies forth in defence of eating what you want, and exercising only when you feel the need.

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.