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

The First-Past-the-Post Way of Voting is Better-than-the-Rest

To hear proponents tell it, proportional representation is the cure for all that ails Canadian democracy. It’s fairer, less divisive, more diverse, makes voters happier and is less prone to “strategic” voting. About the only thing it apparently can’t do is make childbirth painless. But could replacing our traditional first-past-the-post voting system really improve how Canada is governed – and how Canadians feel about their government? In his grand-prize-winning entry to the 1st Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest, Nolan Albert weighs the arguments for and against replacing first-past-the-post with proportional representation, and in doing so uncovers the real cause of voter dissatisfaction.

The Runaway Costs of Government Construction Projects

Ottawa’s post-pandemic $300 billion spending orgy was coupled with the pompous claim to “Build Back Better”. As it happened, most of that spending was recklessly borrowed – stoking inflation – while Build Back Better was a dud, was discarded in embarrassment and, if recalled at all today, is told as a sick joke. Far too many planned projects now sink into a quicksand of political haggling, regulatory overkill, mission creep, design complexity and, if built at all, bungled execution. Looking at specific examples, Gwyn Morgan presents the lamentable results: far less is actually getting built across Canada, nearly everything takes forever and – worst of all – costs routinely soar to ludicrous levels. Added to that, Morgan notes, are woke-based criteria being imposed by the Trudeau government that are worsening the vicious cycle.

Adam Smith’s “Saline Solution” for Canada’s Health Care System

That Canada’s health care system is ailing is no longer news. That it is not only victim but perpetrator – killing patients through indifference and neglect – is also increasingly understood. But is Canada’s publicly funded and operated monopoly health care system an economy of sorts, a set of relationships that can be understood in economic terms, and one that might lend itself to reform by applying economic principles? In the second of three prize-winning entries from the 1st Annual Patricia Trottier and Gwyn Morgan Student Essay Contest to be published by C2C Journal, Alicia Kardos answers a resounding “Yes”. Drawing on key ideas and principles of the genius from Kirkcaldy, Scotland, Kardos envisions an overhauled health care system in which incentives are rational, self-interest is rewarded and the consumer – the patient – is king.

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.