Three provinces make top 10, according to Fraser Institute
The report ranked 62 jurisdictions worldwide on geologic attractiveness (minerals and metals), as well as whether government policies encourage or deter exploration and investment (including permit times).
“While geologic and economic considerations are important factors in mineral exploration, a region’s policy climate is also an important investment consideration,” the report said.
This is the fifth time in six years that Saskatchewan has ranked in the global top three, though it fell from No. 2 in last year’s survey.
Saskatchewan isn’t the only Canadian jurisdiction that made the top 10, with Newfoundland and Labrador coming in at No. 4 and Quebec at No. 8.
But the report said some Canadian provinces and territories are failing to capitalize on their strong mineral potential, largely because they’re lacking a solid policy environment to attract investment.
For example, Ontario, Manitoba and Yukon all rank among the world’s top 10 most attractive jurisdictions for mineral potential, but fall to spots 18, 24 and 31, respectively, on policy factors.
“A sound regulatory regime coupled with competitive taxes make a jurisdiction attractive to investors,” Elmira Aliakbari, director of the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Natural Resource Studies and co-author of the study, said in a press release. “Policymakers across the globe should understand that mineral deposits alone are not enough to attract investment.”
Investor concerns over disputed land claims, protected areas and environmental regulations continue to be a major policy hurdle for British Columbia and Atlantic Canada. Uncertainty about protected areas, including which ones are off limits for mining exploration and production, is among the top three policy-related barriers to investment in the Atlantic provinces.
“Overregulation works as a deterrent to investment,” an unnamed president at a producer said in the report. “The project I was working on met all regulatory requirements, but still had to apply for a court order (mandamus) before the B.C. government granted the permit.”
It said mining companies across the world are increasingly embracing Canada for investing in the new technologies needed to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emission targets.
But that’s not the only reason global mining players are attracted to Canada. Other compelling reasons include:
The abundance of hydroelectric power generation.
The availability of advanced research and development centres in mining and processing industries.
An extensive resource base of most of the 31 critical minerals identified by Ottawa for driving economic growth in the green economy.
A highly skilled and experienced labour force.
Two and a half months ago, Shopify Inc. president Harley Finkelstein said the company wasn’t planning any more layoffs after slashing 10 per cent of its workforce the previous summer. Yet, following first-quarter earnings on May 4, Shopify announced it was cutting 20 per cent, or more than 2,000, staffers as it sheds a strategic part of the business once meant to expand the company beyond digital e-commerce products. The Financial Post’s Bianca Bharti explains what you need to know.
The end game for millions of Canadians who diligently save for retirement by contributing to registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) is to be able to accumulate, on a pre-tax basis, a sufficiently large enough nest egg that will last through retirement. The tool most RRSP savers ultimately use to provide such an income stream from that plan is a registered retirement income fund (RRIF). But RRIF rules haven’t kept up with recent demographic and economic trends. Tax expert Jamie Golombek delves into what’s wrong with the RRIF and how to fix it so seniors can stop fearing their retirement savings will run out.
John Ivison: The blowback to Trudeau's investment tax hike could be bigger than he thinks – National Post
Published
34 mins ago
on
April 19, 2024
By
The numbers from the Department of Finance suggest they have struck taxation gold. But they’ve been wrong before
Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox
Published Apr 19, 2024 • Last updated 8 hours ago • 5 minute read
Article content
“99.87 per cent of Canadians will not pay a cent more,” the prime minister said this week, in reference to the budget announcement that his government will raise the inclusion rate on capital gains tax in June.
The move will be limited to 40,000 wealthy taxpayers. “We’re going to make them pay a little bit more,” Justin Trudeau said.
Article content
But it’s hard to see how that number can be true when the budget document also says 307,000 corporations will also be caught in the dragnet that raises the inclusion rate on capital gains to 66 per cent from 50 per cent.
Advertisement 2
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
Unlimited online access to National Post and 15 news sites with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
Support local journalism.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE ARTICLES
Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.
Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
Unlimited online access to National Post and 15 news sites with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
Support local journalism.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Many of those corporations are holding companies set up by professionals and small-business owners who are relying on their portfolios for their retirement.
The budget offers the example of the nurse earning $70,000 who faces a combined federal-provincial marginal rate of 29.7 per cent on his or her income. “In comparison, a wealthy individual in Ontario with $1 million in income would face a marginal rate of 26.86 per cent on their capital gain,” it says.
Policy wonks argue that the change improves the efficiency and equity of the tax system, meaning capital gains are now taxed at a similar level to dividends, interest and paid income. The Department of Finance is an enthusiastic supporter of this view, which should have set alarm bells ringing on the political side.
That’s not to say it’s not a valid argument. But against it you could put forward the counterpoint that capital gains tax is a form of double taxation, the income having already been taxed at the individual and corporate level, which explains why the inclusion rate is not 100 per cent.
The prospect of capital gains is an incentive to invest particularly for people who, unlike wage earners, usually do not have pensions or other employment benefits.
Platformed
This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
That was recognized by Bill Morneau, Trudeau’s former finance minister, who said increasing the capital gains rate was proposed when he was in politics but he resisted the proposal.
Morneau criticized the new tax hike as “a disincentive for investment … I don’t think there’s any way to sugar-coat it.”
Regardless of the high-minded policy explanations that are advanced about neutrality in the tax system, it is clear that the impetus for the tax increase was the need to raise revenues by a government with a spending addiction, and to engage in wedge politics for one with a popularity problem.
The most pressing question right now is: how many people are affected — or, just as importantly, think they might be affected?
One recent Leger poll said 78 per cent of Canadians would support a new tax on people with wealth over $10 million.
But what about those regular folks who stand to make a once-in-a-lifetime windfall by selling the family cottage? We will need to wait a few weeks before it becomes clear how many people feel they might be affected.
Advertisement 4
Article content
The numbers supplied to Trudeau by the Department of Finance suggest they have struck taxation gold: plucking the largest amount of feathers ($21.9 billion in new revenues over five years) with the least amount of hissing (impacting just 0.13 per cent of taxpayers).
The worry for Trudeau and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland is that Finance has been wrong before.
Political veterans recall former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty’s volte face in 2007, when he was forced to drop a proposal to cancel the ability of Canadian companies to deduct the interest costs on money they borrowed to expand abroad.
“Tax officials vastly underestimated the number of taxpayers affected when it came to corporations,” said one person who was there, pointing out that such miscalculations tend to happen when Finance has been pushing a particular policy for years.
Trudeau’s government has some experience of this phenomenon, having been obliged to reverse itself after introducing a range of measures in 2017, aimed at dissuading professionals from incorporating in order to pay less tax. It was a defensible public policy objective but the blowback from small-business owners and professionals who felt they were unfairly being labelled tax cheats precipitated an ignoble retreat.
Advertisement 5
Article content
Speaking after the budget was delivered, Freeland was unperturbed about the prospect of blowback. “No one likes to pay more tax, even — or perhaps more particularly — those who can afford it the most,” she said.
She’d best hope such sanguinity is justified: failure to raise the promised sums will blow a hole in her budget and cut loose her fiscal anchors of declining deficits and a tumbling debt-to-GDP ratio.
That probably won’t be apparent for a year or so: the government projected that $6.9 billion in capital gains revenue will be recorded this fiscal year, largely because the implementation date has been delayed until the end of June. We are likely to see a flood of transactions before then, so that investors can sell before the inclusion rate goes up.
After that, you can imagine asset sales will be minimized, particularly if the Conservatives promise to lower the rate again (though on that front, it was noticeable that during question period this week, not one Conservative raised the new $21 billion tax hike).
The calculated nature of the timing is in line with the surreptitious nature of the narrative: presenting a blatant revenue grab as a principled fight for “fairness.” The move has the added attraction of inflicting pain on the highest earners, a desirable end in itself for an ultra-progressive government that views wealth creation as a wrong that should be punished.
Advertisement 6
Article content
Trudeau’s biggest problem is that not many voters still associate him with principles, particularly after he sold out his own climate policy with the home heating oil exemption.
The tax hike smacks of a shift inspired by polling that indicates that Canadians prefer that any new taxes only affect the people richer than them.
Success or failure may depend on the number of unaffected Canadians being close to the 99.87-per-cent number supplied by the Finance Department.
History suggests that may be a shaky foundation on which to build a budget.
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Article content
Share this article in your social network
Get the latest from John Ivison straight to your inbox
Traders had hoped by now the Federal Reserve would be free to start cutting interest rates — boosting rate-sensitive stocks and unlocking a largely frozen real estate market. Instead, stubborn price growth has some on Wall Street rethinking whether the central bank will lower rates at all this year.
Comments