A government whose watchword in other areas is sustainability and conservation is pushing hard for the rapid exploitation of a valuable part of our non-renewable mineral store. Photo by Valerian Mazataud/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Article content

Productivity doesn’t just depend on our tax competitiveness and how much capital investment we have. It also depends on that investment going to the most profitable uses possible.

Article content

Canada’s mining tax system certainly supports capital investment, and it’s also internationally competitive. But it fails the productivity test by supporting sub-optimal projects that would not be carried out if business decisions were based solely on economic criteria. In sum, our mining tax system is distortionary, inefficient, overly complex and needs to be overhauled.

Article content

Article content

Article content

This is the conclusion Philip Bazel and I reach in our new review of provincial mining taxes, just published by the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary. Mining investment in Canada disappointed over the last decade but that was due to regulation, not taxation. As of 2024, it took 20 years from discovery of a mineral deposit to start up production. In Australia, with its better regulatory system, the lag was only 14 years. The Carney government is on the right track in trying to reduce regulatory delay — although legislative reform would be better than the government picking and fast-tracking winners.

Article content

Article content

On the other hand, federal and provincial governments are going overboard on unneeded tax preferences and subsidies to spur mining investment. Our new paper measures effective tax rates on new mining investment by province for the most abundant products, both critical (copper, lithium, nickel and zinc) and non-critical (iron ore and gold).

Article content

Overall, we conclude that Canada’s mining tax structure is already internationally competitive, with effective tax rates on new investment well below those in most major mining producers, including Australia, Chile, China, Peru and the United States. Several tax preferences account for our competitiveness: the ability to deduct exploration and development charges from a company’s profits before a new mine earns income; fast write-offs for exploration, development and processing costs; and investment tax credits for exploration.

Article content

Article content

For example, the effective tax rate for iron-ore investments is 9.4 per cent in Ontario, far less than in the three largest producing countries: in Western Australia it’s 21.5 per cent, in Brazil 17.1 per cent and in China 16.1 per cent. The same story holds for copper. B.C.’s effective tax rate is 7.6 per cent, compared to 26.7 per cent in Chile, 21.4 per cent in New South Wales, Australia, and 19.8 per cent in Peru.

Article content

Article content

Effective tax rates vary a lot by province. Averaged across provinces, the effective tax rate is 10.2 per cent for critical minerals,13.3 per cent for non-critical. Quebec taxes mining projects most heavily — at 19.2 per cent for critical minerals and 14.6 per cent for non-critical — primarily because of a progressive mining profit tax that tops out at 28 per cent. Ontario has the lowest effective tax rate at 7.1 per cent for critical and 9.9 per cent for non-critical minerals, in part due to low tax rates on mining profits and concessionary corporate taxation.

Article content

Although Canada’s current system of mining taxation is competitive, it’s poorly designed, heavily favouring development and exploration, especially in critical minerals. Exploration is effectively subsidized by expensing — i.e., immediate write-offs — and investment tax credits both federally and in B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec. Many companies end up no longer paying taxes, which blunts the effectiveness of incentives.