IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drilling Down on Royalties: How Canadian Provinces Can Improve Non-Renewable Resource Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Dachis

    (C.D. Howe Institute)

  • Robin W. Boadway

    (Queen's University)

Abstract

From coast to coast, non-renewable-resource taxation is a key source of provincial government revenue – and political rancour. Alberta has recently started a comprehensive review of its oil and natural gas extraction tax system. Newfoundland and Labrador is looking at a redesign of its royalty system. And British Columbia has set up a new tax on liquefied natural gas production. These provinces can all improve their current resource tax systems to raise more money without jeopardizing investment. The key problem with current resource taxes in Canada is not the tax rates, but the design of the taxes. Canadian policymakers should be looking at international best practices in resource tax design. Australia and Norway have best-in-class resource taxes that are based on the cash flows of resource production. That better design means that resource companies in those countries pay a high tax rate on cash flows but still have a strong incentive to invest. Western Canadian provinces instead rely on economically distorting gross-revenue royalties for most onshore oil and gas taxation. These provinces should change their gross-revenue royalties to more efficient cash-flow taxes. Cash-flow taxes are a better way of reflecting the cumulative costs that resource companies face to extract energy than are gross revenue royalties. Although Alberta’s oil sands cash-flow tax and Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore royalty follow many international best practices, both have room for improvement. Those provinces should rethink the rules around how companies pre-pay gross revenue royalties, the limits on the kinds of expenses companies can deduct, and having a royalty rate that fluctuates with oil prices. British Columbia’s mining tax hits many of the right notes. However, the province’s tax on liquefied natural gas exports would be unnecessary if it changed its gross-revenue royalties on natural gas extraction to cash-flow taxes. Likewise, the federal government should consider reforms to its own corporate income tax system to tax cash flows, not profits. Canadian provinces have collected about $79 billion in resource-specific tax revenues from 2009 to 2013. But the provinces can collect more while not harming investment in mining and oil and natural gas extraction if they change their distortive gross-revenue royalties into better designed cash-flow taxes.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Dachis & Robin W. Boadway, 2015. "Drilling Down on Royalties: How Canadian Provinces Can Improve Non-Renewable Resource Taxes," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 435, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/public-policy-research/drilling-down-royalties-how-canadian-provinces-can-improve-non-renewable-resource-taxes
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benjamin Dachis, 2018. "Death by a Thousand Cuts? Western Canada’s Oil and Natural Gas Policy Competitiveness Scorecard," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 501, February.
    2. Tedds, Lindsay M., 2017. "The Tax Treatment of Non-Renewable Resource Exploration Expenditures in Canada: A Historical Review and a Way Forward," MPRA Paper 96912, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 17 Dec 2017.
    3. Ben Dachis, 2016. "National Priorities 2016: The Future of Canadian Energy Policy," e-briefs 224, C.D. Howe Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Energy and Natural Resources; Taxation; Non-renewable resource;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q38 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy (includes OPEC Policy)
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.