Skip to main content
  • News
  • Events
  • Blog
  • Search

Natural Resource Governance Institute

  • Topics
    Beneficial ownership
    Economic diversification
    Mandatory payment disclosure
    Revenue sharing
    Civic space
    Energy transition
    Measurement of environmental and social impacts
    Sovereign wealth funds
    Commodity prices
    Gender
    Measurement of governance
    State-owned enterprises
    Contract transparency and monitoring
    Global initiatives
    Open data
    Subnational governance
    Coronavirus
    Legislation and regulation
    Revenue management
    Tax policy and revenue collection
    Corruption
    Licensing and negotiation
  • Approach
    • Stakeholders
      • Civil society actors
      • Government officials
      • Journalists and media
      • Parliaments and political parties
      • Private sector
    • Natural Resource Charter
    • Regional knowledge hubs
  • Countries
    NRGI Priority Countries
    Colombia
    Guinea
    Nigeria
    Tanzania
    Dem. Rep. of Congo
    Mexico
    Peru
    Tunisia
    Ghana
    Mongolia
    Senegal
    Uganda
    OTHER COUNTRIES
  • Learning
    • Training
      • Residential training courses
        • Executive
        • Anglophone Africa
        • Francophone Africa
      • Online training courses
        • Advanced
        • Negotiating Contracts
        • Massive open online course (MOOC)
        • Interactive course: Petronia
      • Trainers' modules
        • (empty)
    • Primers
    • Glossary
  • Analysis & Tools
    • Publications
    • Tools
    • Economic models
  • About Us
    • What we do
      • 2020-2025 Strategy
      • Country prioritization
    • NRGI impact
    • Board of Directors
    • Emeritus Board Members
    • Advisory Council
    • Leadership team
    • Experts and staff
    • Careers and opportunities
    • Grant-making
    • Financials
    • Privacy policy
    • Contact us
  • News
  • Events
  • Blog

You are here

  1. Home
  2. Blog

All That Glitters Is Not Gold: Will Expectations Be Dashed in Canada's North?

30 June 2014
Author
Andrew Bauer
Topics
Revenue sharingSubnational governanceTax policy and revenue collection
Countries
Canada
Stakeholders
Government officialsParliaments and political parties
Precepts
P4 P5 P7 What are Natural Resource Charter precepts?
Social Sharing

Part I in a two-part series on the challenges of natural resource governance in Canada's North.

The Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada's largest territory, has huge resource potential. To investors and oil and mining companies, it is a vast landscape abundant in diamonds, gold, silver, copper, zinc, rare earth minerals, oil and natural gas (see box and map). Climate change is expected to open up even more land and sea for exploration and production. But to the government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT), these resources present an opportunity to go from mere spectators of economic development to full participants.

Until recently, almost all of the financial benefits from extraction were retained by the Canadian federal government. In 2013, things changed. The GNWT negotiated a devolution agreement allowing the territory to retain a portion of mineral and onshore oil and gas royalties, specifically the lesser of 50 percent of mineral, oil, gas and water-related revenues, or 5 percent of an amount called the "Gross Expenditure Base" (between $70-100 million per year over the coming decade). Of the amount retained by the GNWT, 25 percent is passed onto aboriginal governments that signed onto the devolution agreement. For a region traditionally dependent on the federal government for two-thirds of its revenues, the agreement was hailed as meaningful progress toward real autonomy.

"For the first time ever, NWT residents will inherit new control of the minerals industry, and with it, a significant contribution to the economic future of the NWT," wrote the government. "More money will be available for the territorial government to invest in public priorities like health care, education, housing, roads, hospitals, schools and projects that improve the life in all NWT communities.… Devolution will usher in a new era of prosperity and independence for the NWT."

Yet, despite billions' worth of proven oil, natural gas and mineral deposits in various stages of development, the government may be overly optimistic about its financial promise. To better understand why, we need to examine the mineral and oil taxation regime in Canada, as well as the intergovernmental transfer system between the federal and territorial governments.


 
By TUBS [CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons

 

All that glitters is not gold

Oil and mining companies operating in the NWT currently make two types of tax payments, royalties and corporate income taxes. All royalty payments are made to the federal government except where land has been specially designated "reserve land" held in trust for aboriginal bands. The size of the royalty ranges from 5 to 14 percent of profits on mineral extraction, depending on the size of earnings. For oil and natural gas, it ranges from 1 to 5 percent of gross revenues, growing over time.

Under the devolution agreement, the GNWT will receive less than $100 million more per year from the royalty amount—less than $60 million per year in the near future as the Diavik and Ekati mines slow production—a modest windfall for a government with a $1.5 billion budget.

Oil, natural gas and minerals are also subject to corporate income taxes. A 15 percent corporate income tax is paid to the federal government while an 11.5 percent corporate income tax is paid to the GNWT. The same rates apply to oil, gas and minerals.

In theory, if the boom in oil, gas and mineral production goes as planned, the GNWT could collect significant corporate income tax windfalls. Alas, there are two reasons to doubt this will happen.

Leaks in the revenue pipeline

First, Canada has one of most generous mineral taxation incentive schemes in the world. In 2011, less than $100 million was collected in royalties on NWT exports worth over $2 billion (exact figures are unavailable).

Second, even if the GNWT does collect significant corporate income tax revenue, there is another reason the territory would not benefit fully from the windfall. Under the Territorial Financing Formula (TFF), the formula that determines the annual unconditional transfer from the Government of Canada to the GNWT, for each dollar the territory raises itself in taxes, approximately 70 cents are removed from the federal transfer. In other words, even if corporate income taxes rose significantly, much of the revenue would be clawed back.

An argument can be made that the GNWT might benefit financially from a mining or oil boom through other channels. A major influx of oil field or mine workers could boost personal income and property tax collection, for instance. More money would also be transferred from the federal government for each new resident under the Territorial Financing Formula. However increases in these sources of revenue may also be marginal since only about half of miners currently working in the NWT officially reside in the territory, a trend that is likely to continue.

In most countries the largest benefits from natural resource extraction are the fiscal benefits from royalties and taxes, even at the local level. Unless the territory introduces new royalties or taxes, the revenue sharing scheme between the NWT and the federal government is renegotiated, or the Canadian government closes some of its tax loopholes, the NWT may be disappointed by the paltry fiscal benefits the coming oil and mining boom will bring.

Andrew Bauer is an economic analyst at NRGI. In his second blog post, he shares what the NWT has learned from resource revenue management of other countries and details NRGI's work to help the territory transform its mineral wealth into well-being for citizens.

Related content

May 2015 Letter from the President

14 May 2015

A 2017 Year-End Message from NRGI President and CEO Daniel Kaufmann

Daniel Kaufmann
14 December 2017

At International Anti-Corruption Conference, Calls for Sustained—and Heightened—Vigilance

Max George-Wagner
16 December 2016

Natural Resource Charter Benchmarking Framework: 170 Crucial Questions for Resource-Rich Countries

Robert PitmanDavid Manley
17 October 2016

Subnational Revenue Sharing in the DRC after Découpage: Four Recommendations for Better Governance

24 April 2017
Rebecca IwerksKaisa Toroskainen
Helping people to realize the benefits of their countries’ endowments of oil, gas and minerals.
Follow on Facebook Follow on Twitter Subscribe to Updates
  • Topics
    Beneficial ownership
    Civic space
    Commodity prices
    Contract transparency and monitoring
    Coronavirus
    Corruption
    Economic diversification
    Energy transition
    Gender
    Global initiatives
    Legislation and regulation
    Licensing and negotiation
    Mandatory payment disclosure
    Measurement of environmental and social impacts
    Measurement of governance
    Open data
    Revenue management
    Revenue sharing
    Sovereign wealth funds
    State-owned enterprises
    Subnational governance
    Tax policy and revenue collection
  • Approach
    • Stakeholders
    • Natural Resource Charter
    • Regional knowledge hubs
  • Priority
    Countries
    • Colombia
    • Dem. Rep. of Congo
    • Ghana
    • Guinea
    • Mexico
    • Mongolia
    • Nigeria
    • Peru
    • Senegal
    • Tanzania
    • Tunisia
    • Uganda
  • Learning
    • Training
    • Primers
  • Analysis & Tools
    • Publications
    • Tools
    • Economic models
  • About Us
    • What we do
    • NRGI impact
    • Board of Directors
    • Emeritus Board Members
    • Advisory Council
    • Leadership team
    • Experts and staff
    • Careers and opportunities
    • Grant-making
    • Financials
    • Privacy policy
    • Contact us
  • News
  • Blog
  • Events
  • Search