Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Fred Hahn writes about the importance of government investment in times of crisis to make up for what people can't afford - or are understandably scared - to spend. Erica Natividad reports on the millions of Canadians who have no fallback plan if federal relief funding doesn't get renewed - though it's of course worth remembering that many in need either weren't included in the first place, or saw any benefits clawed back by self-serving provincial governments. Trevin Stratten and Robert Asselin note that we should want to be strategic in deciding how to use the resources we have available to tide people over and to set ourselves up for the future. And Brendan Kennedy reports on an appeal by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce to see Ontario's basic income project revived by the federal government.

- Meanwhile, Ryan Malosh discusses the updated (if seemingly obvious) research showing that we can't treat specific lengths of time or distances as a magic bullet in limiting the spread of COVID-19. Justine Coleman reports on Anthony Fauci's recognition that the U.S. is likely over a year away from anything resembling the previous normal. And the Alberta NDP has offered its proposals to try to avert a similar uncontrolled outbreak - though there's reason for concern that all of the prairie provinces may be past the point of avoiding a catastrophic fall wave.

- CBC News reports on the lack of any realistic prospect of another oil drilling boom - no matter how much we subsidize fossil fuels either by building pipelines or undermining environmental protections. And Carl Meyer discusses the contrast between a Lib government punting on effective methane rules, and the people pushing for immediate action to limit the greenhouse gas with the most immediate effect on our climate.

- Finally, Kelly Crowe is rightly dubious of the CBC's plan to put a price on its reputation through a sponsored content division.

Only in it for themselves

Now might be a great time for a reminder as to what corporate Canada has actually done in the face of economic weakness:

Although we have a Conservative government, low deficits and tax cuts, corporations are hoarding cash rather than investing in Canada. So, maybe the Obama administration is not to blame for corporations behaving the same way in the US.

Four months ago, I suggested that low capacity utilization explains sluggish investment. If corporations already have a lot of idle capacity, why invest in adding more capacity? A week ago, Paul Krugman presented the same interpretation for the US.

Corporate tax cuts will be especially ineffective at promoting investment given the overhang of excess capacity. As I argued, it would be better for the government to retain the money and invest it directly.

Which, needless to say, says a lot about what the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is really after in its ad campaign to try to lock in even more corporate tax cuts. Never mind the well-being of the economy, it's all about handing big businesses more cash to hoard - and there's no reason at all why the country at large should agree with that set of priorities.

On social irresponsibility

Embassy reports that there's some talk of trying to include references to corporate social responsibility in new trade agreements. But it appears all too obvious that the actual corporations involved have no interest in such agreements including anything but a weapon to wield against governments:

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is leading the business community in the consultations, has made a submission to the government, said the chamber's international policy analyst, Brian Zeiler-Kligman...

"We would support a reference being made to voluntary corporate initiatives in free trade agreements, provided that the reference is directed to [the two countries] and not to companies," it adds. "The reference should remind the parties of their role in promoting and facilitating, but certainly not mandating, voluntary corporate initiatives."...

The letter goes on to state that any reference should be carefully crafted to prevent foreign governments from using it to bilk money from a Canadian company, and it should appear in the preamble to reflect that it is voluntary and non-binding.

Mr. Zeiler-Kligman said the chamber does not generally support the idea of including corporate social responsibility in free trade agreements.

The article notes other difficulties in trying to include as nebulous a principle as corporate social responsibility within a trade deal. And it's worth pointing out how far removed even the principle of corporate responsibility would be from any binding agreement on social or environmental issues to parallel the seemingly unquestioned obligation to facilitate trade.

But Canada's business representatives apparently aren't willing to countenance even as small a step as recognizing corporate responsibility as a matter of substance. Instead, they're fighting tooth and nail against any portion of an agreement which could possibly suggest that any interest other than trade could matter, or that anybody besides the governments involved should take on any obligations. And that should speak volumes about which interests are met and which ones are entirely ignored as the current unbalanced form of agreement spreads.