Article content continued

Neither is it like the Mulroney government’s “investment” in the Hibernia megaproject, in which Ottawa assumed an economic risk that was clearly better left to private capital.

Rather, the risks in the present case are almost entirely political, the product of jurisdictional squabbles and opponents who feel themselves morally exempt from obedience to the rule of law and other norms of democratic conduct. To accept as fact the increasingly widespread perception that pipelines are “too big to succeed” would be enormously damaging to the country’s prospects, not only in the immediate sense that Alberta’s oil would be prevented from reaching overseas markets, but in the longer term reputation of Canada as a place to invest and do business.

That it would also put at risk such minor matters as national unity and the governability of the country adds to the sense that this is a special case, justifying interventions that would otherwise be out of bounds.

Is buying a pipeline ordinarily the highest and best use of public funds? No. Is the government at most times the best choice to build one? Of course not. But in the extraordinary circumstances in which we now find ourselves, it may be the only course left.

Still, this is a solution to a problem largely of the Liberals’ own making. Had they not been so cavalier about delegitimizing lawful means of deciding these questions — and legitimizing extra-legal means — in the past, they might not be facing quite such a hornet’s nest of opposition now. Had they not allowed, by commission or omission, the available pipeline options to dwindle to one, and had they not been so quick to advertise their readiness to pay to get this one built, they would not be in such a weak bargaining position. Had they been more willing to risk political capital in defence of federal jurisdiction and the rule of law, they might not have had to put financial capital at risk.