Article content continued

A third rationale is that Canada has a long history of supporting private sector projects such as the auto industry and now it is Alberta’s turn. But government support is normally restricted to instances where this is a significant net benefit to Canada that would not be achieved without the support.

The Trans Mountain pipeline does not meet this test. It adversely impacts Canada’s business climate by using taxpayer funds to give one pipeline proposal an advantage over its Canadian competitors and the alleged benefit would occur without government support by the building of alternative pipelines without taxpayer subsidies.

Another defence is that buying Trans Mountain does not risk taxpayer funds. This assertion ignores the fact that Kinder Morgan wanted out because of the legal and the economic risks of rising costs (35 per cent over budget with forecasts of further overruns), declining demand for new pipelines and increased competition from other pipelines.

A final rationale is that building the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion is necessary to garner support in the oil sector to achieve Canada’s climate change commitments. But the federal government still has not published a plan that shows how we will meet our Paris commitments to reduce emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 and using taxpayer funds to subsidize the expansion of the fossil fuel industry is hardly the way to get there.

The decision also does not appear to meet the public opinion test. While public opinion can be fickle, recent polls show a majority oppose taxpayer support for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.