Flight: Stories of Canadian Aviation, Volume 1, contains an introduction and 34 short stories written by or about aviation enthusiasts

The hidden danger of government becoming overly invested in its own rhetoric is that it begins to forget decisions have to be made by weighing pros and cons and assessing practical needs.

This is the concern with the Saskatchewan Party government’s announcement of a new pipeline evaluation committee — not because the idea Premier Scott Moe proposed Wednesday is all that outlandish, but because it suspiciously seems to be driven more by philosophical rhetoric than a wise assessment of practical need.

Let’s be clear that there is a practical need for pipelines — something we were again sadly reminded of with the second derailment of rail oil tankers near Guernsey in a month. Clearly, we need alternatives to the dangers of oil transport by rail, which also ties up capacity to move other commodities like grain and potash.

Also, it’s been practical need that’s driven the other good news announcement this week for the Sask. Party government and the rest of us — Tuesday’s federal court decision on the Transmountain Pipeline that paves the way for a 1,150-kilometre project that could nearly triple the current 300,000 barrel a day capacity.

While this has never been Saskatchewan’s fight — it’s Alberta oil flowing through Transmountain — it’s surely an important symbolic victory in Moe’s “we need pipelines” fight. This need is what’s behind Wednesday’s appointment of cabinet’s Pipeline Projects Assessment Committee (PPAC).

It’s all pretty reasonable ... until you look at today’s realities, what the Sask. Party has said about pipelines and what it’s examining.

Let’s start with the present-day reality of a doubling of public debt to more than $21 billion since Sask. Party took office in 2007 as it continues to struggle to meet infrastructure needs. Given other massive taxpayer demands, is a massive pipeline investment — as will be contemplated by this cabinet committee — Saskatchewan’s most pressing need?

It should be the private sector/oil industry taking the lead on paying for the building of a pipeline, but that’s just my opinion. Consider Scott Moe’s assessment on Facebook on May

29, 2018, that “billions of taxpayers’ dollars are on the line” when the federal Liberal government announced its purchase of Transmountain:

“Today’s announcement that the Trudeau government is buying the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion leaves many unanswered questions: how much more are taxpayers on the hook for construction costs? (Remember that Kinder Morgan was prepared to build this pipeline at no cost to taxpayers),” Moe wrote.

“What signal does this send to private investors about future projects when it now appears that the only way to get an approved pipeline project built is to have the government own it?”

The latter remains an especially good question, with the oil sector seemingly still under siege by changing demands for fossil fuels. As such, it is the responsibility of a provincial government — even one eager to increase oil production by 600,000 barrels a day by 2030 — to at least carefully assess what pipelines would give us the most bang for our bucks. Isn’t that what Moe demanded Prime Minister Justin Trudeau do in his Trans Mountain investment?

If Trans Mountain delays have taught us anything, it’s surely that the laws of the land require government to proceed wisely by ensuring that environmental assessments are thorough and that affected First Nations should be partners in such projects from the beginning. Surely, a government struggling with issues like getting the James Smith Cree Nation on board with the Fort a la Corne diamond mine sees lessons that can be learned.

Maybe cabinet’s PPAC committee will be governed by wisdom and objectivity, but the early signs aren’t promising.

Wednesday, Trade and Investment Minister Jeremy Harrison was talking up the need for an oil pipeline over the muskeg to Churchill, even though his concept has largely been rejected. Setting aside the problems, would such a costly pipeline be the best route to get Saskatchewan oil to market?

Or are we getting a glimpse of cabinet committee work driven less by practical needs and more by political rhetoric?