Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to come back to Mr. Mintz and Mr. Cross.
We are hearing, of course, some very valid stories of supports from the federal government that have worked, and then we have Trans Mountain. Trans Mountain is an example, I think, of what is a pretty egregious form of support for something that simply doesn't make any business sense because of the threats to the fisheries and to tourism in British Columbia.
There's an economic downside, of course. On the issue of climate change, there's a huge environmental downside. Then we have the escalating construction costs. What's interesting is that when you follow public opinion, initially, I think, around Trans Mountain, there was more support than not, but since the escalating construction costs have come to public attention, more recent polls have shown that most Canadians—not just in British Columbia, but right across the country—are now opposed to Trans Mountain.
My initial question relates to the public perception of corporate subsidies being given without real justification—such as with Loblaws—or forgiving a loan when a company is shutting its plant down and throwing workers out of work. Is there a problem when the government indiscriminately applies large amounts of public funds that come from taxpayers to these kinds of projects—a project like Trans Mountain, which will never make money, is losing money now, and doesn't have a business case?
I'll start with you, Mr. Cross.
