Last week, the University of Alberta-based Parkland Institute was awarded $2.5 million in federal funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), for a project entitled “Mapping the Power of the Carbon-Extractive Corporate Resources Sector.”

Just in case the title isn’t clear enough, Parkland Institute director Trevor Harrison helpfully explained that “Albertans are all too familiar with the influence that the fossil fuel industry exerts over the political process in Alberta and beyond.” Cue the sinister music. (Alberta Oil Sands Photo: Gord McKenna/Flickr)

Yet Parkland isn’t embarking on this corporate onion-peeling exercise all on their own. In addition to several other universities, they’ve got partners in the form of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) a (“progressive” think-tank) and Unifor (a union). The CCPA is even kicking in some of their own cash for the study.

Congratulations! You, the taxpayer, are now helping bankroll a corporate witch hunt against Canada’s oil industry. But it’s even worse for the approximately 720,000 Canadian taxpayers directly employed by the oil industry who will see some of their hard-earned tax dollars siphoned off to fund a project specifically designed to attack their employers.

Now to be clear, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with any organization studying anything it wants to – provided they pay for if themselves. If groups like the CCPA and Unifor want to study corporate influence on public discourse or study why oil companies are dumb jerks or study why anyone who has ever used an oil-derived product is a duck-murdering heathen, they’re welcome to do so with their own money. (Well, kind of their “own” money: Unifor is already entitled to seize tax-deductible dues from all their members, while the CCPA is a registered charity and can give their donors a taxpayer-subsidized tax credit.)

There’s a problem, however, when these groups partner with publicly-funded institutions in order to get additional tax dollars to pay for their own advocacy. The CCPA and Unifor are private organizations who have their own political agenda, and all taxpayers are now being forced to pay for this “research” whether or not they agree with it.

Some might claim this kind of study is in the public interest. And yet imagine the reaction if tax dollars were instead announced for a joint oil company-university study that would pull the curtain back on all the layers of foreign funding received by some Canadian environmental groups and name and shame key anti-development activists. No prizes for guessing how the CCPA and Unifor would feel about that.

SSHRC funding is intended to go to towards academic research. It is a waste of scarce public dollars to subsidize the advocacy of one set of interests when those interests can, and often do, undertake that advocacy on their own. Unfortunately, SSHRC also has a spotty track record when picking grant recipients. In 2007, they granted $17,500 to a University of Alberta researcher to study casual sex among young adults living in Jasper, Alberta. In 2009, another $17,500 was given out to a Memorial University researcher to study identity creation in the World of Warcraft video game. And in 2012, $20,000 was given to a University of British Columbia researcher to analyze fan mail sent to porn star Nina Hartley.

Much like some SSHRC grants, there’s nothing “academic” about this project. It’s hard to see what it will even uncover, other than to provide more names for anti-oil activists to trash in the public sphere. The proponents of this study make no effort to hide their anti-development animus; the very parameters of the project are premised on all kinds of implicit assumptions. So what precisely is this project for, other than attempt to invade the privacy of individuals who work in an industry they don’t like, and promulgate conspiracy theories that – surprise – perfectly fit the narrative of groups like the CCPA and Unifor?

If anti-oil activists want to spend their time and money on these kinds of endeavours, they’re welcome to. But taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to foot the bill.