Skip to main content

Perhaps Prime Minister Justin Trudeau should have gone to Barbados after all. At least then he could’ve gotten fresh photo ops, a few more promises of support for Canada’s vain quest for a UN Security Council seat and maybe even a tan.

But the Prime Minister decided to cancel his trip at the last minute, belatedly recognizing matters of urgent concern here in Canada.

By Sunday night, when the Prime Minister’s Office finally announced its change in itinerary, the notion of Mr. Trudeau continuing to solicit himself abroad while the crisis over the Coastal GasLink pipeline festered at home had become patently ridiculous. If Canada didn’t need a leader when passenger trains were shut down, when farmers were facing backlogs, when protesters were blocking legislatures, when CN Rail was handing out temporary layoff notices, when food and fuel supply chains were being disrupted, when injunctions were being ignored and when there was no discernible path to resolution – well, then Canada didn’t need a leader at all.

Story continues below advertisement

So Mr. Trudeau correctly, if tardily, recognized Caribbean leaders would have to make do with Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, and committed himself to stand in the House of Commons Tuesday, ostensibly to offer the country some much-needed direction.

Instead, the Prime Minister presented a bit of everything, and nothing in particular. To those affected by the blockades, Mr. Trudeau offered empathy: “I know that you are going through difficult times.”

To those concerned about the impotence of court orders, he offered vague assurances: “Our government’s priority is to resolve this situation peacefully, but also to protect rule of law in our country.” To Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who oppose the pipeline, he suggested a meeting: “I hope that the offer will be accepted.” And to … himself? He offered censure: “It is unacceptable that Indigenous peoples are still denied rights and lands.”

The Prime Minister’s overall message was that the way forward is through dialogue and listening, although he didn’t specify to whom the government would be listening – the First Nations bands who support the pipeline or the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who do not – and why this exercise in listening and dialogue would be markedly different from earlier consultations.

Indeed, as noted in the interlocutory injunction issued by the B.C. Supreme Court in January, there is no dispute from either party that Coastal GasLink consulted for years with both elected chiefs and council and Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs. The only dispute is whether the province has the authority to grant permits for construction on Wet’suwet’en territory, which, according to the hereditary chiefs, it does not. That is a fundamental issue that won’t be resolved with a few meetings with federal ministers.

To be sure, Mr. Trudeau is in an impossible situation. He can enforce the law and instruct the RCMP to clear the railway blockades – likely through force, for which terrible and bloody precedents were set during the Oka crisis of 1990, Ipperwash in 1995 and Caledonia in 2006. Or he can not enforce the law, which sets a different type of problematic precedent (though not an entirely novel one, following the Idle No More protests of 2013), and hope that a peaceful resolution can somehow be reached.

Mr. Trudeau made clear his government intends to follow the latter path, but in doing so, he has left a number of important questions unanswered: Will the government allow the blockades to stand indefinitely? What is the plan if supplies start to run low in areas? What measures will be taken if public opinion turns more significantly on blockades and vigilantes try to dismantle them themselves? And perhaps most fundamentally: When and to what extent does a court ruling matter in Canada?

Story continues below advertisement

The path forward, already, has hit a few snags. Mr. Trudeau excluded Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer from a meeting of party leaders Tuesday in a needlessly provocative and distracting exercise of partisanship. And some Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs have made meetings with federal ministers conditional on the removal of the RCMP from Wet’suwet’en land, as well as the pulling of Coastal GasLink permits.

No doubt the road to a resolution will get even more complicated. This is a conflict that pits traditional Indigenous governing structures against colonial band councils, raises questions about the duty to consult in the absence of an outright veto and probes what it means to be a rule-of-law country when those rules and laws are openly flouted.

It’s the type of conflict for which clear, authoritative, practical leadership is desperately needed, although Mr. Trudeau, so far, has offered little more than vague assurances. Perhaps he should have taken that trip instead.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau emerged from a meeting with members of his cabinet on Monday speaking of his desire to find a quick and peaceful resolution to anti-pipeline protests that have disrupted rail service in Canada. The Canadian Press

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies