William Watson: Trudeau’s ‘just watch me’ ties his political fate to Trans Mountain

When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was recently asked how far the government would go to assert federal authority over the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, he had a wonderful opportunity to say: “Just watch me.”

That was the answer his father the former prime minister Pierre Trudeau gave in 1970 when asked how far he’d go to defend Canadian society against FLQ kidnappers in the October Crisis. Unfortunately, Sunday’s question at the press conference, following Trudeau’s meeting with Rachel Notley and John Horgan, the Alberta and British Columbia premiers respectively, was an add-on to a longer one about the state of financial negotiations with Kinder Morgan and so the PM was able to ignore it.

Memo to the press: If you want questions to have impact and be undodge-able, make them short and to the point and ask just one at a time. 

In effect, however, “Just watch me” is what Trudeau said. What kind of legislation would he be bringing forward to confirm federal jurisdiction over the pipeline? The legislation is being written “as we speak” and will be introduced in due course (though why legislation is necessary if jurisdiction is as clear as everyone says it is no journalist asked). How much will the government spend to allay Kinder Morgan’s concerns about the uncertainty now beclouding the project? Those negotiations are taking place in Ottawa, Calgary, Houston and New York and when an agreement is reached the press will be the first to know. In other words, all will become clear in good time: Just watch me. 

I wrote last week that Trudeau had missed his Margaret Thatcher moment on the pipeline. Well, ready the handbag: maybe he hasn’t. His repeated, unqualified declaration on the weekend that the pipeline will be built was unambiguous. If he eventually backs down, the short and sweet video clips it generated will be first up in opposition ads focusing on the government’s broken election promises. Trudeau has to know — his focus groups must tell him — he has developed a credibility problem regarding his promises. To be so unequivocal in promising that the pipeline will be built is a political risk with consequences he must surely understand.

He also presumably understands the political precedent. The country’s first experience with Trudeaumania in 1968 was more startling, historic and intense than its loud echo in 2015 but, even so, his father won his second election, in 1972, by only two seats, 109-107. And that was despite the fact — or maybe because of it — that Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield was widely regarded as uninspiring, as is today’s Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. Disappointment at unfulfilled high expectations, albeit impossibly high expectations, was the main driver of Pierre Trudeau’s diminished seat count in 1972, as it may well be of Justin Trudeau’s in 2019.  

The PM’s unequivocal declaration that the pipeline will be built also gives great advantage to Kinder Morgan, his counterparty in the current negotiations. A prime minister has just identified completion of your investment project as being in the national interest and in so doing has also placed it in his very strong political interest. Who’s over a barrel now? And how many billions do you suppose that barrel is worth? If I were advising Kinder Morgan, I’d say “Amp up the reluctance.” 

The national interest, allied with political self-interest, is making for very strange bedfellows. On Sunday, we saw a federal prime minister in policy lockstep with a premier of Alberta, asserting federal supremacy over a petroleum project. Pierre Trudeau would have been astonished. Marc Lalonde, father of the National Energy Policy, may also well have been. The 2018 version of the famous 1980s bumper sticker will be: “Let the B.C. bastards drink warm, white wine in the dark.” 

The showdown with B.C. isn’t over yet, however. Premier Horgan indicated that if an upcoming court case goes against it, B.C. would abide by the result. Ottawa presumably will, too, if the decision goes the other way. “I would have built the pipeline but the court wouldn’t let me” may be a legitimate argument for Trudeau but, in view of those unequivocal video clips, probably not a persuasive one. 

If the courts say the pipeline is good to go, the next confrontation will be a “Sister Souljah” moment for all three leftish politicians. Sister Souljah was the rap singer who after the Los Angeles riots of 1992 recommended a week of killing white people. Then presidential candidate Bill Clinton condemned her statement and, in so doing, established his centrist cred.

If pipeline construction does begin, acts of civil disobedience, which may be widespread and certainly will be widely YouTubed, will come mainly from the left. Notley, Horgan and Trudeau will have to stand up to their ideological allies. That will be very painful for them but very good for the country.