It was a rainy May afternoon when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau strolled across the stage in Yankee Stadium to headline New York University’s 2018 Commencement. Besides introducing Trudeau, the university lauded the Canadian leader for his commitment to “fostering strength out of Canada’s rich diversity, fighting climate change, and achieving reconciliation with indigenous peoples.” Cheers erupted as Trudeau launched into his speech that put identity politics and sociopolitical polarization on the firing line. In the hometown of President Donald Trump, Trudeau’s words of inclusiveness, compromise, and positivity reverberated around the famous American landmark.
Trudeau is no stranger to championing a positive brand in an otherwise dreary political landscape. In the 2015 Canadian elections, Trudeau used the same tactic to form a Liberal Party government for the first time in nearly 10 years. “The leadership we need most today and in the years to come is leadership that brings people together,” he declared, repeating the familiar sentiment to the graduates in New York. “This is the antithesis of the polarization, the aggressive nationalism, the identity politics that have grown so common of late.” However, the eagerness with which Trudeau aligns himself with these values is surprising, given that nearly three years into his term, he has largely failed to accomplish his goal to unite his country on common ground. In fact, his approach has had the opposite effect by dividing Canadians, which leaves the country susceptible to the sociopolitical polarization that Trudeau criticizes.
Tribal Hypocrisy
Trudeau is right to condemn the divisive effects of identity politics. Canada has embraced multiculturalism and has a long history of immigration, so putting identity at the forefront of political discussion would make unity towards a common goal extremely difficult. Trudeau recognizes that cross-cultural cooperation is essential to combat the major problems facing Canada today, such as economic inequality and climate change, and also acknowledges the risks of failing to unite. This is a progressive start to moving away from such dangerous political practices.
Unfortunately, no matter how much Trudeau virtue-signals his condemnation of these tribal divisions, it is impossible to overlook his own perpetuation of them. Tim Powers, Vice-Chairman of Summa Strategies, one of Canada’s leading government relations firms, pointed out the hypocrisy in Trudeau’s politics in an interview with the HPR. “It’s unfortunate because he talks about not being divisive, but he’s totally engaged in [identity politics] … he just believes the identity he’s speaking to is the better one.” He offers a rather Canadian metaphor to summarize the situation: “[Trudeau] is on the ice and skating around, hoping to score some goals.” Those goals Trudeau is hoping to score are mainly with women and the LGBTQ community, but he often achieves these at the expense of alienating other minority groups.
While Trudeau has received praise for his support for female reproductive rights, he has also elicited controversy. Although abortion is legal in Canada at all stages of pregnancy and the majority of Canadians support this stance, the topic took center stage when Trudeau established a policy that limits federal grant recipients to pro-abortion groups only. The policy requires groups requesting funding through Canada Summer Jobs to attest that their “core mandate” upholds fundamental rights, including “reproductive rights.” Though the intention was to prevent anti-abortion campaign groups from securing federal funds, the amendment affected all faith-based groups with traditional beliefs regardless of their mission, invoking outrage and criticism in response. Trudeau’s move verges on religious discrimination, dividing Canadians and leaving religious groups isolated and more entrenched in their beliefs.
Trudeau’s policies have prompted shifts for other groups as well. Trudeau has committed himself to gender equality and received much attention when he announced his gender-equal cabinet in 2015. His 2018 budget focused on female advancement in the workplace, including efforts to close the wage gap and encourage new mothers to return to work after parental leave. Though these are worthwhile measures and have likely helped to retain female support for Trudeau’s government, the focus on female advancement stifles a prosperity narrative for the other half of the population.
Weekly Nanos Research polls reveal that Trudeau has been losing male support since his election. “Generally there is support for [Trudeau’s] progressive agenda amongst males, but they do think, how much does the prime minister need to dwell on the issue?” executive chairman of Nanos Research, Nik Nanos, told the HPR. He added, “there’s a tacit assumption that they are not a priority.” Nanos is outlining the start of the dangerous polarizing trend already witnessed in the United States as a result of identity politics, one that Trudeau hypocritically denounces.
While there is room to focus on female growth, Trudeau should be mindful not to overreach and introduce contempt into Canadian politics. Nanos explains the implications of a lack of prosperity narrative: “Economic anxiety is high right now. Whenever people feel anxiety in their lives it sows the seed for populist movements.” Although Trudeau’s staunch support for equal opportunity for women is noteworthy, focusing so heavily on benefitting one group will inevitably alienate the neglected one.
Taking the Bait
Canada is not immune to the right-wing populist movements that have gained traction in other Western countries in recent years. This much was evident when Conservative Member of Parliament Maxime Bernier, who narrowly lost the Party leadership in 2017, accused Prime Minister Trudeau of encouraging “extreme multiculturalism” over Twitter in August. The Quebec member of Parliament’s series of tweets criticized Trudeau’s pro-diversity stance and the increased immigrant flow supported by the Trudeau government. Following backlash from his own party, Bernier announced his intention to branch off and create his own right-wing federal party.
Though it is difficult to predict how much support this new party will receive before the next election, Trudeau creates an environment for movements like Bernier’s to gain traction. Bernier criticizes the Conservatives for following Trudeau’s lead in his approach to inclusivity, describing the Conservative Party as “too intellectually and morally corrupt to be reformed,” and citing its strategy to “play identity politics, … just like the Liberals.” This message will appeal to those who feel that Trudeau, and the Conservatives following suit, have excluded them from the national focus. In promoting certain groups, Trudeau will inevitably leave others feeling overlooked and vulnerable to movements like Bernier’s.
The Pipeline Paradox
This feeling of being overlooked can be seen in Trudeau’s effort to resolve one of Canada’s biggest challenges: the energy-environment problem. The Alberta oil sands have long been an issue of contention in Canadian politics. Recently, environmental and indigenous rights activists celebrated when Texas-based oil company Kinder Morgan announced that it would halt investment in its controversial Trans Mountain expansion project due to resistance from protestors and the British Columbia provincial government. The project was to increase oil output threefold for U.S. import by expanding on an existing pipeline through largely indigenous territories in Alberta and British Columbia. Many were shocked when Justin Trudeau pledged $4.5 billion of federal funding to purchase and complete the project, as the move seemed to fly in the face of Trudeau’s progressive environmental promises.
While Trudeau had calculated a balance of energy investment and environmental regulation aimed at appeasing groups on both sides, the failure of the pipeline destroyed such balance. In 2016, when Trudeau first approved the pipeline, he paired the policy with the introduction of a nationwide carbon pricing strategy scheduled to come into effect this year. It was Trudeau’s political crown jewel in his common ground-oriented politics: “mitigating” climate change while growing the energy industry in Alberta. When this was jeopardized, Trudeau had to act fast to save face by purchasing the pipeline. He branded the purchase as a “com[ing] together in common purpose,” and continues to push his agenda through renewed outrage.
While Trudeau’s initial climate plan to limit carbon emissions was historic, it is an incomplete picture. “[Trudeau] is living in a constant state of cognitive dissonance,” leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament Elizabeth May explained to the HPR. “[His policies] are a perversion of the principle that the economy and the environment go hand-in-hand. Of course they [do], but when your investments for the economy are consistent with a low-carbon or zero-carbon economy, you can’t build pipelines and claim you’re doing something for the environment.” While Trudeau tries to justify approving the pipeline as a necessary political path to put through his Liberal carbon tax, May is right that the former renders the latter useless.
Not only does Trudeau’s approach lose on environmental protectionism, it has also been extremely divisive, contrary to the vision he has promoted. Tensions over competing priorities between British Columbia and Alberta have only escalated, with Alberta threatening just short of a trade war between the provinces if British Columbia’s government continues to resist cooperation. Whereas British Columbia is concerned about the risk the pipeline poses to its fragile marine environment, Alberta is focused on the large economic benefit the pipeline is said to deliver. The contrasting priorities of these neighboring provinces will only continue to divide as the pipeline fails to diversify Alberta’s already oil-dependent economy and instead drives oil-sands production higher. Trudeau’s solution fails in working towards both short- and long-term national unity for which he strives.
These fractures do not exist just along provincial boundaries. Since the pipeline’s approval, environmental activists have been protesting, and several indigenous communities have taken their land rights issues to court. The federal government is eager to paper over these differences by arguing that the project is in the “national interest,” leaving many groups wondering how their priorities align with the nation’s. Though Trudeau is attempting to strike a balance between competing interests on this issue, he has instead excluded groups from the national narrative and driven a wedge further between different interest groups.
The Trump Effect
Though it might come as a surprise, one of Trudeau’s greatest assets in the past few years has been Donald Trump. “Regardless of what Canadians think of [Trudeau’s] skill or history or experience, when he’s put next to the president, he comes out as the more favourable leader,” said Powers. “Canadians are with Trudeau on this, regardless of political stripe.” Trudeau has and will continue to take advantage of the opportunity, as he did at NYU, by peddling his brand message to contrast Trump’s more negative and divisive rhetoric. Ironically, the “aggressive nationalism” Trudeau criticizes has largely accomplished his goal of uniting his country.
With free trade negotiations scheduled to continue this fall and the legalization of marijuana scheduled for October, Trudeau’s work this year is cut out for him. Despite his efforts, the prime minister might find himself with nothing to show for come the 2019 election. Inclusivity is an admirable goal, but a difficult balance to strike in practice. As the election year approaches, campaigns will prey on divisiveness and Trudeau might be surprised to find just how alienating his efforts have been.
Image credit: Joint Base Andrews/Senior Airman Joshua R. M. Dewberry