13 An Evaluation of Justin Trudeau’s Reconciliation Policies: A Case Study Analysis of the Wet’suwet’en Nation and Coastal Gaslink Pipeline Conflict

Introduction

The relationship between the State and Indigenous peoples has been fraught with challenges and historical injustices throughout Canada’s history. The struggle for recognition, respect, and reconciliation is ongoing, and the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples has become a central focus for many politicians and policy-makers. Since Justin Trudeau became Canada’s twenty-third prime minister in 2015, he has repeatedly promised to make reconciliation with Indigenous communities a top priority for his government, making it a cornerstone of his policy agenda.^[1] Trudeau’s administration has introduced several policy initiatives to address the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and, at the same time, uphold the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).^[2] However, his attempts to right the historical wrongs of Canada’s colonial past have been put to the test recently, particularly in the context of the conflict between the Wet’suwet’en Nation and Coastal Gaslink Pipeline Limited over the construction of a pipeline that will deliver natural gas to the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, British Columbia. This paper aims to evaluate Trudeau’s reconciliation efforts by closely examining, as a case study, the federal government’s response to the Coastal Gaslink pipeline dispute. It will provide insight into the broader implications of Trudeau’s reconciliation policies and the struggles Canada has been facing in its pursuit of genuine reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The paper is divided into three sections: the first provides an overview of Trudeau’s leadership and reconciliation policies, which gives background on the government’s efforts to foster a better relationship with Indigenous communities in Canada; the second provides a thorough account of the Wet’suwet’en Nation and the conflict with Coastal Gaslink over the pipeline running through their traditional territory, including an examination of the historical, cultural and legal aspects of the dispute; and the final section provides an analysis of Trudeau’s policies, actions, language, and rhetoric in addressing the conflict, highlighting both the successes and shortcomings of his approach.

Overview of Trudeau’s Leadership

As Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau has become well-known for his charismatic personality and dedication to inclusiveness and diversity. He has introduced several significant policies and initiatives to promote social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic growth. However, he has also faced considerable criticism. Some critics have argued that his leadership is focused on superficial symbolism and rhetoric rather than implementing effective policies. He has been criticized for being too concerned about creating positive images and perceptions rather than taking concrete steps to address real issues. His leadership style has often involved attracting huge media attention through public appearances and speeches.^[3] Additionally, he has been found guilty of violating ethical principles, including the Conflict of Interest Act, on several occasions by accepting gifts and vacations from wealthy individuals and organizations.^[4] These challenges and controversies have raised concerns about Trudeau’s ability and credibility to serve as prime minister, and despite winning a huge majority government in 2015, his popularity has declined since then.^[5]

Trudeau’s Reconciliation Policies

Justin Trudeau has made significant efforts towards promoting reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. He has attempted to implement some of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and adhere to the principles of the UNDRIP as noted above.^[6] The Trudeau administration introduced Bill C-15 in 2020 to bring UNDRIP into line with Canadian law.^[7] Trudeau’s statement on the release of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) on 15 December 2015, demonstrated a deep sense of empathy and understanding of the pain of Indigenous peoples. In a statement in the House of Commons, Trudeau acknowledged that the residential school system is “one of the darkest chapters in Canadian history,” and he promised the government was dedicated to finding ways to “restore the trust lost so long ago” from the people affected by the system and society in general. By referencing his role as a father and a former teacher, he tried to connect with the emotional aspects of the residential school system’s impact. Representing the people of Canada, he acknowledged the responsibility of the government for the system and showed commitment to seek forgiveness as well as take concrete action to move towards reconciliation.^[8] In 2016, he established the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (MMIWG) to investigate the high rates of violence encountered by Indigenous women and girls.^[9] Trudeau’s government has also made considerable investments in Indigenous housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure to reduce the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians.^[10]

Despite such rhetoric, several critics doubt the government’s commitment to reconciliation since its actions have not always aligned with its statements. In 2021, the federal government, for instance, designated 30 September as a federal holiday to highlight the legacy of the residential schools.^[11] However, on the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation (as the day was officially known), Trudeau took his family on vacation in Tofino, British Columbia.^[12] His decision was heavily criticized by the public, especially after it was discovered that Trudeau had been invited twice to visit the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation in Kamloops, British Columbia.^[13] Although he admitted that the holiday was “a mistake” and he regretted not marking it more solemnly, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs described Trudeau’s action as “a slap in the face” to all the survivors of the residential schools.^[14] The holiday incident is not the only reason why Trudeau has been accused of engaging in tokenism and symbolic gestures, rather than enacting substantive policy changes. His government has been criticized for not making sufficient effort to address the long-standing issue of clean drinking water in Indigenous communities.^[15] Moreover, the TRC’s Calls to Action were released in 2015, but overall progress has been too slow, and many recommendations have not been fully addressed, leading to skepticism regarding the government’s commitment to reconciliation.^[16] Even the incorporation of Bill C-15 into Canadian law was condemned by some Indigenous peoples because while the bill seems like a positive move, it was not made legally binding on the government^[17]. Although the UNDRIP was integrated into Canadian law, the government still has the power to override the veto of Indigenous peoples through Free, Prior, and Informed consent requirements.^[18]  Let us turn now to the Wet’suwet’en Nation and the Coastal Gaslink Pipeline conflict to consider Trudeau’s handling of the matter.

Background of the Wet’suwet’en

The Wet’suwet’en Nation is located in the north-central interior of British Columbia. The name Wet’suwet’en means “People of the Wa Dzun Kwuh River,” which refers to what non-Indigenous people had called the Bulkley River.^[19] The Wet’suwet’en have lived in the region for many centuries and have maintained a strong bond with the land, relying on the seasonal resources offered by salmon and various land-based resources for hunting, gathering, and trading.^[20] Central to Wet’suwet’en culture are gifting and feasting practices and kungax, their oral history tradition. Despite facing numerous challenges, such as epidemics, forced relocation, and oppressive colonial policies, the Wet’suwet’en have persevered in maintaining their traditions and cultures.^[21]

The Wet’suwet’en Nation is governed and administered by two separate systems: the traditional governance led by hereditary chiefs and the colonial system created by the Indian Act and led by elected chiefs and councils. The traditional governance system predates colonization and is organized into five clans: Gilseyhu (Big Frog), Laksilyu (Small Frog), Gitdumden (Wolf/Bear), Laksamshu (Fireweed), and Tsayu (Beaver). Each house is headed by a hereditary chief and includes ceremonies, laws, and political and economic organizations.^[22] In contrast, the elected chief and council system, introduced by the Canadian government in the 19th century and administered under the Indian Act, was intended to replace and suppress traditional Indigenous law and governance. Under this system, the Wet’suwet’en are divided into six First Nations recognized by the Government of Canada: Witset First Nation, Skin Tyee Nation, the Nee Tahi Buhn Band, Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation (Burns Lake Band), the Wet’suwet’en First Nation, and Hagwilget Nation. Each Nation is administered by an elected chief and a band council.^[23] Although elected chiefs and councils are governed under the regulations set out in the Indian Act, they may not necessarily represent the entire Nation because these elected leaders are chosen only by community members with “Indian” status.^[24] Certain bands have adopted particular election codes to allow non-status Indians to vote. Still, individuals who do not qualify for Indian status under the Indian Act are generally ineligible to vote in band elections. Consequently, Indigenous individuals who do not obtain Indian status due to numerous legal challenges may not be considered official members of the band under the Indian Act.^[25]

Regarding Indigenous land rights, two geographical terms in the discussion are “reserves” and “traditional territories.” Indian Reserves, established under the Indian Act and now known as First Nations, are the exclusive territories for Indigenous peoples under government treaty and legislation.^[26] In the past, the Indian Act strictly mentioned that no “Indians” owned reserve lands, as the lands were owned by the Crown, and the Minister of Indian Affairs had the lawful authority over the activity on reserves. However, in 1969, the federal government issued a White Paper proposing (unsuccessfully) transferring such lands to Indigenous peoples. In other words, the bands led by the band councils and elected chiefs would not only have authority over the activity on their reserve lands but they would own the lands.^[27] However, reserve lands are only part of Indigenous traditional or even broader unceded territories. Traditional territories refer to the land that the First Nations have traditionally occupied and used for many generations, including for hunting, fathering, fishing, and cultural and spiritual sites outside the reserves.^[28] Under Wet’suwet’en law, the hereditary chiefs retain jurisdiction over 22,000 square kilometers of the nation as unceded territory.^[29] Regarding the rights over the lands, the Supreme Court of Canada in 1997 acknowledged the existence of the Aboriginal title of Wet’suwet’en Nation. ^[30]

The Wet’suwet’en people have a long history of resistance against colonization and the imposition of Canadian law on their territory. In 1899, the federal government proposed Treaty Eight with various First Nations in present-day Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories to legalize their access to the region’s natural resources and to facilitate economic development.^[31] Some First Nations groups agreed to sign the Treaty and to cede their rights to the land, except for reserve lands set aside for them, in exchange for annual payments, farming equipment, livestock, and access to education, healthcare, hunting, and fishing on their traditional territories.^[32] However, the Wet’suwet’en Nation, together with other First Nations, did not sign Treaty Eight.^[33] Therefore, the Wet’suwet’en Nation has never formally ceded their rights to the land to the Crown or the Government of Canada.

The Conflict between Coastal Gaslink and Wet’suwet’en Nation

The Wet’suwet’en Nation’s opposition to the Coastal Gaslink pipeline construction is rooted in their concern over the potential harm the pipeline might have on their land and the natural resources on which they depend. The pipeline, which runs through their unceded traditional territory, poses a significant environmental risk, including the potential for oil spills and the degradation of salmon habitats, which are essential for the Wet’suwet’en people’s subsistence and cultural practices.^[34]

The Coastal Gaslink Pipeline is a proposed project spanning 670 kilometers to transport natural gas from northeastern British Columbia to a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility in Kitimat’s port.^[35] The project aims to fulfill the growing demand for natural gas in Asia and support LNG production, which is considered a cleaner burning fuel than other fossil fuels.^[36] This pipeline is predicted to create about 10,000 jobs during construction and generate millions of dollars in tax revenue for local and provincial governments once completed.^[37] The construction began in 2019 and is expected to finish by 2023.^[38] However, the project has become a point of contention over Indigenous rights and sovereignty in Canada, aside from concerns about environmental issues.^[39] The Coastal Gaslink Pipeline project has divided the Wet’suwet’en Nation, whose traditional territory the pipeline runs through.^[40]

The conflict between the pipeline company and the Wet’suwet’en Nation arises from the different opinions and authorities between the two bodies governing the Wet’suwet’en Nation. The Coastal Gaslink has obtained benefit agreements with five out of six elected band councils, which are Witset First Nation, Skin Tyee Nation, the Nee Tahi Buhn Band, Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation (Burns Lake Band), and the Wet’suwet’en First Nation.^[41] Hagwilget Nation has not signed any agreements since the pipeline route does not go through their territory.^[42] However, eight of 13 hereditary chiefs have opposed the pipeline, and this group even signed an eviction letter to Coastal Gaslink in early January 2020, ordering company workers off the unceded territory of the Wet’suwet’en Nation.^[43] The Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs contend that the project is being built without their consent.^[44] They emphasized that Wet’suwet’en law predates colonization, and they have never signed treaties to cede their territories to the Canadian government.^[45]

Land defenders, led by hereditary chiefs, started blockading access to the pipeline’s construction sites in 2019.^[46] This action led to solidarity rallies across the country, with protestors blocking rail lines to #ShutDownCanada in support of the Wet’suwet’en Nation. ^[47] However, the B.C. Supreme Court granted Coastal Gaslink an injunction, calling for the removal of any obstructions on roads, bridges, or construction sites the company had been authorized to use.^[48] The issue has escalated since it involved the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), who have been accused of intimidating and harassing the members of the Wet’suwet’en Nation.^[49] The police have reportedly invaded village sites, used various tactics, including high beams and spotlights on residential buildings at night, and confiscated Indigenous people’s equipment and property.^[50] The Trudeau government defended the RCMP’s engagement, asserting that the B.C. Oil and Gas Commission had approved the Coastal Gaslink pipeline project and insisted the police were enforcing the court injunction to protect the workers in the construction sites.^[51]

Trudeau’s Approach to the Coastal Gaslink Conflict: Action and Policies

The Trudeau government has undertaken numerous actions to address the Coastal Gaslink crisis and engage with the Wet’suwet’en people and the hereditary chiefs. In January 2020, the Canadian government appointed Nathan Cullen, a former New Democrat Member of Parliament, as a liaison to engage with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs.^[52] This appointment aimed to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict, which had escalated due to widespread protests and blockades throughout Canada in support of the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposing the pipeline construction through their traditional territory. Cullen was responsible for gathering perspectives and advice from the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, and other affected Indigenous groups.^[53] In March 2020, a draft agreement was reached between the Canadian government and the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, addressing land rights and title issues. However, the agreement did not provide a solution to the problem, as it did not explicitly mention or prohibit the pipeline project.^[54]

In another effort, on 14 May 2020, the hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with British Columbia and Canada.^[55] This MOU acknowledged that the traditional system of governance, led by Wet’suwet’en Houses and hereditary chiefs, holds rights and titles over their traditional territory.^[56] This recognition emerged from the resilience of the Wet’suwet’en Houses over 23 years since the Supreme Court of Canada’s acknowledgment of Aboriginal title.^[57] Tsayu clan Chief Na’Moks described the MOU as “the goal of all hereditary chiefs.” However, the MOU did not resolve the conflict over the pipeline because, according to the MOU, the jurisdiction would be transferred over time, and until then, “there will be no impact on rights and interests pertaining to land.”^[58] Consequently, the MOU did not cease the construction of the Coastal Gaslink pipeline.

In addition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Canada also ratified the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1970, requiring the country to report to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD).^[59] In 2019, UNCERD intervened in the dispute over the Coastal Gaslink pipeline, when it issued its first letter, calling for the Canadian government to withdraw police and halt the construction of two disputed pipelines then underway in Canada, including the Coastal Gaslink pipeline in northern B.C., until obtaining free, prior, and informed consent from relevant Indigenous peoples.^[60] In 2020, UNCERD issued a second letter, reaffirming the requirement for Indigenous people’s consent before making decisions related to their rights. This letter was issued after the federal and B.C. governments agreed to good faith dialogue but implied that the pipeline construction would continue.^[61] On April 29, 2022, UNCERD addressed a third letter to Canada’s representative to the United Nations in Geneva, Leslie Norton, reiterating their 2019 decision and calling for both the federal and B.C. governments to cease construction on the pipeline and withdraw the police. The 2022 letter also required the Canadian government to report to the Committee on the measures taken regarding the issue. However, the government has not submitted the report.^[62]

Trudeau’s Speeches, Language, and Rhetoric in Addressing the Conflict

In his statements regarding the Coastal GasLink conflict and Indigenous issues, Justin Trudeau constantly emphasized the importance of dialogue, collaboration, and working together to resolve the crisis. Trudeau frequently used words such as “partnership,” “engage,” “work together,” and “collaboration” to highlight the need for open dialogue and cooperation between the government and Indigenous communities. This approach demonstrated that the government was willing to participate in the reconciliation process and dedicated to resolving the dispute through communication. In a speech in the House of Commons, Trudeau asserted that the government had always listened. ^[63] Still, the situation worsened because the relevant parties “refused to listen” and did not choose “respect and communication.”^[64]

Trudeau acknowledged the complexity of the situation and emphasized the responsibility of the Government of Canada to understand the historical and cultural context surrounding Indigenous issues and to find nuanced solutions. He and his government consistently repeated that “There is no relationship more important to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples,”^[65] implying that the government was aware of the profound impact of colonialism on Indigenous communities, including the land rights issue and the ongoing process of healing and reconciliation that must be undertaken to address the legacy of these historical injustices. However, despite protests from Indigenous peoples, Trudeau described the LNG Canada Project as one of his government’s top achievements because it will “supplant coal in Asia as a power source and do much for the environment.”^[66] As can be seen from his language, he might have been listening to the wishes of Indigenous peoples but had chosen not to prioritize them in his policies and in his approach to reconciliation.

In his many speeches addressing the conflict and Indigenous – non-Indigenous relations more generally, Trudeau appealed to Canadian values and the importance of national unity to emphasize the importance of cooperation with Indigenous peoples. By invoking these values, Trudeau clearly aimed to foster a sense of shared responsibility and collective identity that might help bridge the divide between opposing perspectives. He consistently referenced the rule of law as a fundamental Canadian value that underpins the country’s democratic system and social order.^[67] Therefore, when handling challenging situations like the Coastal GasLink conflict, he emphasized the importance of respecting the legal processes and institutions.^[68] This appeal served to remind Canadians of the necessity of upholding legal principles to maintain a stable, just, and fair society. Trudeau’s failure to specifically address Indigenous concerns over the pipeline’s construction in his speeches implied that the government believed the project was lawful and aligned with Canadian values and Canada’s economic interests. By emphasizing the need to enforce court injunctions to maintain order^[69] and referring to the responsibility of Indigenous and land defenders to adhere to the law, the government effectively shifted blame away from themselves and toward those opposing the pipeline’s construction. Despite this, Trudeau remained confident that his government’s “reconciliation agenda with Indigenous peoples is as strong as ever.”^[70]

By adopting such an approach, Trudeau sought to convey the government’s commitment to finding a resolution that considers all parties’ concerns, striving to achieve a middle ground that satisfied the needs of Indigenous communities and industry groups. He emphasized engaging in meaningful dialogue with Indigenous peoples, recognizing their unique historical and cultural contexts, and ensuring their voices are heard in decision-making. At the same time, he recognized the potential and substantial economic benefits of the Coastal GasLink project, including increased investment, job opportunities, and revenue generation. However, from the policies he has embraced, it appears that after consideration, economic development was a higher priority for Justin Trudeau than the renewal of relationships with Indigenous communities. It was not the commitment and pledge he and his government had made to Indigenous peoples in 2015. His singular focus seems to be on the economic impacts of the blockades and his tendency to blame the land defenders reveal his true priority in a moment of crisis.

While Trudeau’s language on the Coastal Gaslink conflict demonstrates a commitment to dialogue and empathy towards Indigenous peoples, his language is often empty and relies too much on broad, idealistic Canadian values that do not particularly reflect the government’s action. The disconnect between words and actions lies in his acknowledging the rights over ancestral lands of the Wet’suwet’en Houses and hereditary chiefs. In contrast, the government’s continued support for the construction of the pipeline without proper consultation with the relevant Indigenous groups has caused doubts among the public about Trudeau’s commitment to dialogue and cooperation with Indigenous peoples and to the whole process of reconciliation.

Conclusion

In light of the analysis presented in this paper, it is evident that while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has constantly stated that reconciliation with Indigenous peoples is the top priority of his government, there are significant inconsistencies and contradictions in his policies and speeches when it comes to the actual implementation and implications of the Wet’suwet’en Nation and Coastal Gaslink conflict and in dealing with crisis. This case study has highlighted the challenges of dealing with Indigenous issues in Canada and the inherent tensions between the pursuit of reconciliation and the realities of economic development and resource extraction. Similar to Trudeau’s other domestic and foreign policies, there is a discrepancy between his public statements and actual actions taken by his government to address this particular Indigenous issue, which is demonstrated by the tokenism in his policies and language. At face value, he encourages dialogue, empathy, Canadian principles, and respect for Indigenous rights. The recognition of Indigenous rights has been contradicted by the government’s handling of the Wet’suwet’en conflict where the economic interests of the pipeline seem to outweigh the relationship with the involved Indigenous peoples.

The tokenistic nature, or virtue signalling, of Trudeau’s policies, is further demonstrated by terms of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Canadian government and the Wet’suwet’en Nation in 2020, which is considered one of the governments’ most notable successes. ^[71] Despite acknowledging the title and rights of the Wet’suwet’en Houses and hereditary chiefs over their traditional territory, the MOU has not altered the existing situation with the Coastal Gaslink pipeline, which initially sparked the conflict and led to the MOU’s negotiations. The pipeline construction remains ongoing and is expected to be completed by the end of 2023, meaning that although Indigenous peoples have won some battles along the way, they will not stop the controversial pipeline which has been supported by the Trudeau government.