How Justin Trudeau fell short on one crisis — and rose to another

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 05/03/2022 (1027 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

MONTREAL—To watch the handling by Justin Trudeau’s government of the back-to-back crises that have marked the first months of 2022 is to be treated to a study in contrasts.

Here are five takeaways from the contrasting federal political management of the anti-vax blockades and Russia’s attack on Ukraine:

1. There is no comparable order of magnitude between an anti-vax demonstration that turns into a three-week siege of one’s capital and an existential threat to world peace.

The first played out on the domestic scene; it should have been a no-brainer for the various levels of government to resolve.

The second involves walking a thin line in concert with the international community. It is an infinitely more complex operation.

And yet coming to a co-ordinated response has come more easily on the latter than it did on the former front.

Looking at both, the political will to act on the part of the federal government has seemed in remarkably shorter supply when it came to resolving the blockades than when it has come to addressing the Ukraine file.

2. It was not so long ago, at the time of last fall’s post-election cabinet shuffle, that some pundits wondered whether Trudeau would provide Chrystia Freeland, Mélanie Joly and Anita Anand with enough prime ministerial support to ensure they succeeded as the first all-female trio to head the departments of finance, foreign affairs and national defence.

A bit more than a week into the Ukraine war, it has become clear that it is they who are doing the supporting — including on the front of public communications.

The result has been a clearer than usual federal message, devoid of the repetitive talking points that have become a tiresome feature of the prime minister’s media appearances over the years.

That has translated into a gain in effectiveness. One is usually more inclined to want to listen when those doing the talking have something to say.

To compare the various public appearances of the lead federal ministers on the Ukraine file to some of the vacuous performances of the half-dozen of their colleagues the Prime Minister’s Office dispatched to the media front over the course of the anti-vax blockades is to wonder whether they received their marching orders from the same command centre.

3. Freeland is giving a new meaning to the role of deputy prime minister. In the past, the title of second in command has often had more to do with appearances and virtue signalling than with enhanced power and influence. There is a reason why no one paid much attention to the fact that Stephen Harper dispensed with appointing a deputy prime minister at all during his time in office.

The fact that Freeland is also the finance minister undoubtedly contributes to the packing of a stronger punch. But on Ukraine, it has become more obvious by the day that she shares— and at times dominates—the leading role with Trudeau. On this issue, her background and her credentials were always second to none within the government. But over the past few days, it is her leadership skills that have been on full display.

4. Trudeau was politically wounded over the course of what many Canadians saw as his overly detached handling of the convoy issue. The proactive management of the Ukraine file has gone some way to restore his and the Liberal brands.

But does that bolster the case for Trudeau to lead the Liberals in a fourth election? Not necessarily. On this score, Freeland’s effectiveness at centre stage may help pave the prime minister’s path to retirement. If the past days have demonstrated anything, it is that there are adults around the cabinet table, including an heir apparent competent enough to steer the Liberal ship.

5. In contrast with the anti-vax convoys, the Ukraine war has not become a wedge issue in the House of Commons.

The three-week anti-vax occupation featured Liberals and Conservatives looking to score partisan points against each other. Each side ended up doing more potentially lasting harm to itself than to its rival.

In the case of Ukraine, the opposition has largely been supportive of the government’s approach. Overall, its criticism has been meant to be constructive; the government has responded in kind.

But that consensual facade could crack if the Liberals end up having to make a call as to whether to put boots on the ground in Europe for fighting purposes.

Over the longer term, and against the backdrop of the nascent Conservative leadership campaign, it also remains to be seen whether the war will change the paradigm of Canada’s conversation about getting more of the country’s oil and gas to tidewater.

The pandemic did not chase the issue of climate change from the centre of the political radar, but it is an open question whether Russia’s attack on Ukraine and its collateral consequences will.

Chantal Hébert is an Ottawa-based freelance contributing columnist covering politics for the Star. Reach her via email: chantalh28@gmail.com or follow her on Twitter: @ChantalHbert