Trudeau's contradictions 'coming home to roost' in Trans Mountain ruling, say analysts

A federal court ruling suspending the expansion of the Trans Mountain project undermines the prime minister's reliabilityand underscores the missteps made by the Liberal government in its handling of the file, some experts say.

"It's a big blow toJustin Trudeau's credibility because he's said repeatedly this pipeline will be built," said UBC political science professor Kathryn Harrison, who studiesclimate and energy policy.

"Although this decision doesn't necessarily mean it won't be built, itsure casts a lot of doubt on the prime minister's certainty."

• Liberals 'absolutely committed' to Trans Mountain after Federal Court of Appeal quashes construction approvals
• 'We are winning': Several B.C. First Nations celebrate Trans Mountain victory
• Energy shares recover after earlier losses from Trans Mountain ruling to close down 0.3%

Harrison said the rulingcalls into questionthe wisdom of the government's decision in Mayto invest $4.5 billion to buy the existing pipeline and billions more to build a new pipeline for which the government doesn't have a valid permit.

On Thursday, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the approvals of the1,150-kilometre project. It ruledthatthe National Energy Board's review of the proposal was so flawed that the federal government could not rely on it as a basis for its decision to approve the expansion.

The court saidthe federal government failed in its duty to engage in meaningful consultations with First Nations before giving the project the green light.

Additionally, the court ruled that the review failed to assess the impact on the environment and specifically, southern resident killer whales from increased tanker traffic on account ofan expanded pipeline.

'Can have it all'

The ruling reinforced the notion that Trudeau's government has tried to pretend "we can have it all," said Harrison.

"On the one hand, we can state our commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and on the other hand we can push through a pipeline over the objections of a very large number of First Nations along the route, apparently without fulfilling the government's duty to meaningful consultation," she said.

"There are all these contradictions in the Trudeau government's policies. And I think they're coming home to roost."

JosephDoucet, dean of the Alberta School of Business, said there should have been"more muscular support and movement"from the federal government to move the project forward. He also criticized the government fornot having done its due diligence on consulting First Nations.

"Somebody screwed up," he said."It's hard to imagine that the [National Energy Board] and government of Canada could not have done a better job to make it bulletproof vis-a-vis the issue of consultation."

The weak spot in the government's case was pointing totheirconsultation process as evidence of meeting their obligationsinstead of showing thesubstance of those consultations, saidEric Adams, an associate law professor at the University of Alberta.

"The standard of consultation required is itself flexible and nuanced no light goes on when you've hit your mark," Adams said.

• Trans Mountain pipeline ruling strikes 'devastating' blow to Canada's global reputation, energy sector warns
• With project in doubt, Kinder Morgan shareholders vote to sell Trans Mountain pipeline to Ottawa

DennisMcConaghy, a formerexecutive at Calgary-based TransCanada Corporation, castblame on both the Harper and Trudeau governments for not creating legislation to clarify what actually constitutes adequateconsultation.

He wants "consultation that can be defined in a practical, tangible standard of actionsso that we're not left with this second guessing by a set of jurists, none of whom are concernedwith the collective interest."

Adequate consultation

When the Trudeau government came topower,they promised to change the way theNEB operates, but they did so in an ad hoc fashion, said GeorgeHoberg, a professoratUBC'sSchool of Public Policy and Global Affairs,

"And that obviously was not comprehensive enough," he said."In retrospect, it would have been better for them to halt the process as it was and restart it under a new clearer, more comprehensive set of rules to better address First Nations issues and the risk to the southern resident killer whale."

Hobergsaid Thursday's ruling was amajor setback for Justin Trudeau andthegovernment's decision to purchase the pipeline. Some experts predicted it could be a few years before it gets back on track.

Despite the setback,Finance Minister BillMorneausaid the federal government is carefully reviewing the decision andis determined to proceed with the project.

• How the killer whale became the Achilles heel of Trans Mountain pipeline approval

However, Hoberg said he would be surprised if the cabinet did not have a serious discussion about whether or not they want to reconsider going forward with the project. And the court decision could give Trudeau a way to back out, he said.

McConaghy, a supporter of the pipeline, offered another course of action. He wants the government to, effectively,ignore the court ruling and consider legislating the project into existence.

"Basically, assert that the parliament of Canada has the final say on whether this is in the public interest based on the regulatory record that exists today," the former oil executivesaid.

With files from The Canadian Press