The daily hearings of the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa are offering the country a fascinating look at the challenges and perils of decision-making in a time of perceived crisis, as Judge Paul Rouleau and his staff peel away the layers of confusion, contradiction and misinformation that surrounded the invoking of the Emergencies Act this past February. The proceedings (live-streamed at https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/ and covered by CPAC) are gaining momentum as the commission enters its third week of hearings. Some of the most prominent witnesses are in the wings, waiting to testify.
The big names include Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who made the call to invoke the act, which was enacted in 1988 to replace the old War Measures Act. After much hesitation, he and the cabinet concluded that the blockade of border crossings and the three-week occupation of Ottawa by the so-called “Freedom Convoy” met the definition of a public emergency and, therefore, warranted the use of the Emergency Act’s powers to restore public order.
Other witnesses scheduled between now and Nov. 25, when the inquiry is to wrap up its six-week fact-finding phase, include federal ministers Marco Mendicino (Public Safety), Bill Blair (Emergency Preparedness), Anita Anand (National Defence) and David Lametti (Justice). Not to forget Doug Ford, once he gets over his snit about the temerity of a federal inquiry wanting a premier to explain something that falls within the constitutional jurisdiction of the province.
The “something” is policing. The coordination of police operations – or rather lack of it – in February, the confusion among – and within – police forces over the powers they had, or didn’t have, to break up the truckers’ stranglehold on Ottawa, plus contradictions concerning the need for the Emergencies Act, have made policing a primary focus of the inquiry.
Commissioner Paul Rouleau and his inquiry will want to ask Ford if he knows why intelligence gathered by the Ontario Provincial Police about the intentions of the convoy leaders, and the presence of extremists among them, did not get shared with other police forces. Was no one at Queen’s Park paying attention? Police chiefs can be as turf-conscious as political leaders – an excuse that will not pass muster as an explanation if offered at the inquiry.
Clearly, someone has to be in charge of restoring law and order in an emergency. Coordination and communication are essential. The Emergencies Act being federal law, it would make sense for the inquiry to recommend the RCMP be given the responsibility.
There’s a second policing issue. It’s the tangled responsibility for the protection of the heart of the capital. The OPP control the principal access routes into Ottawa, city police manage the streets around Parliament Hill, the RCMP are responsible for the grounds of the parliamentary precinct, while, traditionally, separate Commons and Senate protective services have taken over inside the doors. Five different services, each doing its own thing! Five different outfits, each to some degree suspicious of the others.
The five became four in 2015 when the Commons and Senate forces were amalgamated into a Parliamentary Protective Service and placed under the operational control of a director who must be an RCMP officer. But it’s not quite as simple as it may seem. The director does not report to his or her own boss, the commissioner of the RCMP, but rather to the speakers of the Commons and Senate. I guess we could say the five are now four, plus a hybrid.
The failure to protect the Capitol in Washington from being stormed and occupied on Jan. 6, 2021, is a dramatic illustration of the consequences when responsibility is divided among turf-sensitive, politically anxious agencies. It seems inevitable, at least to me, that the Rouleau inquiry will want to take a hard look at the possibility of a unified police service for Ottawa.
One last thought. Don’t expect Judge Rouleau to come down hard on the prime minister, to second-guess him, or to find that he lacked sufficient cause to declare the public emergency. That decision boiled down to a question of judgment. It could have gone either way. The judgment was Trudeau’s alone to make. He gets to carry the can or claim the credit, regardless of what the Rouleau inquiry may say.
Cambridge resident Geoffrey Stevens is an author and former Ottawa columnist and managing editor of the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s. He welcomes comments at geoffstevens40@gmail.com