The Rouleau inquiry into Canada’s use of the Emergencies Act in Ottawa is about half done. The public airing of grievances has been going for weeks and while it has been intriguing to observe, is it bringing us any closer to resolution?
We have watched a long line of convoy participants take the stand and relate their experiences during the protest. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the matter and the fact that the commission is evaluating the justification for the government’s suspension of civil liberties and unprecedented use of emergency powers, the inquiry brings to mind the final episode of “Seinfeld” where characters from past episodes were called to testify in a trial against the principal characters of the show. Memories were revisited in the courtroom as colourful people related their experiences with the defendants.
The Emergencies Act inquiry has been scheduled to hear testimony following the chronological order of the events, starting with local levels of government before ultimately working up to the federal government. Police and Ottawa authorities still appeared shell-shocked as they related how disorganized and unprepared they were to deal with the approaching convoy of protesters. The squabbling and panic behind closed doors in Ottawa’s city hall would have made great fodder for a sitcom. Watching bureaucrats and civic politicians breaking the fourth wall with candid commentary in a style like “The Office” would make for some fantastic prime time entertainment.
The organizers of the truckers’ Freedom Convoy have had their chance to take the stand and offer their subjective perspectives of the event. Those ranged from the sympathetic and emotional from Tamara Lich to the off-the-wall and questionable with Pat King. Supporters of the convoy applauded the testimony online while opponents gnashed their teeth and accused the participants of treason.
Some Ottawa citizens testified about their valid concerns surrounding the disorder and disruption caused by the convoy. Some of the characters were rational and made a good case while others were almost comical as they exaggerated the personal impact of enduring the honking of horns. The ability to vent on the stand offers them some emotional resolution if nothing else.
Few hearts and minds are being won or lost with the testimony. People are far too entrenched in their views to budge by this point. The inquiry is giving the convoy participants, whether the willing ones who made up the protest or the unwilling ones who happened to live in the middle of it, the opportunity to seek closure. For those still facing criminal charges, final closure for better or worse remains months away.
The inquiry will be moving on to testimony from provincial officials, then senior Ottawa bureaucrats and top policing officials from the RCMP and CSIS before culminating with testimony from federal cabinet ministers and Prime Minister Trudeau himself.
As the inquiry moves beyond ground-level first-person testimony to people at higher levels of public authority, the show is likely to become more subdued and less entertaining. Perhaps though, the inquiry will then move back toward its prime mandate, which is determining whether the government needed to invoke the Emergencies Act to quell the protest in Ottawa. That subject hasn’t really come up much yet.
The last chance for an entertainment aspect in the inquiry will be the testimony of Trudeau. He will likely be well coached and will stubbornly stick to his talking points under questioning. His handlers know all too well that things rarely end well when Trudeau chooses to go off script. Those of us who take morbid pleasure in watching the prime minister when he tries to wing it on nuanced issues will be hoping he feels compelled to ad-lib.
The inquiry is serious business, though I am making light of it. I just don’t feel confident that it will have a serious outcome. The ability of Justice Rouleau to sanction the federal government if he does find their actions to be unjustified are limited and his ruling will fast become forgotten among an easily distracted electorate. Those engaged in the events of February 2022 will remain steadfast in their interpretation of it, while those indifferent to the affair will remain so.
If somebody is hoping we will see some final and definitive resolution over the use of the Emergencies Act, they will likely be disappointed. When viewing with the intent of being entertained, the rolling review of the events has been satisfying so far. We can relive the events and cheer for our preferred cast members one last time before the whole affair moves into the history books.
