‘Freedom convoy’ did not threaten Canada’s security: CSIS director

OTTAWA – Liberal Party ministers said last winter’s ‘Freedom Convoy’ was seen protesting threats to national security, but also came under warning from the Federal Intelligence Agency that thresholds had not been met. Regardless, an investigation into the use of the emergency law was found on Monday.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the law on February 14, arguing that temporary and special powers were needed to end the blockade at Ottawa and the border crossing.

The law states that an immoral emergency results from a “serious threat to the security of Canada, as defined by the Canadian Security Information Services Act.”

This definition includes espionage or sabotage of Canadian interests, foreign-influenced activities, or violent overthrow of a government.

The Public Order Emergency Commission, which is holding hearings in Ottawa until November 25, is tasked with determining whether the government justified invoking the law.

Documents compiling evidence from CSIS director David Vigneault show he believes the protests “in no way” threatened Canadian security and there was no indication of foreign interference. .

“He felt obligated to articulate the Service’s position that there was no threat to Canada’s security, as defined by the Service’s legal mandate.

However, CSIS monitored intelligence investigation subjects who were participating in the protests.

Vigneaux, who is set to testify before the committee next week, advised the cabinet that invoking the emergency law could further fuel extreme anti-government rhetoric.

Rob Stewart, who was deputy minister of public safety during the protests, told the commission on Monday that the government would take a broader interpretation of what constitutes a national security threat.

“The Cabinet is making that decision and the interpretation of the law is what governs here,” Stewart told the committee. “And their decision is clearly that the threshold has been met.” did.”

Brendan Miller, an attorney for the Ottawa “Freedom Convoy” protesters, suggested that no federal agency advised the Cabinet that the protests pose a national threat, as defined by law.

“You have the RCMP, the CSIS, the whole intelligence agency within the federal government, and no one said this standard was met?” Miller asked Stewart during cross-examination Monday.

“They weren’t asked,” Stewart said.

The government is concerned that the longer the protests drag on, the more likely it is that ideologically motivated violent extremists will take advantage of the situation, said a senior vice-president of the government’s national and cybersecurity department. Minister Dominique Rochon said.

“This was a significant concern for the security intelligence community,” Rochon said in his testimony Monday.

By the time the law takes effect on February 14, Ottawa’s streets were barricaded by large idling trucks and large groups of protesters demanding an end to weeks of COVID-19 public health restrictions, leading to downtown. Many businesses in the area had been forced to close. .

Two major border crossings in Alberta and Ontario have recently been removed, but other smaller demonstrations continue across the country.

In a February 15 letter to the prime minister, Trudeau said the federal government believed the situation had reached the stage of “a national emergency arising from a threat to Canada’s security.”

“We are facing significant economic disruption due to supply chain disruptions. may give,” he wrote.

“It has impacted Canada’s reputation internationally, hurt trade and commerce, and undermined trust and confidence in our institutions.”

Monday’s testimony was the first behind-the-scenes look at cabinet debates before the commission invoked the War Measures Act for the first time since it replaced it in 1988.

On February 7, John Ossowski, then-director of the Canadian Border Services Agency, told federal, state and territory officials to use emergency laws to force tow truck drivers to remove large rigs. I suggested that it can be forced. I learned.

On February 10, the cabinet formally discussed the idea of ​​invoking the law. According to a summary of a memo from that day’s Emergency Ministerial Committee meeting, Trudeau put forth his two-track concept of actions that can be taken under existing authority and the process of invoking emergency legislation.

Most of the details in the subsequent discussion are blacked out.

Ministers have considered plans to work with organizers of Ottawa’s ‘Freedom Convoy’ to curb the protests.

Stewart told a cabinet committee on February 8 that 80% of protesters in Ottawa had “weak” ties to the protest.

Ontario police negotiators suggested protest leaders could be encouraged to walk away and condemn the blockade in exchange for being able to file complaints with the federal government.

Many demonstrators were expected to leave before police quelled the protests, but the idea was abandoned after discussions between ministers.

Stewart said the effort was not coordinated with other attempts by state and city governments to engage protest organizers.

As the government prepared to brief the public on its decision to invoke the law, Stewart gave staff examples of how police could use their new powers to quell protests and stop them from exercising their new powers. public inquiry.

“It’s a shame we don’t have a lot of great ideas because there aren’t many significant benefits, but we need to promote the details of our (public safety) portfolio as much as we can,” Stewart wrote in February..14 .

Stewart told the committee on Monday that he underestimated the benefits of emergency legislation, which has proven to help quell demonstrations.

“Within two weeks, very few protests of this kind appeared across the country,” he said.

This report by the Canadian Press was first published on November 14, 2022.