OTTAWA – Liberal cabinet ministers viewed last winter’s protests as a threat to national security, despite warnings from the federal intelligence agency that the threshold was not met, according to an investigation into the use of emergency law.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the act on Feb. 14, arguing that temporary and emergency powers are needed to end blockades in Ottawa and at border crossings.
The legislation says a public order emergency is one that arises from a “serious threat to the security of Canada as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.”
The definition includes espionage or sabotage of Canadian interests, foreign-influenced activities or violent overthrow of the government.
The Public Order Emergency Committee, which is holding hearings in Ottawa until Nov. 25, is tasked with determining whether the government was justified in triggering the legislation.
A document summarizing the evidence from David Vigneault, director of CSIS, indicates that he believed the protest “at no time” posed a threat to Canadian security and that there was no evidence of foreign interference.
“He felt an obligation to clearly convey the agency’s position that there was no threat to the security of Canada as defined by the agency’s legal mandate,” said the document, which was released Monday through public inquiry.
CSIS did, however, track subjects of intelligence investigations who participated in the protests.
Vigneault, who is expected to testify before the committee next week, told the cabinet that invoking the emergency law could further fuel extreme anti-government rhetoric.
Rob Stewart, who was deputy public safety minister at the time of the protests, told the committee on Monday that the government would have a broader interpretation of what constitutes a threat to national security.
“Cabinet makes that decision and the interpretation of the law that governs here is that,” Stewart told the committee.  “And their decision was obviously that the threshold was paid.”
Brendan Miller, a lawyer for the Ottawa “Freedom Convoy” protesters, suggested that no federal agency notified cabinet that the protest constituted a national threat, as defined by law.
“You’ve got the RCMP, you’ve got CSIS, you’ve got the entire intelligence apparatus in the federal government, and not one of them has said that this line was met, right?”  Miller asked Stewart during cross-examination Monday.
“They weren’t asked,” Stewart said.
The government was concerned that the longer the protest went on, the more likely it was that ideologically motivated violent extremists would take advantage of the situation, said Dominic Rochon, senior deputy minister of the government’s homeland and cyber security branch.
“This has been a major concern for the security intelligence community,” Rawson said during testimony Monday.
By the time he invoked the act on Feb. 14, Ottawa’s streets were blocked by large trucks and huge groups of protesters calling for an end to public health restrictions for COVID-19, forcing many downtown businesses to close.
Two major international border crossings in Alberta and Ontario had recently been cleared, but other smaller protests continued across the country.
In a letter to prime ministers on Feb. 15, Trudeau said the federal government believed the situation had reached a point “where there is a national emergency arising from threats to the security of Canada.”
“We are facing significant economic disruption, with supply chains collapsing.  This costs Canadians their jobs and undermines our economic and national security, with potentially significant impacts on the health and safety of Canadians,” he wrote.
“It affects Canada’s reputation internationally, harms trade and commerce, and undermines trust and confidence in our institutions.”
Monday’s testimony gave the committee its first behind-the-curtain look at cabinet deliberations before the law is invoked for the first time since it replaced the 1988 War Measures Act.
As early as February 7, John Ossowski, who was then president of the Canada Border Services Agency, suggested to federal, provincial and territorial officials that the emergency law could be used to compel tow truck drivers to help remove large rigs.  has learned.
On February 10, the cabinet formally discussed the idea of ​​invoking the act.  A summary of notes from a cabinet emergency committee meeting that day says Trudeau floated the idea of ​​two paths forward: actions that could be taken under existing authorities and the process of invoking the Emergency Act.
Most of the details of the ensuing discussion have been blacked out.
Cabinet ministers discussed plans to work with organizers of the “Freedom Pact” in Ottawa in an effort to scale back the protest.
Stewart told a cabinet committee on Feb. 8 that 80 percent of protesters in Ottawa had a “tenuous” connection to the protest.
An Ontario provincial police negotiator suggested protest leaders might be encouraged to leave and call off the blockade in exchange for filing their complaints with the federal government.
It was hoped that many protesters would then leave before police moved in to clear the protest, but the idea was abandoned after a discussion between ministers.
Stewart says the effort was not coordinated with other efforts by provincial and municipal governments to work with protest organizers.
When preparing to inform the public of the government’s decision to invoke the act, Stewart encouraged staff to come up with examples of ways police could use the new powers to stop protests and prevent new ones from emerging. according to an email released by the public inquiry.
“I’m afraid I don’t have many great ideas because there aren’t many significant benefits, but we should try to advertise the details of the (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 the emergency law, which has proved useful in quelling the protests.
“There has been, in the space of two weeks, very little of this kind of protest across the country,” he said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on November 14, 2022.

title: " Freedom Convoy Was Not A Threat To Canadian Security Csis Director " ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-30” author: “Julie Graham”

OTTAWA – Liberal cabinet ministers viewed last winter’s protests as a threat to national security, despite warnings from the federal intelligence agency that the threshold was not met, according to an investigation into the use of emergency law.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the act on Feb. 14, arguing that temporary and emergency powers are needed to end blockades in Ottawa and at border crossings.
The legislation says a public order emergency is one that arises from a “serious threat to the security of Canada as defined by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.”
The definition includes espionage or sabotage of Canadian interests, foreign-influenced activities or violent overthrow of the government.
The Public Order Emergency Committee, which is holding hearings in Ottawa until Nov. 25, is tasked with determining whether the government was justified in triggering the legislation.
A document summarizing the evidence from David Vigneault, director of CSIS, indicates that he believed the protest “at no time” posed a threat to Canadian security and that there was no evidence of foreign interference.
“He felt an obligation to clearly convey the agency’s position that there was no threat to the security of Canada as defined by the agency’s legal mandate,” said the document, which was released Monday through public inquiry.
CSIS did, however, track subjects of intelligence investigations who participated in the protests.
Vigneault, who is expected to testify before the committee next week, told the cabinet that invoking the emergency law could further fuel extreme anti-government rhetoric.
Rob Stewart, who was deputy public safety minister at the time of the protests, told the committee on Monday that the government would have a broader interpretation of what constitutes a threat to national security.
“Cabinet makes that decision and the interpretation of the law that governs here is that,” Stewart told the committee.  “And their decision was obviously that the threshold was paid.”
Brendan Miller, a lawyer for the Ottawa “Freedom Convoy” protesters, suggested that no federal agency notified cabinet that the protest constituted a national threat, as defined by law.
“You’ve got the RCMP, you’ve got CSIS, you’ve got the entire intelligence apparatus in the federal government, and not one of them has said that this line was met, right?”  Miller asked Stewart during cross-examination Monday.
“They weren’t asked,” Stewart said.
The government was concerned that the longer the protest went on, the more likely it was that ideologically motivated violent extremists would take advantage of the situation, said Dominic Rochon, senior deputy minister of the government’s homeland and cyber security branch.
“This has been a major concern for the security intelligence community,” Rawson said during testimony Monday.
By the time he invoked the act on Feb. 14, Ottawa’s streets were blocked by large trucks and huge groups of protesters calling for an end to public health restrictions for COVID-19, forcing many downtown businesses to close.
Two major international border crossings in Alberta and Ontario had recently been cleared, but other smaller protests continued across the country.
In a letter to prime ministers on Feb. 15, Trudeau said the federal government believed the situation had reached a point “where there is a national emergency arising from threats to the security of Canada.”
“We are facing significant economic disruption, with supply chains collapsing.  This costs Canadians their jobs and undermines our economic and national security, with potentially significant impacts on the health and safety of Canadians,” he wrote.
“It affects Canada’s reputation internationally, harms trade and commerce, and undermines trust and confidence in our institutions.”
Monday’s testimony gave the committee its first behind-the-curtain look at cabinet deliberations before the law is invoked for the first time since it replaced the 1988 War Measures Act.
As early as February 7, John Ossowski, who was then president of the Canada Border Services Agency, suggested to federal, provincial and territorial officials that the emergency law could be used to compel tow truck drivers to help remove large rigs.  has learned.
On February 10, the cabinet formally discussed the idea of ​​invoking the act.  A summary of notes from a cabinet emergency committee meeting that day says Trudeau floated the idea of ​​two paths forward: actions that could be taken under existing authorities and the process of invoking the Emergency Act.
Most of the details of the ensuing discussion have been blacked out.
Cabinet ministers discussed plans to work with organizers of the “Freedom Pact” in Ottawa in an effort to scale back the protest.
Stewart told a cabinet committee on Feb. 8 that 80 percent of protesters in Ottawa had a “tenuous” connection to the protest.
An Ontario provincial police negotiator suggested protest leaders might be encouraged to leave and call off the blockade in exchange for filing their complaints with the federal government.
It was hoped that many protesters would then leave before police moved in to clear the protest, but the idea was abandoned after a discussion between ministers.
Stewart says the effort was not coordinated with other efforts by provincial and municipal governments to work with protest organizers.
When preparing to inform the public of the government’s decision to invoke the act, Stewart encouraged staff to come up with examples of ways police could use the new powers to stop protests and prevent new ones from emerging. according to an email released by the public inquiry.
“I’m afraid I don’t have many great ideas because there aren’t many significant benefits, but we should try to advertise the details of the (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 the emergency law, which has proved useful in quelling the protests.
“There has been, in the space of two weeks, very little of this kind of protest across the country,” he said.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published on November 14, 2022.