Emergencies Act: Who Decides What Constitutes a Serious National Security Threat, Intelligence Professionals or Bureaucrats?

It is a sad day for national security professionals when a senior intelligence official appears to do a 180 to satisfy government views on how to interpret threatCommentary It ain’t easy working for CSIS. The organization’s mandate is a tough one: monitor and investigate threats to the security of our nation based on “reasonable grounds to suspect,” all while not running roughshod over Canadians’ fundamental rights (freedom of speech, of assembly, and lawful dissent). Not to mention public damnation when it is perceived you have dropped the ball. The women and men at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are, nevertheless, a dedicated bunch who are passionate about what they do. (I have an insider’s perspective here, having worked there from 2001–2015).  They do their utmost to keep us safe and provide the best intelligence and advice possible to our government. And while just about everything CSIS does is done in secret, its staff should be able to rely on the fact that the leadership will support and defend its actions when called upon, in public or in camera, to do so. Until this week. CSIS Director David Vigneault has been telling the inquiry into the Trudeau government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in February of this year to put an end to convoy protests that the demonstrators did not constitute a threat to national security as outlined in section 2 of the CSIS Act (mostly 2c– political/ideological violence–but perhaps a bit of 2d, subversion). In other words, CSIS officers did their due diligence, looked into who was who in the zoo, and concluded there was no threat to national security. Dissent, pure and simple. What then to make of Vigneault’s stunning reversal when it emerged that he had “advised” the government to use the Emergencies Act since it was clear to him that there are other ways to interpret threat? Does he have that mandate as CSIS director?  He should stick to his own act. Further undermining his surprise reconsideration is the unfortunate reality that the Emergencies Act refers to the CSIS Act definition of threat to national security in its own definition section. So, CSIS says there was no threat and the Emergencies Act says “do what CSIS does.” Where is the alternative interpretation of threat? What occasioned this change? Are there “reasonable grounds to suspect” political interference? Mr. Vigneault admitted that he sought the advice of the Department of Legal Services which is, after all, a Trudeau government body. Asking the very people who said the Emergencies Act was required for advice on whether it was necessary sounds like a foregone conclusion. Whatever happened to “speaking truth to power”? Whatever happened to independent assessment? Not to mention that National Security and Intelligence Advisor Jody Thomas got the original CSIS assessment and didn’t like it, moving her to fish around for another one, probably more to her preconceived ideas on the threat landscape. This is a sad day for national security in Canada. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this whole affair smells bad. I do not know who whispered in whose ear, but it sure seems that the CSIS director did an about-face at a crucial point in the inquiry’s deliberations, effectively giving the government a get-out-of-jail-free card. To my former colleagues at CSIS: I feel for your sense of betrayal. You did your job and were slew-footed by your head honcho. Sigh… Please keep doing what you do for Canada and for Canadians. The country needs you. As for this nation’s security intelligence leadership: Shame on you! Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Follow Phil Gurski spent 32 years working at Canadian intelligence agencies and is a specialist in terrorism. He is the author of six books on terrorism.