CSIS threat definition not ‘relevant’ to Emergencies Act decision, inquiry hears

Former directors of the security agency told the inquiry that any reference to the CSIS Act should be removed from the Emergencies Act.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s interpretation of what constitutes a national security threat is not relevant when it comes to a government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, two of the spy agency’s former directors testified at a national inquiry Wednesday.

Ward Elcock, who led CSIS from 1994 to 2004, and Richard Fadden, who led the agency between 2009 and 2013, both told the Public Order Emergency Commission that any reference to the CSIS Act should be removed from the Emergencies Act.

The commission is probing the decision of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government to invoke the Emergencies Act during the “Freedom Convoy” protests last winter and has a mandate to offer recommendations to modernize the legislation.

The CSIS definition of a national security threat is written into the Emergencies Act as one of the requirements for the government to declare a public order emergency.

It includes espionage or sabotage of Canada’s interests, foreign influence, acts of serious violence against people or property with political, religious or ideological objectives, or the violent overthrow of the Canadian government. It also specifically excludes lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless it is happening in conjunction with any of those activities.

Over six weeks of fact-finding testimony, the commission heard that CSIS did not believe the protests that blockaded downtown Ottawa and several U.S. border crossings met the threshold of being a threat to Canada’s security — at least in the context of its own operations.

Elcock said CSIS would need to interpret that definition very differently as an intelligence agency than cabinet would when it comes to deciding whether to declare a national emergency.

He said CSIS interprets the definition in terms of the limitations on its activities as an intelligence service. “None of those things are relevant to the discussions of cabinet or to the issues that a cabinet might debate,” he testified.