It has been nine months since the end of the trucker protests that shook the country and led to a complete lockdown of downtown Ottawa for nearly a month. The ongoing inquiry by the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC) has yet to confirm whether or not the Emergencies Act was justifiably applied to quell the protests. With witnesses ranging from leaders of the Freedom Convoy to senior government officials having testified every day for the last month and a half, the commission’s mission is nearing its end. 

On November 17, National Security Advisor, Jody Thomas claimed, as she was testifying in front of the POEC, that the definition of what constitutes a “threat to the security of Canada” must be updated to reflect modern realities. This comes after the POEC learned that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) did not consider the trucker protests to be a threat to Canada’s national security, despite CSIS director David Vigneault supporting the Prime Minister’s decision due to exceptional circumstances. 

Section 16 of the Emergencies Act gives the federal government extended powers to respond to a “public order emergency” arising from any threat to the security of Canada. This begs the obvious question: what constitutes a threat to Canada’s national security? After all, it would be difficult for a federal body whose purpose is to evaluate our government’s justification to invoke the Emergencies Act without being able to define what a threat to national security actually looks like. 

To outline what constitutes a threat to national security, the Emergencies Act follows the interpretation provided in section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act; which identifies four types of activities and behaviors that pose a threat against Canada or its interests. These include espionage and sabotage, foreign influence and interference, ideologically and religiously-motivated acts of violence, and any activity aiming to undermine, destroy, or overthrow the system of government in Canada. Of course, terms like “violence” remain undefined, and such broad categories can be interpreted in countless ways. 

Based on these interpretations, did the nation-wide trucker protests from last January and February pose a threat to Canada’s national security? Although numerous arguments can be made, there are three critical elements supporting the claim that the Freedom Convoy could have been considered a threat to national security.  

Perhaps most importantly, the Freedom Convoy and the subsequent trucker protests were not only united by a heavily anti-government rhetoric, but authorities could not confirm whether or not they were prepared to use force to attain their objectives. Although it is easy to draw conclusions from a few isolated cases, there was ample evidence which indicated that the protests could turn forceful.

Some reports suggested that multiple factions within the Freedom Convoy, including leaders like Pat King, openly demanded the overthrow of the Canadian government, suggesting to replace it with a convoy-led group. It is thus quite troubling that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) announced it was fully aware of the direct implication of extremist right-wing groups like Diagolon, Canada First, and the Three Percenters in these protests. If that last one sounds familiar, it is likely because the Three Percenters were added to Canada’s list of known terrorist organizations in 2021 following the January 6 riots in the United States (U.S). When the RCMP seized a dozen weapons with high quantities of ammunition from protesters in Coutts, Alberta, on February 14, the fact that it was unclear whether or not authorities had the resources to quell the protests in the national capital became a major issue.

Another point worth mentioning is the economic impact of the trucker protests. Although it remains hard to define what represents a threat to Canada’s interests, the purposeful blockage of crucial trade routes and the subsequent harm caused to the Canadian economy and businesses must not be taken lightly. That goes without mentioning the burden carried by Canadian taxpayers.

The most obvious aspect to consider is the obstruction of the busiest cross-border trade route between Canada and the U.S by protesters: the Ambassador Bridge in Ontario. With the Ambassador Bridge being blocked off for only a few days in February, Transport Canada estimated a loss of around $2.3 billion in trade; with this number rising to $3.9 billion when obstructed trade routes from Alberta and British Columbia were accounted for. Meanwhile, the protests in Ottawa impacted numerous local businesses, many of which were already struggling as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On top of that, the City of Ottawa claimed in early February that the protests cost approximately $800,000 in police costs and $1 million in city services, for a grand total of nearly $2 million daily. 

Lastly, the most important factor to consider is the fact that the protests were highly promoted and even funded by individuals and organizations outside Canada. Foreign influence or interference is the most definitive provision found within the CSIS Act’s definition of a national security threat.

According to the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an unknown amount of funds came directly from at least 30 different foreign states like Sweden, Poland, Australia, and especially the U.S. More specifically, prominent American supporters (and possible donors) of the convoy included former President Donald Trump, House Representative Marjorie Taylor Green, and even famous billionaire Elon Musk. Besides notorious election-deniers, the GoFundMe campaign was reportedly shared by hundreds of members from the Oath Keepers (the far-right organization that led the January 6 riots) and multiple anti-vaccine conspiracy groups like Project Veritas and America’s Frontline Doctors.  

In sum, we are talking about a notorious anti-government movement with unclear intentions, that clearly caused substantial economic harm to the country, and which was widely supported by prominent election-deniers, conspiracists, and extremist right-wing groups from across the globe. 

Only a small minority of Canadians supported the trucker protests in downtown Ottawa, with about three quarters of the national population choosing to end the protests in mid-February. Still, it is alarming that some Conservative MPs, including current party leader Pierre Poilievre, openly supported the Freedom Convoy and considered it as little more than a group of “peaceful and law-abiding protesters.” The CSIS Act does distinguish any “lawful advocacy, protest or dissent” from a threat to national security, but only if it is not carried out with any of the aforementioned means/activities. Hence, the trucker protests conformed to at least one of the requisite aspects of a national security threat, whether you consider their vehement anti-government rhetoric, the harm they caused to Canada’s economic interests, or their heavy dependence on foreign support and funding. 

In this sense, it seems Jody Thomas’s suggestion to change the definition of a national security threat in Canada is more than justified. Although what constitutes a threat to national security is broad and open to interpretation, Thomas claimed that the mandate of our chief intelligence service (CSIS) is too “narrow” because it only considers instances of actual “serious” violence instead of considering behaviour and rhetoric which may give rise to violent acts. This is precisely why both Prime Minister Trudeau and David Vigneault suggested, during their respective testimonials in late November, that the definition offered by the CSIS Act was meant to outline the mandate of the agency instead of limiting government action. Although there is much concern about external threats to Canada's national security these days, we need not lose sight of threats materializing on our own soil.