The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) assessed the threat posed by the cross-country protests and blockades as “low” throughout last winter’s events, its former president told the Public Order Emergency Commission on Nov. 16.
But at the time the Liberal government was invoking the Emergencies Act on the afternoon of Feb. 14 to deal with the protests, CBSA changed the language in its assessment to indicate there was a greater threat at hand.
Former CBSA president John Ossowski was presented at the inquiry with “Situational Reports” produced by his agency during the events of February.
“As of Feb 14, 2022 at 0830 ET, the overall threat to CBSA officers and infrastructure is low,” says one situational update from the same day at 10:30 a.m.
That line was written under the heading “Intelligence Landscape” and was preceded by the acronym “BLUF” (Bottom Line Up Front), a term used in intelligence analysis to indicate that the most crucial piece of information or judgment is being placed above supportive facts.
Ossowski was asked if that assessment of a “low” threat had ever changed over the course of the events during which multiple border crossings were blockaded or had through traffic impeded.
“I don’t think it ever changed from low,” he said. “And I would say overall, we’re looking at the entire national picture here as opposed to little things that might be happening at individual ports of entry. But overall the threat was low for the entire period.”
It was only as the Trudeau government was about to invoke the Emergencies Act that additional information was added to the “Intelligence Landscape” “BLUF.”
“There has been a significant operational impact that may result in a threat to Canada’s economic security and prosperity,” said a new line added below the unchanged low threat assessment.
This was included in a CBSA “Situational Report” dated Feb. 14 at 4 p.m. and sent out via email by the CBSA’s Border Operations Centre at 4:43 p.m.
Commission counsel Gordon Cameron asked Ossowksi why this new line had been entered as the Emergencies Act was being invoked. He remarked it’s the same concept that was used in the government’s Section 58 document to explain why it was declaring an emergency.
“It’s the concept that you will have been familiar with as having been part of the Section 58 explanation,” said Cameron.
“That’s correct,” replied Ossowski.
Ossowski told the commission he didn’t really know why it was decided to insert that line at that time, and that it wasn’t an attempt to provide support for the declaration of emergency.
“But when we were made aware of this additional sentence, the colleagues at CBSA went and made some inquiries, and my understanding is what they found out is the acting director general at the Border Operations Centre decided to add that line in,” he said.
“I don’t have any understanding of what their motivation was to add this in, but I think that what was reported to me was that with all of the activities that had escalated to that point in time, they decided to put that particular language in. I also believe they said that this was not an attempt to provide any tacit or implied support for the Emergencies Act.”
“I’m not aware of who may have provided that advice,” he said.
