CSIS Director David Vigneault testified that he supported invoking the Emergencies Act, even if he didn't believe the self-styled Freedom Convoy met his agency's definition of a threat to national security.
In his final report, Rouleau argued that the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" in the CSIS Act should be removed from the Emergencies Act.
To me, at least, I find this point interesting. It seems like the conclusion is that the Emergencies Act is a bit of a blunt tool, but overall beneficial. In some ways, it might almost be better to split the Emergencies Act into two pieces of legislation that each have different criteria and limits for how the government can respond.
To be clear, this isn't a complaint about the usage of the Emergencies Act last year. Like most Ottawans, I too was desperate to see some relief from the situation. The reality is that it shouldn't have come to the point where the Emergencies Act was needed. Its usage was divisive, and likely caused some harm to the social fabric of this country.
For that reason, it is good that we are looking to make the legislation more clear with a more specific criteria on how it is to be used. The less vague it is, the more likely we will have national consensus on whether its usage is appropriate.