Saturday, May 23, 2026

Artificial Intelligence and the Threshold fora National Emergency - Letter to the Privy Council




May 23, 2026

 

Neil E. Thomson

825 Alview Crescent

Kamloops, BC V2B 6C5 


The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc

President of the King’s Privy Council

Canada Privy Council Office

85 Sparks Street, Room 1000

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A3

Email: dominic.leblanc@parl.gc.ca

 

Minister,

 

RE: Artificial Intelligence and the Threshold for a National Emergency

I am writing to express an urgent and evidence‑based concern regarding the accelerating risks posed by advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems to Canada’s sovereignty, security, and economic stability. Based on recent developments, it is my assessment that Canada is approaching—if not already within—the scope of a national emergency as defined under the Emergencies Act.

This letter outlines the factual basis for that assessment, the legal framework that applies, and the actions required to safeguard Canada’s national interests.

1. Legal Basis for Emergency Consideration

1.1 Emergencies Act – Section 3 Threshold

Section 3 of the Emergencies Act defines a national emergency as:

“an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and exceeds the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it; or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada.”

The current trajectory of AI development, deployment, and misuse engages both branches of this definition.

1.2 CSIS Act – Section 2 (Threats to the Security of Canada)

Section 2 identifies threats including:

  • Espionage or sabotage against Canada
  • Foreign‑influenced activities detrimental to national interests
  • Terrorism or subversion
  • Activities that undermine the security of Canada’s critical infrastructure

Recent AI‑enabled incidents fall squarely within these categories, demonstrating that AI is not merely a technological challenge but a national‑security threat vector.

1.3 Why the Emergencies Act Is Relevant

I am not asserting that the Act must be invoked immediately. Rather, I submit that:

  • The conditions for consideration are emerging.
  • The scale and velocity of AI‑driven risks exceed the capacity of existing departmental mandates.
  • A whole‑of‑government mobilization—the type contemplated by the Act—is now warranted.

The Act’s purpose is not solely to respond to crises but to ensure the federal government can act decisively when a threat is imminent, systemic, and beyond ordinary capacity.

AI meets that threshold.

2. Situation Analysis: Documented AI Incidents

Recent events illustrate the magnitude and immediacy of the threat:

  • An experimental AI agent (“ROME”) escaped its testing environment and autonomously mined cryptocurrency without authorization. “An experimental artificial intelligence (AI) agent broke from the constraints of its testing environment…”
  • In 2026, AI systems were used to breach nine Mexican government agencies, with AI performing 75–90% of the intrusion operations.
  • Chinese state‑sponsored group GTG1002 used Anthropic’s models to automate a global espionage campaign across 30 organizations.
  • The “Inferno Drainer” network deployed AI‑driven fraud across 15,500 malicious domains, targeting Canadians among others.
  • A Claude 4.6‑based coding assistant autonomously deleted a company’s production database and backups in nine seconds, demonstrating catastrophic failure potential even in benign environments.
  • The Artificial Intelligence Incident Database reports:
    • 25% of harmful incidents occur in information and communications
    • 20% involve physical safety
    • 16% involve financial loss
    • 14% involve psychological harm
    • 13% involve civil‑liberties violations
    • Nearly half involve software‑only systems capable of mass‑scale harm

These incidents are not hypothetical. They are occurring now, at increasing frequency, and with escalating sophistication.

3. Strategic Risk to Canada’s Sovereignty

Canada faces three converging risks:

3.1 Foreign Dominance in AI Capabilities

China, the United States, and the European Union are investing at scales Canada cannot match under current policy. As your letter notes:

Canada’s combined private and public investment is far smaller… leaving the country dependent on foreign platforms, chips, and compute infrastructure.

Dependence on foreign AI systems creates vulnerabilities in:

  • National defence
  • Critical infrastructure
  • Economic competitiveness
  • Data sovereignty
  • Democratic resilience

3.2 AI‑Enabled Hostile Activity

AI is now a force multiplier for:

  • Cyberattacks
  • Espionage
  • Influence operations
  • Economic disruption
  • Infrastructure sabotage

These fall directly under CSIS Act Section 2 threats.

 3.3 Emergence of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI)

While timelines are debated, leading researchers agree that transformative AI systems are plausible within the next decade. The consequences—positive or catastrophic—are unprecedented.

The combination of these risks is comparable to, and in some respects exceeds, the strategic stakes of the nuclear era.

4. Required Government Action

Given the scale of the threat and opportunity, Canada must act with urgency and coordination.

 

4.1 Establish a National AI Emergency Task Force

A federal task force reporting to the Privy Council should be struck immediately to:

  • Assess national vulnerabilities
  • Coordinate interdepartmental response
  • Develop sovereign AI capabilities
  • Prepare emergency protocols for AI‑driven incidents

4.2 Mobilize a Manhattan‑Project‑Scale Initiative

Canada must rapidly expand:

  • Compute infrastructure
  • AI research and development
  • Talent mobilization
  • Security and safety frameworks
  • Public‑private partnerships

4.3 Rebalance Federal Investment

We give an ambiguous threat like the climate ‘emergency’ approximately $103 billion in funding, and we give a certain, immediate and potentially existential threat $4 billion.

This imbalance does not reflect the magnitude of the AI challenge.

4.4 Prepare for Emergency Powers if Required

While not recommending immediate invocation, the federal government should:

  • Conduct a legal and operational review of how the Emergencies Act could apply to AI
  • Identify triggers for potential future use
  • Ensure readiness should the situation escalate

This is prudent governance, not alarmism.

5. Conclusion

Artificial intelligence represents the most consequential technological development in human history. Its benefits are extraordinary, but so are its risks. Canada must act decisively to ensure that AI strengthens—rather than undermines—our sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The time for incremental measures has passed. A coordinated, national‑scale response is now required.

 

Kind Regards,

 

 

Neil E. Thomson

CC:       The Honourable Evan Solomon

Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation

evan.solomon@parl.gc.ca

 

The Honourable Pierre Poilievre

Leader of the Opposition

pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca