Canada’s Top Secret Plan of Profunc

Posted: April 11, 2013 by ssd89 in Uncategorized
Tags: ,

For more than 30 years, Canada’s federal government had a top secret plan in place, called Profunc, to be launched if there was ever a threat against the country. The Profunc plan was run by national security (RCMP) and the federal government. National security is now known as CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service). National security was to strip some people’s basic rights because they were deemed to be an enemy of the country. The country had secret envelopes known as C215 made from secret briefings. People’s names and addresses were easily added on the list which was kept in a safe and sealed place. If the cold war ever turned into a hot war, the Profunc plan was to be put into action and the people on the list were to be rounded up, including wife and children, and be detained because they were considered to be a threat to the country. I believe Canada’s dark history of Profunc was highly unethical but serious measures are to be taken in these types of circumstances.

Moreover, Profunc was set up to round up suspicious people associated with parties such as communists because they posed a threat against the country. However, the list made by the RCMP was top secret; people who did not pose any threat or could not even be considered to be a potential threat to the country were on the list and these people had no idea they were on it. Furthermore, the federal government agency went along and signed the plan of Profunc which allowed people to be spied on for a number of years. I am highly shocked that something like this could happen in Canada, even when we have the Charter of rights and freedoms in place. On the other hand, the Profunc program does not represent any police deviance because the government’s administrator signed the Profunc plan and initiated it in place. The plan was to be operated if national security was threatened. The people of national security would by all means be following through with their orders to protect the country.

Furthermore, the Profunc plan does not represent police deviance but could be seen as police deviance. The federal government can not share all of its secret plans with the public because then they would be giving away their secrets that could be used against them by other countries. According to Punch (2009) police deviance occurs when it is externally driven, such as state domination, capture by deviant elite or within the police domain. However, the federal government and national security did what they felt was best for the country. Considering someone to be an enemy of the country based on suspicion and political beliefs is wrong and represents corruption. For instance, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, national security is to take further measures to prevent threats against the country; however, I hope there aren’t plans like Profunc in place to round up people to be detained without any hard evidence. We can not be detaining innocent people based on suspicion; this is a serious issue, look what happened to Maher Arar. It’s interesting to learn how “the bill was to die of old age” and “put to sleep by someone who didn’t even know it existed” (CBC, 2010).

References Cited

CBC News. (Producer) (2010). The fifth estate [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/enemiesofthestate/

Punch, M. (2009). Police corruption: Deviance, accountability and reform in policing. Portland: Willan Publishing.

Arar, M. (2013). Mahers story. Retrieved from http://maherarar.net/mahers story.php

Advertisements
Comments
  1. prodigypenn says:

    “National security is now known as CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service)”
    Please explain? How can a concept now be known as an intelligence service? That’s like saying terrorism is now known as the CIA.

  2. Mike Larsen says:

    Your post suggests that extraordinary national security concerns have and may warrant extraordinary measures ‘to protect Canada’. Question: If these measures are taken in secret, how can we ensure that they do not violate democratic principles and civil liberties?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s