Thomas Juneau is an associate professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. Vincent Rigby is a senior fellow with the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University and a former national security and intelligence adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The crisis brought on by the Ottawa truck convoy protests was primarily a policing matter. However, it also had important national security implications. As the dust settles, it is essential to think about lessons for Canada’s security and intelligence community in anticipation of similar, and perhaps more dangerous, future incidents.
Experts have long warned that Canada faces a rising threat from right-wing extremism, or in government-speak, ideologically motivated violent extremism (IMVE). Recent events in Ottawa, Coutts, Alta., the Ambassador Bridge, and elsewhere show that these concerns are justified, as some protest leaders were clearly driven by an extremist ideology.
This raises multiple questions. Are law enforcement and intelligence services ready for a possible upswing in violent extremist events – what could amount to a “new normal?” What is the right balance in terms of allocating scarce resources between IMVE and religiously motivated violent extremism (primarily Al Qaeda and the Islamic State), as well as other threats such as economic espionage and foreign interference by hostile state actors? Do security agencies, from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), need more resources to address this intensifying and diversifying range of threats? And if we did need to call upon the Canadian Armed Forces in a future worst-case scenario – the Prime Minister effectively took them off the table this time around – would they be ready, and how would they be used?
This also prompts questions in terms of the mandates of national security agencies. As the truck convoy approached Ottawa, for example, many participants openly discussed their plans on social media. Yet intelligence agencies face severe constraints – as they should in a democracy – in their ability to “scrape” what Canadians post on Twitter or Telegram. We need to think about how to equip relevant agencies with the ability to monitor domestic extremists while respecting the privacy of Canadians. We must also carefully examine our laws after this episode, including the Emergencies Act, to ensure they can be used effectively and appropriately.
The most pressing threats to our national security call for a “whole-of-Canada” response, bringing together federal departments, provincial and municipal governments, the private sector, and civil society. The pandemic is illustrative: it was primarily a public health issue, but one with national security implications. Research institutions, for example, became vulnerable as hostile states aggressively sought to steal intellectual property related to vaccines. This pushed the intelligence community to strengthen ties with universities and the pharmaceutical sector.
Yet the national security community’s ability to co-ordinate and share information amongst itself, let alone with such a diverse range of partners, is at times lacking. At the very top, Cabinet has traditionally paid little attention to national security. Should Canada establish a ministerial body tasked with co-ordinating national security policy and operations? This would, at the very least, raise the level of awareness among ministers. More broadly, there is a strong need for more sophisticated mechanisms for the three levels of government to co-operate – and including, when necessary, the private sector and civil society.
Finally, there is the overarching issue of transparency. Canada’s national security community has, traditionally, not been open, despite recent improvements. This is costly: less transparency means less accountability and scrutiny, and therefore fewer opportunities for reform. A lack of transparency also fuels already pervasive mistrust towards the intelligence community. The current debate on whether the government was right to invoke the Emergencies Act illustrates the consequences of a transparency deficit. The government has so far shared only limited information on its justification; it relies too much on asking Canadians to “trust us,” fuelling mistrust and achieving the opposite of what it needs.
During the Ottawa protests, it took weeks for the federal government to be jolted into action. This reflects Canada’s lack of a serious national security culture. Faced with limited threats, we have had it easy and neglected national security, simply because we could afford to. When a crisis came, we lacked not only the structures to tackle it, but more fundamentally, the culture – the maturity and sophistication that come from experience. This is a luxury which is increasingly slipping away. We must never overreach and endanger civil liberties, but it is time for Canada to wake up and take national security more seriously.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.