Introduction
Evolving threats reveal deep inefficiencies in Canada’s security policy. Traditionally reliant on strategic distance and US cooperation, Canada’s approach has stagnated, fostering complacency toward emerging threats like Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism (IMVE) and terrorism. Ambiguous terminology and incoherent implementation hinders the relevancy of Canada’s counterterrorism strategy. Canada must look internally to establish clear legal distinctions between terrorism and violent extremism while also reaffirming its commitments to modernize reporting processes and policy frameworks. Canada must shed the narrative of being a security laggard in order to preserve national security and strong multilateral relations.
Analysis
Current Canadian Security Policy on Terrorism
Canada’s security policy is molded by three important pillars: strategic distance, security relations with the US, and commitments to multilateral security cooperation. A consistent dimension of this policy is being physically separated from global conflict zones. While this has ensured a comparatively peaceful Canada, it has also induced a sense of complacency, which can be derived from Canada outsourcing its national defense to the US for the past 70 years, leading Canada to be a security laggard. Although both nations share commonalities in continental defense and NATO operations, the relationship is asymmetric. The US contributes a disproportionate amount of resources to military spending, leading to concerns regarding a lack of a coherent Canadian security policy independent of the US. Lastly, multilateral commitment remains key, with Canada engaging in organizations such as NATO and Five Eyes.
Canada’s security policy on terrorism reflects the three pillars that define its security environment. Canada’s counter-terrorism strategy revolves around four aspects, preventing, detecting, denying and responding to terrorist threats. PSC states that “All four elements contribute to building a resilient Canada. The Prevent element fosters a Canada that is resistant to violent extremism. The Detect and Deny elements ensure Canada is able to identify terrorist activities early, and that it is a difficult target for would-be terrorists. The Respond element engenders a resilient society able to bounce back quickly when terrorist incidents do occur”. As the importance of strategic distance has diminished, Canada has been forced to adopt a policy that revolves around early threat mitigation, with the rise of cyberterrorism and transnationalism accelerating this development. In particular, the rise of ideologically motivated violent extremism (IMVE) in Canada has been fueled by extremist narratives that have grown transnationally, and the rise of online platforms by extremists for recruitment and dissemination of violent extremist initiatives. Lastly, Canadian counter-terrorism policy aligns itself with the desire for multilateral security cooperation, for instance Canada’s participation in the Global Counterterrorism Forum indicates a multilateral interest in diminishing terrorist recruitment, which acts as a preventive measure.
Critiques on Canada’s Policy on Terrorism
There are several critiques to Canada’s security policy on terrorism, mainly revolving around several core concerns, including the creation of narratives post 9/11 that have shaped counter-terrorist policies and the lack of transparency around a central definition on the different forms of terrorism. Post 9/11, there has been a focus from Canadian policy on terrorism that revolves around a jihadi-centric narrative, where security discourse became centered on terrorism linked to Al-Qaeda, ISIS and Islamic extremism, attaching Muslims with the connotation of being a threat. There is a concern that this narrow focus has obscured the rise of IMVE, which has increasingly been the main priority threat of terrorism in Canada. Furthermore, there is a lack of a coherent definition of terrorism in Canada’s policy frameworks which presents several challenges. The Criminal Code of Canada provides a legal definition of terrorism, yet the government of Canada frequently uses the term interchangeably with violent extremism which creates ambiguity and concerns in enforcement. This flexibility in the definition has led to instances where the term has been used to fit certain contexts, for instance in the case of Suresh v. Canada, the Supreme Court “implicitly rejected the broad definition of terrorism contained in the Act and defined terrorism for the purpose of immigration law…”. This has created legal, and operational challenges that weakens Canada’s ability to respond to emerging threats.
Policy Recommendations
Thus far, the Canadian government has shown a lack of commitment on terrorism, with the last report on the terrorist threat to Canada being in 2018. Since then, terrorism has evolved to include non-conventional means such as cyberterrorism, Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism (IMVE) and foreign interference. A clear sign of policy negligence on this particular file, the government of the day can work towards establishing a legislation for Public Safety Canada to release a report on the terrorist threat to Canada every year. By increasing the frequency of these reports, Canada signals preparedness and commitment to the file of terrorism, but also has the dual effect of harmonizing security policy on terrorism with the US, who releases annual reports.
Canada must strive for a more coherent definition and distinction on the terms of terrorism and violent extremism. Canada’s counter-terrorism framework, built on an jihadi-centric narrative, is outdated and ill-suited to address the diffuse nature of IMVE. Canada should push for distinct definitions for terrorism and violent extremism, as the terrorist threat has evolved since 2018. The terms should no longer be used interchangeably, as violent extremism should have a legal definition that is amended in the Criminal Code, much like how terrorism has a legal definition. Violent extremism itself, is a broader term that encompasses political, religious and ideological dimensions. It is distinct from the definition of terrorism, and should thus have different legal thresholds for action. For instance, while terrorism is under the Criminal Code, violent extremism may yield legal action under public safety laws and hate speech and discrimination laws. Such reforms would codify definitions of previously ambiguous terms, allowing for more coherent intelligence tracking on terrorism and violent extremism. On a larger scale, these steps towards a more cohesive strategy on terrorism can serve as a prelude for a renewed national security strategy, where a comprehensive and integrated road map for national security can be adopted that speaks to economic, national, climate and social dimensions of policymaking. By doing so, governments can be proactive, rather than reactive, which applies to terrorist threats.
Reference List
Agnew, M. and Todd, N. (2021). Rethinking Canada’s Security Strategy: How Canada Can Graduate from the Kids’ Table. [online] Canadian Global Affairs Institute. Available at: https://www.cgai.ca/rethinking_canadas_security_strategy_how_canada_can_graduate_from_the_kids_table.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (2023). Protecting National Security in Partnership with all Canadians. [online] http://www.canada.ca. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/corporate/publications/pnspac-en/protecting-national-security-in-partnership-with-all-canadians.html.
Department of Justice (2005). Department of Justice – The Views of Canadian Scholars on the Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act. [online] http://www.justice.gc.ca. Available at: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/antiter/rr05_1/p3_1.html.
Holland, K. (2014). The Canada–United States defence relationship: a partnership for the twenty-first century. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 20(3), pp.241–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2014.995686.
Nash, S. (2021). The Implications of Who Is Considered a Terrorist in the Post-9/11 Era. [online] CDA Institute, ON TRACK VOLUME 26, pp.21–26. Available at: https://cdainstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/ontrack26fall.pdf [Accessed 27 Apr. 2026].
Public Safety Canada (2019). 2018 Public Report on the Terrorism Threat to Canada. [online] http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca. Available at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/pblc-rprt-trrrsm-thrt-cnd-2018/index-en.aspx.
Public Safety Canada (2022). Building Resilience Against Terrorism: Canada’s Counter-terrorism Strategy. [online] Publicsafety.gc.ca. Available at: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/rslnc-gnst-trrrsm/index-en.aspx#s5. [Accessed 27 Apr. 2026].
RCMP (2026). Terrorism and violent extremism. [online] Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Available at: https://rcmp.ca/en/federal-policing/national-security/terrorism-and-violent-extremism.