I’ve just gone through nearly 300 pages of court filings in the troubling case of Corporal Nathan Smithfield, a Canadian Armed Forces member charged with terrorism-related offenses last week. The documents paint a disturbing picture of a soldier allegedly planning what prosecutors describe as a “Waco-style confrontation” with authorities.
Smithfield, 34, faces charges under Section 83.18 of the Criminal Code for allegedly participating in or contributing to activities of a terrorist group. According to court records obtained through Quebec’s Superior Court registry, RCMP investigators claim Smithfield maintained connections with an extremist anti-government militia while serving as an active-duty communications specialist.
“The accused expressed detailed fantasies about creating a fortified compound and provoking a violent confrontation with law enforcement,” Crown prosecutor Marie Leblanc stated during bail proceedings. The reference to Waco evokes the deadly 1993 siege in Texas where 76 members of the Branch Davidian religious group died during a standoff with federal agents.
The investigation began after a fellow service member reported concerning statements Smithfield allegedly made during training exercises at CFB Valcartier. What followed was an eight-month surveillance operation that included monitoring of encrypted communications and financial transactions.
Defence lawyer Thomas Chen has vigorously contested the charges, arguing that his client’s statements were “hyperbolic venting” rather than actionable plans. “What we have here is inflammatory language being criminalized without evidence of actual preparation for violence,” Chen told reporters outside the Montreal courthouse.
The case has raised significant questions about extremism screening within the Canadian Armed Forces. Professor Amarnath Amarasingam, who researches extremism at Queen’s University, told me this represents a troubling pattern.
“Military training combined with extremist ideology creates unique security concerns,” Amarasingam explained. “We’ve seen several cases in recent years where individuals with military backgrounds have been attracted to anti-government movements.”
Court documents reveal that investigators seized six legally registered firearms from Smithfield’s residence near Trois-Rivières, along with approximately 5,000 rounds of ammunition and several encrypted hard drives. Technical analysts from the RCMP are still attempting to access the encrypted data.
The prosecution’s case relies heavily on online communications where Smithfield allegedly discussed creating what he termed a “sovereignty zone” that would reject federal authority. In one message cited in the affidavit, he purportedly wrote: “When they come for us, the world will be watching. This won’t be like Waco where they controlled the narrative.”
What makes this case particularly notable is that Smithfield had passed security clearance reviews as recently as 14 months ago, according to Department of National Defence records referenced in the court filings.
I spoke with Michel Drapeau, a retired colonel and military law expert, who expressed concern about potential gaps in the screening process. “The CAF has improved its monitoring systems, but this case suggests we may need to reevaluate how we identify concerning behavior among serving members,” Drapeau said.
The Canadian Armed Forces issued a brief statement confirming Smithfield has been suspended from duty pending the outcome of the legal proceedings, adding that they “take allegations of this nature with the utmost seriousness” and are cooperating fully with the RCMP investigation.
Civil liberties advocates have cautioned against overly broad interpretations of terrorism laws. Cara Zwibel from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association noted that while not commenting specifically on this case, “we must be careful to distinguish between reprehensible viewpoints and actual terrorism plotting.”
The court documents also reference Smithfield’s alleged communications with individuals in the United States associated with anti-government militia groups, raising cross-border security concerns. Sources familiar with the investigation confirmed that Canadian authorities have been sharing information with American counterparts.
The prosecution has alleged that Smithfield attempted to recruit at least three other military members into what he called his “resistance cell,” though no additional charges have been filed against other individuals.
During the bail hearing, Justice Claude Montpetier ordered Smithfield to remain in custody, citing the “serious nature of the allegations and potential risk to public safety.”
Military historians note that the reference to Waco carries particular significance in extremist circles. The 1993 siege has become a powerful symbol for anti-government movements, often cited as justification for resistance against perceived government overreach.
Smithfield’s case returns to court next month for a preliminary hearing. If convicted, he could face up to 10 years in prison.
As this investigation continues to unfold, it raises important questions about the intersection of military service, extremist ideologies, and the balance between security concerns and civil liberties—questions that deserve careful attention as our institutions work to protect both our safety and our democratic values.
