Beneath the decorative layers of impartial national security, a lopsided machine operates in Canada’s corridors of power: millions in taxpayer funds are poured into dissecting right-wing ideologies as the nation’s arch-villain, while far-left shadows like Antifa dance unchecked in the blind spots of official scrutiny. At the heart of this tilted scale stands Barbara Perry, a scholar whose reports on right-wing extremism have become the blueprint for government crackdowns—despite a trail of methodological cracks, ethical voids, and unverified claims that scream for closer inspection. Piecing together court records, funding trails, and policy echoes, this investigation uncovers how Perry’s work has sculpted a system that corrals right-leaning thoughts into a danger zone, letting left-wing turbulence slip away unnoticed. Is this a vigilant defence against hate, or a sly playbook to muzzle political foes? The evidence paints a picture Canadians can’t afford to ignore.
The Funding Funnel: Millions for the Right, Crumbs for the Left
Government funding for extremism research in Canada tells a stark story of imbalance. Since 2015, Public Safety Canada—the federal department overseeing national security—has poured over $1 million into projects led by Barbara Perry, director of the Centre on Hate, Bias and Extremism at Ontario Tech University. These grants, part of initiatives like the Kanishka Project and Community Resilience Fund, have supported her studies exclusively on right-wing extremism (RWE), estimating hundreds of groups and incidents tied to white supremacy, anti-immigration sentiments, and anti-government views.
In contrast, searches for similar funding on far-left extremism—such as anarchism, anti-capitalist violence, or Antifa—yield nothing substantial. The Community Resilience Fund, designed to counter radicalization, has backed numerous RWE-focused grants but none dedicated to far-left threats. This disparity isn’t accidental; it aligns with post-2015 Liberal government priorities, which expanded anti-hate efforts amid global events like the rise of Trump and far-right protests. By 2019, Public Safety announced targeted funding to “strengthen understanding of right-wing extremism,” further entrenching the focus.
“far-left groups including Montreal Antifa merged with pro-Palestinian demonstrators, escalating into riots where protesters smashed windows, set two vehicles on fire (including a police car), threw smoke bombs and projectiles at officers, and engaged in widespread vandalism, leading to three arrests for assaulting police“
This funding loop creates a self-reinforcing cycle: Money flows to RWE research, which amplifies its threat level, justifying more funding. Meanwhile, far-left acts—despite a litany of incidents—receive little attention. Take Antifa’s involvement in Canadian disruptions: In 2025, an alleged Antifa affiliate, Gabriel Lepage (a Department of National Defence employee), threw smoke bombs into a Montreal church during a worship service, disrupting the event and prompting a parliamentary investigation—yet it was classified as mere mischief, not extremism. In November 2024, during the anti-NATO protests in Montreal coinciding with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly summit, far-left groups including Montreal Antifa merged with pro-Palestinian demonstrators, escalating into riots where protesters smashed windows, set two vehicles on fire (including a police car), threw smoke bombs and projectiles at officers, and engaged in widespread vandalism, leading to three arrests for assaulting police and obstructing officers—yet the event was classified as civil unrest, not extremism. Similarly, on January 10, 2026, in Toronto, an anti-immigrant rally by the right-wing group “Canada First” drew a violent counter-protest involving Antifa members, resulting in clashes that led to eight arrests and 29 charges, including assaulting peace officers and obstruction. Critics argue this reflects political bias, as far-left ideologies often align with progressive causes, shielding them from scrutiny while right-leaning views are demonized.
IMVE: A Framework Built on Bias.
The Ideologically Motivated Violent Extremism (IMVE) framework, introduced by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) in 2019, was meant to neutralize politicized labels by categorizing threats into sub-groups like xenophobic violence, anti-authority violence, gender-driven violence, and grievance-driven violence. In theory, it’s ideology-agnostic. In practice, it has given far-right threats a de facto “own category” through detailed breakdowns and prioritization.
Perry’s influence is key here. Her 2015 report described the far-right as a “loose movement with a wide range of ideologies,” encompassing white supremacy, ethnonationalism, anti-immigration nativism, small cells, small memberships, infighting, and sporadic activity. This expansive typology fed directly into IMVE, where far-right elements dominate 50-60% of cases. CSIS reports and Public Safety strategies frequently cite her estimates, leading to 13 far-right entities designated as terrorists since 2019, and none from the far-left.
Yet, far-left movements like Antifa—also a loose, decentralized ideology blending anti-government, anarchism, socialism, and Marxism—don’t receive similar lumping. Despite Perry’s own description of the far-right as fragmented (mirroring Antifa’s structure), far-left acts fall under vague IMVE sub-categories like anti-authority violence but are rarely highlighted. CSIS acknowledges far-left as 10-20% of IMVE but provides minimal details, treating incidents as “reactive” rather than organized threats. This selective framing allows far-right ideologies to be aggregated and amplified, while far-left ideologies slip into non-ideological classifications like “civil unrest.”
The result? A system that appears tailored to target right-wing political ideations—such as anti-government skepticism or anti-immigration concerns—as threats, while giving the far left a pass. As one conservative MP noted in parliamentary hearings, this could “smear” mainstream right-leaning views as extremist, politicizing national security.
Major Flaws in Barbara Perry’s Reports: A Foundation of Questionable Data
Perry’s reports, beginning with the 2015 “Environmental Scan,” serve as the cornerstone of this skewed system, yet they are riddled with flaws that cast doubt on their integrity and objectivity. Funded directly by Public Safety Canada, the 2015 scan boldly estimated over 100 RWE groups and more than 120 violent incidents spanning from 1980 to 2014, but it stumbles under scrutiny. Among its glaring shortcomings is the absence of any ethics board approval, a clear violation of TCPS 2 standards for research involving human subjects—such as the interviews conducted with 40 law enforcement officials, 30 community activists, and even three active hate group members. Data from online forums like Stormfront was never properly verified for Canadian origins, relying instead on vague contextual clues without technical tools like IP geolocation, a fact Perry herself admitted under oath during the 2024 Coutts trial, where she was disqualified as an expert witness due to these unreliable methods. The report’s overly broad definition of RWE inflates its numbers by sweeping in non-violent or defunct entities, compounded by circular self-citations and a heavy dependence on selective sources, including activist Richard Warman, whom Perry praises as a “heroic activist” despite his controversial history of posting under Nazi aliases to infiltrate forums.
“Across these reports, a consistent failure to incorporate balanced data, such as far-left violence, stands out, with critical omissions like unverified attributions masquerading as solid evidence—providing strong grounds for claims of misrepresentation and fraud, as Perry presented unproven assertions as factual insights.”
Building on this shaky foundation is the 2021 UNESCO report. Which recycles much of this material, reusing the 120+ incidents from 2015 without fresh updates or scrutiny, while vaguely referencing an “ongoing study” to inflate group estimates to 300. It offers no dedicated methodology section, discloses no ethics oversight, and presents hazy trends—like a “dramatic rise” post-2016—without supporting evidence or quantitative backing. Selective framing ignores any comparative threats from the left, with poor practices evident in its overreliance on advocacy-driven sources and complete absence of balanced analysis.
Across these reports, a consistent failure to incorporate balanced data, such as far-left violence, stands out, with critical omissions like unverified attributions masquerading as solid evidence—providing strong grounds for claims of misrepresentation and fraud, as Perry presented unproven assertions as factual insights. But as readers dig deeper into this web of recycled research, one can’t help but wonder: Was her original study, the spark that ignited this entire apparatus, fraudulent in nature and deliberately crafted to target political enemies whose ideologies clashed with the prevailing narrative?
Reliance on Flawed Data: Public Safety, CAHN, and Others
Public Safety Canada not only funded and published Perry’s 2015 report but has woven its findings into core strategies, such as the 2022 National Strategy on Countering Radicalization to Violence, where her estimates of group numbers and incident counts are used to prioritize IMVE without any apparent independent audits of her methods or data integrity.
The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN), where Perry serves on the advisory committee, leans even more heavily on her classifications, referencing them in parliamentary testimonies—such as those by executive director Evan Balgord in 2022 hearings—to push for far-right groups to be labelled as terrorists. CAHN, which received over $200,000 in funding from Public Safety Canada in 2025 alone, proudly declares itself “anti-fascist” and focuses exclusively on the far-right, showing little concern for exaggerations in its narratives. A prime example is their ongoing portrayal of Diagolon—a satirical online meme community—as a violent neo-Nazi extremist militia poised for armed insurrection, despite updated RCMP assessments and court findings (including in the Coutts trial) that refute these claims, describing Diagolon as non-extremist and lacking any real organizational threat. This persistence in amplifying unproven dangers underscores CAHN’s willingness to stretch interpretations, potentially to sustain their funding and mission.
Adding to the web of connections, Richard Warman—the activist Perry has lauded as “heroic” in her reports for his infiltration tactics (including posting under Nazi aliases on forums, as ruled in 2009 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal cases)—sits on CAHN’s advisory board alongside Perry. Warman’s history of controversial methods, which some critics label as entrapment, ties into the broader network: Perry praises him, CAHN amplifies his approach, and Public Safety funds the ecosystem. Organizations like the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and B’nai Brith Canada also rely on Perry’s data without rigorous verification, further spreading the narrative through their hate incident audits and reports. This interconnected dependence points to a glaring lack of due diligence. It transforms her work into a potent tool for potentially targeting right-wing ideologies, raising alarms about whether this is objective research or a mechanism to label political adversaries as threats.
Left-Wing Violence Slips Away, Spelling Trouble for All Canadians
The absence of a dedicated category for far-left threats creates a dangerous blind spot, allowing acts of violence and criminality to evade proper scrutiny and slide into milder classifications. Without the same expansive framework that corrals right-wing ideologies under IMVE’s umbrella, far-left disruptions—such as Antifa’s smoke bomb attack on a Montreal church in 2025 by alleged affiliate Gabriel Lepage—are dismissed as mere “mischief” rather than ideological extremism, even as similar right-wing incidents trigger full IMVE investigations. This resource bias compounds the issue: With no equivalent government funding for far-left studies, data collection remains sparse, minimizing threats like the Turtle Island Liberation Front’s thwarted bomb plot in 2025 or ongoing assaults during protests. Far-left acts, often reactive and decentralized, fall through the cracks, under-preparing authorities for a fuller spectrum of dangers.
Canadians should be deeply concerned by this asymmetry, as it not only erodes public trust in institutions but risks politicizing national security to target political dissent while turning a blind eye to far-left risks. When immigration skepticism or anti-government views are labelled extremist based on flawed reports, it threatens free speech and chills open debate, all while unbalanced data leads to incomplete policies that fail to address all threats equitably. The time has come for Canadians to demand independent audits of funded research, balanced allocation of resources to study far-left extremism, and parliamentary inquiries to ensure extremism monitoring serves the public good—not a selective agenda. After all, in a democracy, true safety demands vigilance on all fronts, not just the ones that fit the narrative.
Sources:
Public Safety Canada. (2015). Right-Wing Extremism in Canada: An Environmental Scan. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/archive-rght-wng-xtrmsm-cnd/archive-rght-wng-xtrmsm-cnd-eng.pdf
Ontario Tech University. (n.d.). Barbara Perry’s Research Profile and Grants. https://ontariotechu.ca/experts/ssh/barbara-perry.php
House of Commons. (2022). Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Hearings. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Committees/en/SECU/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=11538031
Canadian Commission for UNESCO. (2021). The Extreme Right in Canada: What It Is, and What to Do About It. https://en.ccunesco.ca/-/media/Files/Unesco/Resources/2021/06/ExtremeRightInCanada.pdf
Public Safety Canada. (2025). Community Resilience Fund Grants Announcement. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/r-nd-flght-182/index-en.aspx
Juno News. (2022). CAHN’s Ties to Antifa and Funding Controversies. https://junonews.ca/2022/05/CAHN-antifa-connections
R v Carbert and Olienick (Coutts Trial Transcripts, 2024). Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.
Wiretap Media. (2023). Unmasking a Manufactured Crisis: The Politicization of Hate in Canada. https://wiretapmedia.ca/unmasking-a-manufactured-crisis-and-the-politicization-of-hate-in-canada/
CSIS. (2024). Public Report on National Security Threats. https://www.canada.ca/en/security-intelligence-service/corporate/publications/2024-public-report.html
Institute for Strategic Dialogue. (2020). An Online Environmental Scan of Right-Wing Extremism in Canada. https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/an-online-environmental-scan-of-right-wing-extremism-in-canada/