In a startling revelation that has reignited debates over privacy and military overreach, the Canadian Armed Forces reprimanded soldiers who voiced legitimate concerns about an order to monitor Canadians' online activity during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. This controversy, stemming from activities under Operation Laser—the military's domestic pandemic response—highlights tensions between national security needs and civil liberties in times of crisis. Internal documents obtained through access-to-information requests reveal how a specialized team was directed to scour social media platforms, producing reports on public sentiment, political discourse, and misinformation, often using personal devices in ways that flouted established protocols.

The incident underscores broader issues within the Department of National Defence, where senior leaders reportedly viewed the pandemic as a testing ground for influence operations typically reserved for overseas adversaries. As details emerge in 2026, six years after the events, questions persist about accountability, the scope of military intelligence gathering on domestic soil, and protections for those who challenge questionable directives. This story not only revisits the early days of COVID-19 but also prompts reflection on how emergency measures can blur lines between defense and surveillance.

Operation Laser: The Military's Pandemic Response Framework

Operation Laser served as the cornerstone of the Canadian Armed Forces' (CAF) strategy to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing from Contingency Plan LASER designed for influenza-like outbreaks. Activated by Canadian Joint Operations Command (CJOC), it unfolded in four phases: preparedness, alert, response, and restoration. The goal was multifaceted—saving lives, supporting federal, provincial, and territorial partners through logistics, transportation, infrastructure aid, and humanitarian relief—all triggered by formal Requests for Federal Assistance.

From 2020 to 2022, deployments spanned the country, including wellness checks in remote Indigenous communities, supply deliveries, medical triage, and infrastructure monitoring like generators and water systems. In Phase 1, routine global threat monitoring occurred; Phase 2 ramped up vigilance. While primarily logistical, certain units expanded into information collection, ostensibly to inform command decisions and counter disinformation. This shift, however, veered into uncharted territory, lacking explicit higher authorization and raising red flags about domestic intelligence roles.

The Birth of the Joint Operational Effects Team Tasking

In March 2020, as lockdowns gripped the nation, CJOC's Joint Operational Effects (JOE) team received directives to create anonymous social media accounts. Their mission: comb platforms like Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, and Facebook for insights into COVID-19's status, political rhetoric from opposition parties such as the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc Québécois, and emerging misinformation trends. Between March 19 and June 5, the team churned out dozens of reports, capturing screenshots and analyses to aid situational awareness.

Under Colonel Chris Henderson's oversight, with Major John Zwicewicz in the chain of command, the effort aimed to equip leaders with real-time public pulse data. Yet, resource constraints—no sufficient government laptops, Office 365 licenses, or VPNs—pushed members to improvise with personal computers and home networks. This ad-hoc approach, born of pandemic remote work pressures, sowed the seeds of controversy, as it inadvertently positioned untrained personnel in intelligence-like roles without proper safeguards.

Soldiers Raise Alarms: Ethical and Legal Concerns Surface

Not all team members accepted the setup unquestioned. On March 12, 2020, one soldier emailed Major Zwicewicz, highlighting the 'sensitivity around social media and military use.' They warned that bypassing procedures for anonymous accounts could 'cross the line set out in the policy,' potentially exposing personal and institutional risks. Another sought office-based work, deeming home execution a 'serious risk' due to unsecure networks.

These whistleblower-like interventions reflected deeper unease. Lacking intelligence training, members grappled with whether their data-mining constituted formal intelligence gathering—a domain tightly regulated for domestic subjects under Canadian law. Concerns echoed fears of Charter rights infringements, privacy breaches, and unintended escalation into propaganda territory. The soldiers' proactive flagging demonstrated a commitment to rule adherence amid chaos.

Command's Dismissal and the Reprimands That Followed

Responses from leadership were curt. Major Zwicewicz invoked a legal advisor's green light, urging the team to 'cease barrack room lawyering'—military slang for overanalyzing rules—and press on remotely. Despite initial pushback, the operation continued until an internal probe confirmed violations: deliberate use of personal accounts over ordered anonymous ones, unassessed risks, and improper data handling.

Administrative actions ensued within weeks, reprimanding the team for non-compliance. Details remain opaque—no public court martials or named penalties—but fallout was swift: some members exited the unit or faced medical release. This punitive turn against questioners amplified perceptions of a culture stifling dissent, prioritizing mission over protocol.

Identified Violations and Internal Investigations

A compliance assessment by Canadian Forces Intelligence Command scrutinized three non-compliant units, including JOE and the 4th Canadian Division's Precision Information Team. Key lapses: failing to conceal identities, skipping risk assessments, logging incidental Canadian data (e.g., politician tweets), and overreaching scopes—like tracking Black Lives Matter protests unrelated to core tasks.

The JOE team alone produced over 50 reports, blending pandemic politics with non-governmental chatter. Remote work exacerbated issues; without VPNs, personal IP traces risked linking the military to surveillance. Experts later deemed it 'amateur hour,' with national security analyst Wesley Wark calling it a 'nonsensical operation' in a 'legal vacuum.' Retired Colonel Brett Boudreau pointed to outdated policies unfit for domestic ops.

Propaganda Testing Ambitions Exposed

Beyond monitoring, internal reviews unveiled a mindset at CJOC viewing COVID-19 as a 'unique opportunity' to hone information operations—techniques like 'shaping' and 'exploiting' narratives, honed in Afghanistan, now eyed for home. Lt.-Gen. Mike Rouleau's command pushed 'soft power' to preempt civil unrest and amplify government messaging, sans cabinet nod.

Retired Maj.-Gen. Daniel Gosselin's probe found this ethos permeating ranks, dismissing legal cautions. Then-Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Jonathan Vance halted it verbally in April 2020, citing eroded public trust, yet remnants lingered six months. Commodore Geneviève Bernatchez, the top legal officer, warned of 'significant legal risk' to citizens' rights and the CAF's repute, invoking full domestic law applicability.

For deeper context on these influence efforts, see the detailed Ottawa Citizen investigation.

Legal and Ethical Ramifications

At stake were Charter protections against unreasonable search and seizure, plus privacy statutes governing incidental Canadian data collection. Military doctrine limits such ops to foes abroad; domestic flips invited scrutiny. No overarching law polices defence intelligence on citizens, per a 2020 parliamentary committee urging reform—yet gaps persist.

Ethical quandaries abound: untrained personnel wielding surveillance tools, commanders overriding dissent, and mission creep into psyops. The episode eroded institutional credibility, as Acting CDS Gen. Wayne Eyre and Deputy Minister Jody Thomas admitted in 2021, vowing transparency to rebuild trust amid recruitment woes.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Public Backlash

Privacy advocates decried it as a surveillance slippery slope, echoing fears of normalized monitoring. Opposition figures, monitored themselves, questioned military politicization. Experts like Wark advocate legislative fixes; Boudreau stresses oversight. DND spokesperson Andrée-Anne Poulin affirmed post-incident guidance and audits to avert repeats.

Public discourse, amplified on social media—the very arena monitored—mixes outrage over overreach with defenses of crisis necessities. Veterans' groups highlight whistleblower vulnerabilities, urging protections akin to civilian ones.

• Privacy risks from personal device use
• Erosion of public-military trust
• Need for clear domestic intel rules
• Whistleblower safeguards in hierarchy

Military Reforms and Lessons Learned

Post-mortems yielded clarifications on personal data rules, enhanced training, VPN mandates, and oversight. DND emphasizes preventing recurrence while maintaining agility. Broader cultural shifts target 'insular mindsets,' promoting ethical decision-making.

Yet challenges linger: evolving threats like disinformation demand info dominance, balanced against liberties. Recent 2026 disclosures, via CBC's reporting, spotlight enduring opacity.

Implications for Civil Liberties and National Security

This saga illustrates crisis-era tensions: urgency versus restraint. It prompts scrutiny of military domestic roles, especially info domains where state and citizen intersect online. Implications span recruitment dips from trust deficits to policy voids inviting repeats.

For Canadians, it reinforces vigilance on emergency powers' sunset. Globally, parallels emerge in militaries adapting psyops homeward amid hybrid threats.

Looking Ahead: Safeguards and Accountability

Future-proofing demands parliamentary oversight, whistleblower channels, and intel laws tailored to domestic contexts. As CAF evolves, embedding ethics training and transparency could restore confidence. This controversy, though rooted in 2020, endures as a cautionary tale—reminding that even well-intentioned defense must bow to democratic principles.

Stakeholders urge proactive reforms: annual compliance audits, civilian review boards, and public reporting. Only through such measures can the military safeguard both nation and rights.

Photo by Joel Rivera-Camacho on Unsplash