Uh, no. You assume that making the country an even larger police state would help. But I'm sure the Canadians already had about as big a police state as it needed.
And the fuss over incidents involving two persons? Out of millions that live in and travel through Canada each year? Seems like their police apparatus is working pretty well from my point of view.
You talk as if we could bring an end to the threat of someone doing something nefarious, if only we just did something (think of the chil... soldiers). But you know what? We're doing enough. The actual count of terrorism deaths compared with just about any other cause should convince just about anyone of that. But when your argument is emotional, I guess facts don't matter (but still we try...).
So, no, neither Canada, nor the US, nor does just about any developed country need a bigger police, monitoring, border-controlling, etc. apparatus. They should probably try a bit harder to make sure that wealth and opportunity are distributed a bit more equitably and that people have a bit more say in what's being done for/to them and that might be a bit more cost-effective, but it's also a tangent along which I will not proceed further.
What is clear is that freedom is built on acceptable losses. You can debate acceptable loss levels, but the fact of those losses never go away. Talking about acceptable levels and what is needed to achieve those levels might generate a fruitful discussion but, somehow, I don't think you want to talk about things that way.