Secure Line

Welcome to Secure Line, launching in late January 2025.

In this episode of Secure Line, Steph, Leah, and Jess are joined by Chris Nardi, parliamentary reporter at the National Post, to unpack what it’s like to cover Canada’s national security world from the press gallery. Nardi explains how his beat grew “organically” through major transparency moments like the Public Order Emergency Commission (POEC)and the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference (PIFI), plus national security trials.The conversation focuses on why Canadians’ interest in national security has increased—especially around questions of who the government watches, how, and why—and why journalists end up acting as translators in a space where direct public communication is limited. Nardi describes the challenge of explaining technical issues like lawful access to readers who haven’t been given the “basics,” critiques the frequent reliance on secrecy language like the “mosaic effect,” and argues agencies could share far more about intent and effects (even if they can’t reveal methods) to build public understanding and trust.They compare POEC and PIFI as rare moments that “cracked open the oyster” of Canadian national security, while noting frustrations when commissions operate like courtrooms and stonewall basic process questions. Nardi highlights standout inquiry moments, reflects on his reporting into dysfunction at Global Affairs and CSIS (including morale and leadership trust issues), and flags what he’s watching next: renewed debate on lawful access reform and the long-awaited National Security Strategy. The episode closes with advice for student journalists: pick up the phone, build sources, triangulate government claims with outside experts, and read deeply—because in national security, the homework is often the story.

Synopsis: In this episode of Secure Line, Steph and Jess unpack one of the deadliest mass shootings in Canadian history and ask a difficult but essential question: can understanding the perpetrator help prevent future violence?To help make sense of the attack in Tumbler Ridge, the hosts are joined by Dr. Emily Corner, Associate Professor at Australian National University and one of the world’s leading experts on lone-actor terrorism and grievance-fuelled violence. Drawing on years of research across terrorism, mass shootings, and fixated individuals, Dr. Corner explains why rigid labels—such as “terrorism” or “school shooting”— can hinder analysis and understanding.The conversation explores what grievance-fuelled violence actually is, how it overlaps with (and differs from) terrorism, and why personal grievances, instability, and perceived injustice so often sit at the core of acts of mass violence. The episode also tackles emerging concepts like nihilistic violent extremism, the growing involvement of minors, the limits of ideology-based explanations, and why mental health is an important, but never causal, part of the story.Grounded in evidence and focused on prevention, this episode offers essential context for understanding contemporary mass violence in Canada and beyond.

In Season 3, Episode 2 of Secure Line, Steph Carvin sits down with Jess Davis for a deep dive into Jess’s new book chapter, “State Secrets: Hiring Criminals for State-Sponsored Activities,” published in Killing in the Name of the State: State-Sponsored Assassinations in International Politics (Lynne Rienner).The episode unpacks a disturbing but increasingly visible trend: states using organized crime networks as proxies for covert action—from targeted assassinations and transnational repression to foreign interference and sabotage. Jess explains why these partnerships are attractive to states (plausible deniability, operational access, and reduced diplomatic risk) and why criminals take the deal (money, safe haven, market protection, coercion, and impunity). Steph and Jess also wrestle with what’s genuinely “new” versus what’s simply evolving—especially the role of encrypted apps, social media recruitment, cryptocurrency payments, and the growing use of youth in low-level state-linked disruption.Along the way, they nerd out on the conceptual questions—proxy vs. surrogate, principal–agent problems, and why this phenomenon is hard to measure—before bringing it back to policy: the crime–intelligence nexus doesn’t fit neatly into Canada’s institutional divide between CSIS and the RCMP, creating real enforcement and intelligence gaps just as state–crime convergence becomes more central to modern security threats.

Season 3 kicks off with a hard look at the world as it is—not as we wish it were. In this episode of Secure Line, Steph Carvin, Leah West, and Jess Davis unpack Mark Carney’s much-discussed speech at the World Economic Forum, and what it reveals about the collapse of the liberal international order, Canada’s shrinking room to maneuver, and the uncomfortable reality of great-power competition.The conversation moves from trade and geopolitics to international law, sanctions, and the fracturing of the global financial system. The hosts debate whether multilateralism still works, whether international law is becoming more contractual and fragmented, and how the erosion of U.S. leadership is accelerating alternative financial systems that blunt sanctions and empower actors like Russia, China, and Iran.Looking ahead, the episode surveys what 2026 may bring: the prospects (or lack thereof) for major Canadian legislation on lawful access, cybersecurity, and financial crime; looming trade negotiations; the future of NATO in an era of U.S. unpredictability; and why cuts to Canada’s diplomatic capacity may undermine the very strategy Carney is calling for. Sobering, candid, and sharply analytical, this episode sets the tone for a season grappling with insecurity, fragmentation, and the limits of state power in a rapidly changing world.

Steph, Leah, and Jess kick off Secure Line’s first-ever video “Festivus” episode with a holiday tradition: the airing of the grievances. After a quick tribute to producer Lena (the only person exempt from criticism), the trio runs through what’s been frustrating them most about Canada’s national security landscape—and what they think needs to change.Leah opens with a perennial—and increasingly urgent—complaint: Canada still doesn’t have a national security strategy, and the absence of a clear “North Star” is starting to miss the moment with Canadians and allies alike. Jess follows with a hard look at the state of terrorism research: weak definitional consensus, inconsistent measurement, and a field that sometimes struggles to generate actionable insight—especially as governments broaden terrorism definitions in ways that blur already-messy lines. From there, the conversation turns to threat assessments and the purpose (and practical impact) of ITAC, including its evolving mandate, its communication style, and whether “permanently medium” threat levels are actually useful for Canadians.Steph’s grievances hit institutional accountability: national security being framed too narrowly through defense, the government’s stalled reform agenda, ongoing RCMP reform debates, and pointed criticism of the Public Safety portfolio—particularly at a time when Canada’s reliance on the U.S. is becoming less predictable across the full spectrum of national security issues.The crew then shifts to a rare moment of self-critique: Jess rethinks crypto as not just “agnostic,” but increasingly inseparable from illicit finance architecture; Leah reassesses whether Canada can afford to keep avoiding a foreign intelligence capability; and the group reflects on how deep U.S. institutional deterioration is becoming under Trump 2.0—and what that means for trust, intelligence, and long-term cooperation.Finally, the mood turns lighter as they share wins from the year—big professional milestones, personal achievements (including Leah’s Ironman Worlds in Kona), and the podcast itself—before looking ahead to 2026: major legislation files to watch, reform questions still unresolved, and what they’re tracking as Canada tries to navigate a rapidly shifting security environment.

Secure Line closes out 2025 by taking stock of a year defined by geopolitical whiplash: grinding wars in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine; rising tension in the Indo-Pacific; instability across Africa’s “coup belt”; and a U.S. foreign policy that’s reshaping alliances as much as it’s responding to threats. With a newly released U.S. National Security Strategy pointing toward a more transactional, hemisphere-first approach—and allies scrambling to adapt—Steph, Leah, and Jess ask what this all means for 2026.To unpack the year, the hosts are joined by Shashank Joshi, Defence Editor at The Economist and former RUSI senior research fellow. Joshi reflects on what he heard during a recent trip to Canada, arguing that Canada may be in the most exposed position of America’s allies—highly dependent, economically vulnerable, and increasingly alarmed. From there, the conversation ranges widely: Europe’s growing distrust of Washington, the strategic logic behind a revived Monroe Doctrine, Canada’s dilemma over diversifying defence procurement (including the F-35 vs. Gripen debate), the lessons—and limits—of learning from Ukraine’s drone war, and the mounting risks of Russian “active measures” across Europe.Joshi closes with the key watch-items for the year ahead: how (and on what terms) Ukraine’s war may culminate, the risk of U.S. escalation in Venezuela, and whether Indo-Pacific flashpoints continue to sharpen as China’s military timeline and regional reactions accelerate. The episode ends with a teaser for the team’s upcoming Festivus special—an airing of national security grievances before the holiday break.

In this episode of Secure Line, Leah West and Stephanie Carvin break down the most consequential defence budget Canada has seen in generations—joined by special guest Philippe Lagassé, Chair in International Affairs at NPSIA and author of Debating Canadian Defence. With Jess Davis away this week, Leah and Stephanie dive into the headline-grabbing $81.8 billion defence package unveiled in Budget 2025: what it means, why it matters, and where the uncertainties lie. Phil helps unpack the sheer scale of the investment, the federal government’s unusual “money first, details later” strategy, and the emerging battle lines between political direction, military preference, and industrial ambition.Together they explore the shifting terrain of defence procurement—from submarines to sovereign cloud—and the political risks of moving this much money, this fast, through a bureaucracy conditioned to avoid risk. They also tackle the deeper tension running beneath the budget: whether Canada continues to rely primarily on the United States or finally builds real sovereign capability. Smart, candid, and often pointed, this conversation offers essential context for anyone trying to understand the future of Canada’s defence posture and the political, bureaucratic, and strategic fights that will shape it.

From balance sheets to ballads, the 2025 budget doubles down on soft power and spectacle, but keeps Canada’s national security stuck in the same old song.In this episode of Secure Line, hosts Stephanie Carvin and Jessica Davis dive into the 2025 Canadian federal budget — a self-proclaimed “transformative” plan that, on closer inspection, mostly reinforces the national security status quo. From record defense spending to long-delayed reform, Steph and Jess unpack what the budget really means for Canada’s intelligence, enforcement, and foreign policy landscape.They debate whether the long-promised National Security Strategy will finally materialize and take a close look at the newly resurrected Canadian Financial Crimes Agency — a long-talked-about but still-undefined enforcement body meant to fix Canada’s chronic money-laundering and financial crime failures. The hosts also explore what cuts to Global Affairs Canada and the Privy Council Office mean for diplomacy, development, and intelligence coordination, and they catch a surprising “Easter egg” about foreign bank investment reviews that could reshape national security screening in the financial sector.Between witty asides about “making it rain” for the Canadian Armed Forces and an unexpected detour into Eurovision diplomacy, the episode captures the blend of sharp analysis and humour that Secure Line is known for.

In this episode, former Canadian environment and infrastructure minister Catherine McKenna joins Secure Line to discuss her memoir Run Like a Girl and the escalating threats faced by public officials—especially women—working on contentious files like climate policy. McKenna recounts how online harassment (“Climate Barbie”) evolved into offline intimidation during and after her time in office, and reflects on the Ottawa convoy as a failure to protect vulnerable communities and Canada’s international reputation. She describes inconsistent security support, jurisdictional buck-passing, and slow recognition of gendered extremism, bot-driven rage farming, and foreign interference. The conversation shifts from personal experience to systemic fixes: serious threat briefings and protection for candidates, properly scoped online harms legislation, accountability for social platforms, and higher standards for political discourse. McKenna urges more women to enter politics, argues climate is a national security issue, and insists most Canadians are still reasonable—if leaders act with focus and courage. The hosts close by tying these lessons to Canada’s broader democratic resilience.

In this episode of Secure Line, Stephanie Carvin, Leah West, and Jessica Davis speak with returning guest Thomas Juneau to unpack a turbulent year in the Middle East and what it means for Canada. Juneau argues that U.S. policy under President Trump lacks a consistent doctrine and is driven largely by personal involvement that helped force a fragile Gaza ceasefire through pressure on Israel and coordination with key regional actors. He adds that Canada’s recognition of Palestinian statehood is not a historic shift but a calibrated diplomatic signal aligned with Europe and meant to strengthen the Palestinian Authority while maintaining Canada’s long-standing proximity to Israel.The discussion surveys a shifting balance of power. Juneau says Iran has endured its hardest stretch in decades: Assad is gone, Hezbollah and Hamas are weakened, and direct clashes with Israel exposed Iran’s conventional military limits. Syria’s new leadership under Ahmed al-Sharaa is fragile and pragmatic, with Turkey emerging as a relative winner. Qatar’s mediator role is reaffirmed—despite the shock of an Israeli strike in Doha and ensuing U.S. damage control that highlighted Qatar’s importance and accelerated ties amid a luxury-plane controversy. In Yemen, the Houthis have effectively won the civil war; U.S. strikes without a political strategy are counterproductive, and threats to Red Sea shipping are likely to resume.For Canada, Juneau is blunt about limits. Ottawa will not lead peace talks, but it can matter by acting with allies through humanitarian and development assistance, security-sector training for Palestinian forces, and modest re-engagement with Gulf partners as part of broader trade and security diversification. He also notes China’s growing commercial footprint alongside a deliberately constrained security role, and he questions how long that gap can persist without deeper political or military commitments.

In this episode of Secure Line, hosts Stephanie Carvin and Jessica Davis unpack the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency’s (NSIRA) October 2 report on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The review examined the CRA’s handling of audits on charities for potential terrorist financing, following long-standing allegations of bias against Muslim-led organizations. Davis explains how NSIRA — created in 2019 to review Canada’s expanding national security powers — found not evidence of bias, but rather an alarming lack of internal governance, documentation, and methodology that made determining bias impossible. This “vibes-based” decision-making, as Davis calls it, reveals deep flaws in how Canada’s counter-terrorism powers are exercised and reviewed. The discussion expands to the broader implications for rule of law, transparency, and the politicization of Canada’s terrorism listings process, with both hosts urging stronger oversight and governance to prevent bias, ensure accountability, and rebuild trust. The episode closes with a call for NSIRA to review Canada’s terrorism listings next — before “vibes creep” takes over more elements of national security policy.

This episode asks the deceptively simple question: is espionage legal? Host Leah West sets the stakes for Canadian operators—CSIS and the CAF must comply with international law unless clearly authorized otherwise—before welcoming scholars Asaf Lubin and Russell Buchan to square off on how international law actually treats spying. Using the African Union–Huawei affair as a provocation, Lubin argues we’re moving toward (and should embrace) a bespoke international law of intelligence that recognizes pervasive state practice and constrains it with principles like necessity, proportionality, and efficacy—even when activities pierce sovereignty. Buchan agrees international law applies, but says we’re not there yet: current rules (sovereignty, diplomatic inviolability, human rights, IHL) already regulate espionage, and declaring a new custom risks handing blank checks to powerful states. The trio parse peace-time vs wartime rules, Canada’s evolving positions (including the “de minimis” cyberspace view), and the Federal Court’s inconsistent jurisprudence, highlighting how secrecy, strategic ambiguity, and politics complicate “opinio juris.” The upshot: states spy constantly; the legal question is whether to formalize tailored guardrails now—or keep operating in the grey.

In this episode of Secure Line, hosts Stephanie Carvin and Jessica Davis unpack the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency’s (NSIRA) October 2 report on the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The review examined the CRA’s handling of audits on charities for potential terrorist financing, following long-standing allegations of bias against Muslim-led organizations. Davis explains how NSIRA — created in 2019 to review Canada’s expanding national security powers — found not evidence of bias, but rather an alarming lack of internal governance, documentation, and methodology that made determining bias impossible. This “vibes-based” decision-making, as Davis calls it, reveals deep flaws in how Canada’s counter-terrorism powers are exercised and reviewed. The discussion expands to the broader implications for rule of law, transparency, and the politicization of Canada’s terrorism listings process, with both hosts urging stronger oversight and governance to prevent bias, ensure accountability, and rebuild trust. The episode closes with a call for NSIRA to review Canada’s terrorism listings next — before “vibes creep” takes over more elements of national security policy.

In this episode of Secure Line, Leah West, Jessica Davis, and Stephanie Carvin unpack one of the most contentious parts of the Carney government’s Strong Borders Act—the sweeping amendments to Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Joined by immigration lawyer Jackie Bonisteel, they explore how sections 6 through 9 of the omnibus bill grant the government broad powers to suspend or terminate immigration applications “in the public interest.” The hosts probe whether these provisions are about genuine border security—or an attempt to quietly rewrite Canada’s immigration policy under the guise of national security.As Bonisteel explains, the legislation’s implications reach far beyond border management. The proposed one-year limit on filing refugee claims could bar legitimate claimants—from long-term residents to LGBTQ+ individuals discovering their identities in Canada—from ever seeking protection. The episode highlights how the new pre-removal risk assessment process offers a paper-based substitute for Canada’s robust refugee system, stripping claimants of hearings, appeals, and due-process safeguards. Bonisteel warns that these measures will deepen backlogs, create legal limbo for thousands, and erode Canada’s obligations under the principle of non-refoulement.The conversation broadens into a critique of omnibus lawmaking, where unrelated reforms—from immigration to privacy—are bundled together and rushed through Parliament. The hosts and Bonisteel question whether the government’s “Strong Borders” rhetoric masks a deliberate tightening of humanitarian pathways and a retreat from Canada’s long-standing refugee commitments. With the bill now facing mounting opposition from lawyers, privacy advocates, and civil-society groups alike, Secure Line asks: is this about strengthening Canada’s borders—or weakening its values?

Jess, Leah, and guest Michael (Mike) Nesbitt unpack Canada’s proposed Combating Hate Act: what it actually does, why it’s being introduced, and where it may overreach. They break down the bill’s key moves—creating a stand-alone hate-motivated offense, criminalizing intimidation or obstruction outside religious, cultural, educational and similar spaces, banning public display of certain terrorist/hate symbols, and codifying a definition of “hatred”—and test each against Charter limits, policing capacity, and real-world edge cases. The conversation probes whether gaps in law truly exist or if the problem is resourcing and trust, the risks of politicized terrorist listings spilling into speech offenses, and how ambiguous symbols/memes complicate enforcement. They also flag constitutional soft spots (e.g., obstruction without intent to cause fear), tensions between denunciation and Canada’s anti-carceral rhetoric, and the need for equitable application across communities most targeted by hate. It’s a clear-eyed guide to where protest becomes crime—and how Parliament should sharpen the bill before it passes.

In this episode of Secure Line, Jess, Steph, and Leah dive into the Strong Borders Act—Bill C-2—an omnibus bill that stretches far beyond its title. While marketed as a measure to curb fentanyl and strengthen Canada’s borders, the legislation also proposes sweeping changes to immigration, refugee processes, anti–money laundering powers, and surveillance authorities. Leah takes the lead by unpacking Parts 14 and 15 of the bill, which expand lawful access, information sharing, and production orders.The conversation explores Canada’s fraught history with lawful access reforms, the ongoing clash between government security goals and civil liberties advocates, and the potential consequences for privacy, oversight, and professional-client relationships. From IP addresses as “breadcrumbs” in investigations to backdoor legislation and the risks of placing too much responsibility on service providers, the hosts break down what’s at stake. They also connect the debate to international agreements like the U.S. CLOUD Act and the Budapest Convention.With oversight gaps, broad applicability, and the potential to affect everyone from telcos to small service providers, the episode asks whether Bill C-2 gets the balance between liberty and security right—or if Canada is once again repeating old mistakes under a new name.

In the season two opener of Secure Line, Steph, Leah, and Jess unpack the national security and intelligence stories that unfolded over the summer. They kick off by discussing the Carney government’s priorities, the RCMP reform white paper, and highlight ongoing frustrations with Canada’s outdated policing model.The hosts also spotlight the upcoming CASIS Symposium on November 7, featuring Michael Kovrig as keynote speaker, the organization’s 40th anniversary celebration, and student essay contest winners.From there, the conversation broadens to international concerns:U.S. chaos and politicized intelligence – The Trump administration’s purges, loyalty tests, and weaponization of intelligence are raising alarms about Canada’s heavy reliance on U.S. partners. Jess introduces her “Trump tracker,” charting how U.S. financial dominance is being undermined through sanctions abuse and the rise of an “axis of illicit finance” (Iran, Russia, North Korea).Canadian Armed Forces controversies – From hateful conduct in Facebook groups to Nazi salutes and the arrest of four soldiers on terrorism-related charges, the CAF faces persistent extremism challenges. The hosts analyze ideology, legal thresholds for terrorism charges, and Canada’s tendency toward mischief charges over terrorism prosecutions.RCMP statistics spin – A reported 488% increase in terrorism-related charges is deconstructed, showing that the figure stems from charge counts, not individuals, leading to misleading public messaging.China-related developments – Canada’s move against Hikvision under the Investment Canada Act and the case of TikTok’s offices are discussed as examples of economic security tools being applied, with Steph praising the ICA as one of Canada’s most effective national security instruments.Looking ahead, the hosts preview fall content:Leah will lead a multipart walkthrough of Bill C-2 (Strong Borders Act).Jess will dive into her work on espionage financing and illicit finance.Steph and Leah will share findings from their gender and online extremism project.Guest academics Russell Buchan and Asaf Lubin will join for a deep-dive on intelligence law in international law.Thanks for tuning in for season 2 of Secure Line! Like, share and subscribe!

In the final episode of Season 1, Jessica Davis and Stephanie Carvin dive into what Canada’s new government should prioritize when it comes to national security and intelligence. From long-overdue RCMP reform to the growing threat of extremist violence, they lay out a transition binder’s worth of ideas—some controversial, all necessary.They debate whether violent extremism deserves top billing, why RCMP structure still fails national security needs, and how Canada’s intelligence collection and sharing strategies need to evolve—especially as U.S. cooperation becomes less certain. They make the case for a separate Canadian foreign intelligence service, stronger sanctions regimes (especially against cybercriminals), and enhanced economic intelligence capabilities.The episode also touches on Canada’s patchy record on prosecutions, the politics of listings, and why Canada’s "loud noises and sanctions button" approach isn’t enough. Expect some disagreement, a few laughs, and a lot of serious policy ideas. Plus: both Jess and Steph have Substacks now. Subscribe, rate, and tell us what to cover in Season 2—coming this fall (unless something catastrophic happens first).📩 Get in touch, share your thoughts, and let us know what you want to hear nextStephanie's Substack: https://stephaniecarvin.substack.comJessica's Substack: https://newsletter.insightthreatintel.com

This week on Secure Line, Jess and Steph tackle the election head-on — with a deep dive into how national security is (and isn’t) showing up in the party platforms. From defense to disinformation, foreign interference to financial crime, and economic resilience to hate-motivated violence, we sift through what the political parties are promising Canadians on the security front. Spoiler: the consensus across platforms might just be “do the job better.”We break it all down in four key areas: extremism and domestic threats, espionage and economic security, disinformation and online harms, and national security capacity. And while there’s surprising overlap across party lines, there are also major omissions — like the almost complete silence on cyber threats, or the vanishing act of the once-promised Canadian Financial Crimes Agency.Stephanie also shares insights from her latest Substack, where she’s been summarizing the national security content in each platform (link below). Whether you’re heading to the polls or just trying to make sense of what national security means in this election, this episode has you covered.So grab your ballot — and your headphones — and tune in to the election episode of Secure Line. Because national security might not win votes, but it sure shapes the world we live in.Stephanie's substack: https://stephaniecarvin.substack.com