Vibes Over Evidence: How Governance Failures in Counterterrorism Threaten the Rule of Law
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.
--------
26:56
--------
26:56
Bugs, Bytes, and Blackletters: International law and espionage
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.
--------
58:14
--------
58:14
Vibes Over Evidence: How Governance Failures in Counterterrorism Threaten the Rule of Law
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.
--------
26:56
--------
26:56
Omnibus Overreach: Immigration and Refugee Reform Buried in Bill C-2
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?
--------
33:05
--------
33:05
Signs, Flags, and Misdemeanors
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.
Canada's intelligence landscape is as unique as the country itself. In an evolving global threat environment, fostering informed discussions on intelligence has become increasingly vital to the national security discourse. Secure Line Podcast is designed to influence and inform the national dialogue on security and intelligence in Canada, and internationally. Secure Line is brought to you by the Canadian Association for Security & Intelligence Studies (CASIS).
Canada - english