Stephanie and Craig are back, albeit jet-lagged. We jump into a few matters we’ve been following. First, some new information on security background checks for judges — a follow up on our earlier discussion on the security clearance process. Second, a look at discussions over the last few days about charging Daesh fighters with crimes against humanity and war crimes. Third, we loop back to bill C-59 to update listeners on developments. To this end, we walk through the amendments proposed by the senate. And then, being optimists, we talk about what happens when (not if!) the bill receives royal assent: how will the “coming into force” process work? Hopefully, by next week, this will be the final remaining issue for this bill, and we can move on to other things!

Stephanie and Craig sat down with Michael Nesbitt, Leah West and Jess Davis (all founding editors of “A Blog Called INTREPID) while all were at the University of Toronto for an anti-terrorism conference. Recorded in the wood-paneled drawing room of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law (complete with echo and people arriving for work treading on squeaky floors), our group offers up their thoughts on the top priorities in national security law and policy reform for the next year, after the federal election. Craig and Stephanie are on various travels for the balance of the month and will be back in early June. Thanks for listening.

Stephanie and Craig pause on the guest front, and play catch up on news in the Canadian national security space. Among the topics: national security in the 2019 federal budget; issues arising in the senate proceedings on bill C-59 (including the terrorism speech crime; no fly list appeals and special advocates); recent reporting on “dangerous” Canadians; the now second set of amendments to the 2018 terror threat to Canada report; and a peculiar cyber crime investigation involving both the RCMP and the CRTC. This episode comes as we have launched A Blog Called INTREPID — our effort to add written analysis to this Canadian national security discussion and debate project. Check out the new blog, and welcome our INTREPID-alumi-now-Founding-Editors, at www.intrepidpodcast.com. Hope all this is useful. We’re peddling hard!

Stephanie and Craig are very pleased to welcome to the show Sophie Beecher, Director, Intelligence Policy, National Security Policy Directorate, Public Safety Canada. Sophie walks us through the Security of Canada Information Sharing Sharing Act (SCISA). SCISA was amongst the most controversial features of bill C-51 (2015), and in its current form has attracted criticism from civil society groups, academics and the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. And yet, information-sharing on national security within the federal government is an obvious need, if national security objectives are to be met in an efficacious manner. How do we reconcile this security need with privacy? And what changes does C-59 add to revamp this balance? We get into the weeds with Sophie — just in time for Senate deliberations on C-59 where these exact questions have arisen. Thanks to Sophie for coming on the show and becoming an INTREPID alum!

This is the INTREPID deep-dive on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which last week issued its first (very substantive) annual report. Stephanie and Craig are honoured to welcome to INTREPID the NSICoP’s Chair, David McGuinty, and its Executive Director, Rennie Marcoux. We talk about how NSICoP works and the way it has evolved over its first two years, how it conducts its reviews, highlights of the two recent reviews into the government setting of intelligence priorities and the intelligence functions of the Canadian Armed Forces, its future plans, and the way in which it will build institutional knowledge as its composition changes between parliaments. This is a very comprehensive conversation about Canada’s newest national security accountability body. Huge thanks to David McGuinty and Rennie Marcoux for coming on the show.

Craig and Stephanie interrupt their series of guest interviews to update listeners on news in the national security law and policy world. In this episode, they discuss their reaction to the first ever annual report of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICoP), and summarize some of the key takeaways; circle back to the CSE threats to democratic processes update; address various social media speech and regulation issues that have been in the news lately; briefly update on the senate committee hearings in C-59; and update on an issue they didn’t know the answer to before: what is the security clearance and assessment process for Governor in Council appointments, like members of the NSICoP, as well as ministers? They have data! A note from the sponsors: We’ll likely hit 100 episodes before the end of this season. Then we’ll need to decide whether to press on for season 3. If the podcast is useful, tell your friends, and help us spread the word through an iTunes review.

Stephanie and Craig were honoured to sit down with Stéphane Perrault, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, to discuss elections security and the workings of Elections Canada in preparing for the 2019 election. We covered the role of the Chief Electoral Officer, how Elections Canada incorporates cyber- and election security into its task of delivering an election, the changes to Canada’s elections laws in bill C-76 as they relate to foreign influence and the role of social media in elections, the new Communications Security Establishment Cyber Centre update on electoral interference, and the respective (and separate) roles of the Chief Electoral Officer versus those of the newly announced Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force and the Critical Election Incident Public Protocol. As we always try to do in our “podsights”, we also talked about Mr Perrault’s career, and advice for the students out there contemplating employment prospects. Thanks very much to Stéphane Perrault for coming on the show!

Stephanie and Craig are very pleased to welcome Michael King to the show, for our oft-promised third episode in our study of foreign terrorist fighters. Our purpose in this series is to canvass the range of possible legal and policy responses to foreign fighter returnees. In episode 73 we walked through the facts on the ground in this area, with a focus on Canadians who affiliated with Daesh. In episode 74 we considered the international law issues around their detention in Syria by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Canadian law issues surrounding their prosecution in Canada. In this episode, we examine the question of what happens if prosecution is unavailable, for reason of insufficient evidence or because the person’s conduct may not have crossed a criminal law. Still, these people have affiliated in some way with a terrorist group — and have radicalized to a point of accepting violence. Even where people are prosecuted, they will be sentenced to a finite term, raising questions of rehabilitation. To address these questions and more, Michael joins us from the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence, based in Public Safety Canada. We talk briefly about the Centre’s on-going work, before diving into the phenomenon of radicalization to violence, the policy dilemmas associated with returning foreign terrorist fighters and the question of “disengagement” from violence versus “deradicalization”. Michael walks through the social science in this area, as well as the various initiatives taking place in Canada. Thanks to Michael for becoming an INTREPID alum!

In the last week of March, just in time for exam season, Stephanie sat down in Ottawa with James Pamment, Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Strategic Communication at Lund University and a senior adviser to the Hybrid COE in Helsinki. James leads a small research team that provides training, scenario exercises, process and policy support to governments and international organizations in protection from election interference, disinformation and hybrid influence techniques. In this conversation, Stephanie and James get into the weeds on hybrid influence, with a focus on Russian activities. A good primer for that end of the term cramming!

Stephanie and Craig are honoured to welcome to the show Mr Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court. We spend a lot of time on INTREPID talking about the national security jurisprudence of the Federal Court. This was our opportunity to sit down with one of the most experienced and respected Federal Court “designated judges” (who hear security cases) to talk about what it is like to be a judge in the national security space. We start with a brief overview of Justice Mosley’s distinguished career, and then launch into a discussion of CSIS warrants and Canada Evidence Act proceedings — all from the judge’s eye view. Justice Mosley explains the role the Court plays in providing independent oversight in these areas, as well as giving us an inside peek into a “day in the life” of a busy Federal Court judge, and some of the challenges of national security judging. This is not one to be missed. Thanks to Justice Mosley for welcoming us to his chambers, and for sitting down with us (and our listeners).