Welcome to the Global Intelligence Knowledge Network Podcast, where real-world intelligence expertise meets insightful analysis. Join your host, Neil Bisson, a former Intelligence Officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, for a weekly deep dive into the world of espionage, national security, foreign interference, terrorism, and all matters spy and intelligence related.
With over 25 years of experience in intelligence and law enforcement, both domestically and internationally, Neil Bisson brings a unique perspective to the table. From hunting spies and terrorists to recruiting and managing human sources, he's seen it all.
Each episode, Neil Bisson, Director of Global Intelligence Knowledge Network as he provides a comprehensive summary of the most intriguing international intelligence stories, dissecting the hottest media topics with professional analysis and insider knowledge. Whether you're a seasoned intelligence professional or simply fascinated by the world of spies, this podcast is your go-to source for accurate, insightful, and engaging content.
Tune in weekly to stay informed, enlightened, and entertained. Don't miss out on the latest from the frontlines of global intelligence. Subscribe now to the Global Intelligence Knowledge Network Podcast on Buzzsprout and never miss an episode. Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ahead of the curve with the Global Intelligence Knowledge Network Podcast.
🕵️ Is CSIS Breaking the Law? | Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap-Up
When can intelligence officers legally undertake activities that would otherwise be criminal—and what happens when the safeguards governing those activities fall short?
This week, Neil Bisson—retired CSIS Intelligence Officer, former CBSA Officer, and Director of the Global Intelligence Knowledge Network—examines four stories about intelligence authorities, covert research funding, transnational criminal networks and independent foreign intelligence collection.
🇨🇦 CANADA — IS CSIS BREAKING THE LAW? Canada’s intelligence watchdog, NSIRA, has identified potential compliance failures involving CSIS’s Justification Framework during operations in 2022 and 2023.
The framework permits certain activities that would otherwise constitute criminal offences, subject to specific conditions. NSIRA’s findings raise questions about employee designation, authorization, records and reporting, while also identifying compliance with restrictions on the types of offences permitted.
We examine what the findings establish, CSIS’s response, and why clear legal authority protects the public, intelligence officers and human sources.
🇬🇧 UNITED KINGDOM — CHINESE INTELLIGENCE & UNIVERSITY RESEARCH MI5 has warned that a Chinese research institute with strong ties to the Ministry of State Security has funded academic work capable of strengthening China’s espionage capabilities.
Research areas include artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and covert communications. Some researchers may have participated without knowing the ultimate source of their funding.
What should Canadian universities learn from this warning? We connect the alert to earlier CSIS warnings and the security findings involving Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory.
🇨🇦🇺🇸 GOLDY BRAR — NIJJAR CASE & THE FBI’S MOST WANTED LIST The FBI has added Goldy Brar to its Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list, offering up to US$1 million for information leading to his arrest.
U.S. prosecutors allege that Brar and Lawrence Bishnoi ordered the June 18, 2023 killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Surrey, British Columbia.
We examine how this development extends the story from alleged participants to alleged leadership—and what criminal networks reveal about cross-border violence, intimidation and potential proxy operations. The allegations have not been proven in court.
🇯🇵 JAPAN — BUILDING AN MI6-STYLE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE Japan is pursuing a dedicated foreign intelligence agency, with a policy target of establishing it by the end of fiscal 2027—March 31, 2028.
Its final staffing, budget and operational authorities remain unsettled. Building an organization also takes less time than developing experienced officers and reliable overseas sources.
For Canada, the comparison raises a familiar question: how much should a country depend on its allies for intelligence, and what should it collect independently?
⏱️ CHAPTERS — APPROXIMATE 00:00 Introduction 00:30 Is CSIS Breaking the Law? NSIRA & the Justification Framework 05:15 MI5 Warning: Chinese Intelligence & Academic Research 13:10 Goldy Brar, the FBI & the Nijjar Investigation 18:00 Japan’s Proposed Foreign Intelligence Agency 25:00 Final Thoughts & Outro
🎟️ PILLAR SOCIETY SPEAKER SERIES — OCTOBER 20 Join the Ottawa–Gatineau Chapter of the Pillar Society at the Shenkman Arts Centre in Orléans for a discussion with journalist Andrew Coyne on Canada’s national security, defence, productivity and geopolitical challenges.
Hello, and welcome to another episode of Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap Up. I'm your host, Neil Bison, a retired intelligence officer with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the director of the Global Intelligence Knowledge Network. Each week, I take the latest headlines dealing with espionage, sabotage, national security, and terrorism, provide you with the insights, analysis, and intelligence to better understand how the shadowy world of intelligence affects your business, your country, and your safety. It's been another busy week from a report on CISES by and SIRA on activities that consider criminal offenses to Japan discussing a foreign intelligence service of their own. There's a lot to discuss, so let's get into it. We begin this week's episode with our main story out of Ottawa, where the latest intelligence watchdog findings concerns an authority that many Canadians may not know exist. Under specific conditions, CISES employees and people acting under their direction can undertake activities that would otherwise constitute criminal offenses. That authority is called justification framework, and SIRA's own explanation recognizes why it exists. Intelligence officers need to collect information effectively, including in environments where their activities could otherwise expose them to criminal liability. But the protection is limited. Employees must be designated. The permitted categories of activity require ministerial determination and intelligence commissioner approval, and the framework does not authorize violations of charter rights. The operational rationale is understandable. Collecting intelligence from inside a terrorist organization may require working with someone who already has access to it. Collecting information about foreign interference may involve debriefing a source who has used myths and disinformation to manipulate the voting of a diaspora community. Collecting information concerning a state-sponsored sabotage attack on critical infrastructure may involve tasking previously identified foreign state proxy agents. You get the picture. That creates difficult legal and ethical questions about what the source can do, what an officer can direct, and how those activities are controlled. According to the updated Canadian Press Report, NSIRA examined operations in 2022 and 2023 and identified what they categorized as possible failures involving employee designation, authorization to direct others, and jurisdictional records and reporting. Importantly, it also found compliance with restrictions on the types of offenses permitted. That's an important distinction. An activity can fall within a permitted category while still failing to satisfy the requirements governing who undertakes it and how it is authorized. My assessment is that controls are part of the operational protection. Clear authority protects the public. It also protects officers and sources from being placed in situations where their legal position is uncertain. This is a callback to a previous episode of Global Intelligence Weekly wrap-up on October 17, 2025. In that episode, we examine NSIR's criticisms of CSIS's management of secret technical capabilities, including concerns about consultation, operational procedures, and the authority for retaining collected information. We also discussed Cesus's response and its disagreement with some of NSIR's findings. Ensirace published a 2024 annual report independently documented those concerns, including inadequate procedures and retention without a clearly articulated authority. The connection between these stories is a recurring governance question. When intelligence capability is available, are the rules, approvals, and records supporting its use sufficiently clear? This is another useful distinction in Ensiris' earlier work. Its 2025 report on public safety and CESES accountability mechanisms explains that the jurisdictional framework can mitigate certain Canadian criminal law risks, but offers no protection under foreign domestic law and does not resolve Canada's international law obligations. That report also recommends comprehensive legal risk assessment recorded in writing. This means that the authorization under Canadian law is only part of assessing a sensitive operation. In our December 5th, 2025 episode, we discussed proposed reductions in Syria's budget and the importance of maintaining effective independent review. We should keep the chronology clear. The operations examined in today's story predate that discussion. There is no basis here to attribute these findings to those proposed cuts. The connection is the continuing need for review capacity capable of identifying issues inside classified operations. Tim McSorley, National Coordinator of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, is calling for accountability and explanation of how future lapses will be prevented. However, we should remember here that the findings reported publicly do not establish that CIS is trampled on anyone's civil liberties. They identify potential compliance issues that need to be examined and addressed. In SIRA is a review body identifying how issues of potential concern should and could be addressed going forward. CISA spokesman Eric Belsom says the service takes potential noncompliance seriously. Although it may disagree with some findings, it also welcomes the recommendation. As the threats to Canadian safety, sovereignty, and prosperity continue to evolve, so too must techniques and tactics that our Canadian intelligence community use to detect, deter, and disrupt any national security threats. This does not mean that CISES or any other Canadian service or agency can do whatever it feels is required to acquire information that they feel is needed. What it does mean is that oversight bodies like Insira need to review and make recommendations to ensure that we don't lose ourselves in the threats we are trying to prevent. For our next story, we head to the United Kingdom, where a new MI5 espionage alert there is an important warning for Canadian universities and research institutions. On Wednesday, Britain's Security Service identified the China General Technology Research Institute, or CGTRI, also translated as China Academy of General Technology, as having very strong ties to China's Ministry of State Security, the MSS. According to MI5, the Institute's primary purpose is to find academic research that improves the MSS's technical capabilities for espionage. More than 100 UK-linked academics have contributed to projects funded by Chinese intelligence through the Institute. The subjects include artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, covert communications, and stenography, which is the concealment of information within apparently ordinary files or messages. MI5 explicitly acknowledges that some academics may not have known who ultimately funded their research. Institutions and individuals may have entered these relationships in good faith. That is why this warning is so significant. An intelligence service can finance research through an intermediary and benefit from international expertise without knowingly recruiting every contributor. This puts a new spin on what I previously labeled proxy operations. But in this case, we see where the Chinese Intelligence Services, or the MSS, is using acquired information from adversarial states, in this case the UK, by funding academic research covertly. The immediate academic partner may be visible while the ultimate sponsor and intended beneficiary remains concealed. MI5's decision to publish this warning also changes what researchers and institutions can reasonably claim to know. The alert identifies potential criminal consequences under Britain's National Security Act, including offenses concerning assistance to a foreign intelligence service and obtaining a material benefit from one. It advises those continuing research ultimately funded by CGTRI to seek independent legal advice. This does not establish that earlier good faith participation was criminal, but it provides the institute's intelligence connections into the public domain and leaves no leeway for academic researchers to continue this activity. This is also a disruption measure. Exposing their relationship gives universities an opportunity to interrupt the flow of expertise and research to the MSS. So where does Canada stand on this topic? Canadian legal consequences require a separate assessment. Canadian listeners should recognize a pattern being identified here. Back in December, we examined former CESIS Director David Vignot's warning about hostile states targeting Western universities through intelligence operatives, academic relationships, and research partnerships. We discussed the attraction of expertise in artificial intelligence, quantum technology, biotechnology, and advanced semiconductors. MI5's alert gives the broader warning, a specific organizational focus, and an alleged funding mechanism. In a July episode, we examined reporting that CESIS had warned Canadian federal departments and universities about an unnamed individual seeking sensitive information for Chinese intelligence. That story concerned an alleged collector approaching people with access. This warning concerns an organization financing research. Slightly different methods, but a common vulnerability. Canada also has a concrete example of Chinese espionage from the Winnipeg National Microbiology Laboratory. In March of 2024, we covered Zheng Hua Kui and Ken Ding Ching and returned to the case in subsequent episodes. In the case of Kui and Cheng, Parliamentary Records describe concealed Chinese relationships, undisclosed appointments, and talent program connections, including Hui's collaboration with researchers linked to China's Academy of Military Medical Sciences. Those findings illustrate how an institution can understand someone's scientific credentials without fully understanding their outside commitments. However, we need to distinguish those security findings from the authorized shipment of virus samples to Wuhan. The lesson here concerns concealed relationships and inadequate disclosure. It does not make every scientific exchange in the case illicit. Reuters reports that British Security Minister Dan Jarvis urged university leaders to support staff in ending arrangements with the Institute. Not surprisingly, China's embassy in London rejected the allegations as being fabricated. The BBC reported that university's UK chief executive Vivian Stern emphasized investments in due diligence, risk assessment, and research security, and that they must be accompanied alongside the importance of international collaboration. And the Associated Press reports that Russell Group Chief Executive Libby Hackett acknowledged that Britain's research strengths can make its institutions targets for hostile actors. These comments emphasize an important issue, especially for Canada. Provinces control the jurisdiction over designated learning institutes, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation by foreign states on two very basic levels. The first is money. As with any human source, remuneration can be a major factor in the collaboration and understanding that universities and colleagues are businesses seeking a profit. We can surmise that foreign state actors disguised as academic research partners with deep pockets are a sought-after commodity. Second, foreign states like China, Russia, Iran, and others have seen Canadian educational institutions as viable targets to gain access to leading edge technology advancements and facilities. And it hasn't been until relatively recently that the Canadian intelligence community has identified the threat of intellectual property theft, access to dual use technology, and artificial intelligence advancement as being targeted by foreign adversaries. So we see the challenges facing Canadian institutions, maintaining productive partnerships while needing to continually verify the relationships, the funding, and who's truly accessing research and development in their institutions. This pattern reveals three connected vulnerabilities. The first, access to valuable expertise, equipment, and data. Second, incomplete disclosure of funding, outside appointments, or foreign commitments. And third, capability development. Research can improve an intelligence service's future operations even when it contains no classified information. Better covert communications, for example, could help conceal contact with the source. Improved information concealment techniques could make unauthorized transfers harder to detect. Those are potential applications rather than evidence of how every project identified by MI5 was used. There is also a connection to previous analysis in the March episode of the Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap-up, where we discuss study permit integrity and designated learning institutes. Educational pathways provide lawful presence in Canada, and depending on the person's role, may create access to laboratories and specialized training. A study permit is not evidence of an intelligent connection, nor have these reports established that study permits enable the CGTRI activity. But immigration eligibility alone cannot resolve questions about sensitive research access. Institutions must examine the proposed work, affiliation, and funding. Canada already restricts certain funding from sensitive research involving connections to named organizations of concern. The government acknowledges that partnerships outside that list can present risks. Checking a list, therefore, cannot replace scrutiny of the actual relationship. Our open source review has not established a Canadian office or current Canadian institutional partner belonging to CGTRI. But earlier CSIS warnings from David Devignon's assessments and the Winnipeg Microbiology Lab findings all demonstrate why Canadian institutions should examine the vulnerability that MI5 is describing. The recurring pattern is valuable research, legitimate access, and foreign relationships whose actual purpose is concealed. Relevant partnerships should be reviewed using the names of both entities identified by MI5. Ultimate funding sources should be established and outside appointments and commitments disclosed. International collaboration is a major component of scientific progress. However, protecting it requires institutions to understand who they're working with and whose capabilities their research may ultimately strengthen. This is a great opportunity for Canadian designated learning institutes to collaborate with their UK counterparts to identify rich groups, organizations, and individuals are of concern when it comes to foreign states seeking access to their facilities, research, and campuses. It is also another example of how Canadian and UK intelligence organizations can be collaborating on issues affecting both countries and a five eyes relationship. This next segment brings us back to a story we've been monitoring on this podcast since the beginning: the assassination of Harip Singh Nijar, and a new development that places an alleged organizer of that national security crime under intensified international scrutiny. On September 28th, the FBI added Satinder Jeet Singh, better known as Goldie Bra, to its ten most wanted fugitives lists. It is offering up to $1 million U.S. for information leading to his arrest. Authorities describe Brar as the alleged North American leader of the Lawrence Bisnoy Criminal Enterprise with connections to California and Canada. The significance of this story goes beyond his placement on a wanted list. U.S. prosecutors allege that Brar and Lawrence Bisnoy ordered the June 18, 2023 killing of Nijar outside a Sikh Temple in Surrey BC. The Justice Department identifies the victims by the initials HSN. Canadian Reporting identifies Sam as Nijar. The July announcement of Operation Hardball described three indictments involving 37 defendants connected to three Indian-based criminal groups, with 24 defendants arrested or already in custody. That distinction matters because the operation covered multiple organizations. Those figures should not all be attributed just to the Bishnoy Enterprise. Within the Bishnoy case, prosecutors allege a structure capable of directing violence across borders, intimidating communities, and financing its activities through extortion and drug trafficking. Lawrence Bishnoy has continued directing criminal activity from prison through illicit communication devices and delegating responsibilities to regional leaders, including Bra. This development connects with several earlier segments on the Global Intelligence Weekly wrap-up. On May 17, 2024, we examined the arrest of Amadit Singh, the fourth man charged in Canada in connection with Nijar's assassination. That coverage focused on the alleged participants and questions about the wider network behind the attack. The latest U.S. allegations extend the picture to individuals accused of ordering it. Understanding who carried out an operation and establishing who directed it are different investigative tasks. On October 3rd, 2025, we examined Canada's decision to list the Bishnoid gang as a terrorist entity. That designation was announced last year at this time when Public Safety Canada identified the murder, shootings, arson, extortion, intimidation, and explained that the listing provided additional tools concerning property, financing, and other terrorist defenses. Then on February 27, 2026, we began the podcast discussing Ottawa's application to withhold sensitive national security information from the Canadian Nijar prosecution. That highlighted a recurring challenge. Intelligence may help identify a threat, but presenting evidence in court can raise questions, protecting sources, methods, and allied information. Then in June, we examined how criminal intermediaries can facilitate violence connected to foreign state interests, including the alleged connection surrounding the Bishnoi network. This week's development adds a named alleged regional leader to that continuing analysis. RCMP Deputy Commissioner of Federal Policing Lisa Moreland describes the network's impact through murders, threat, extortion, arson, and drug trafficking, and reaffirmed cooperation with the FBI. FBI Los Angeles Assistant Director in Charge, Patrick Grandi, emphasized that the wanted list designation would greatly expand public recognition of BRAR. From an intelligence perspective, the central issue is the network connecting leadership, money, intimidation, and operational capability. A criminal organization that can locate targets, obtain weapons, move funds, and recruit people willing to use violence possesses capabilities that can also be exploited for politically motivated operations. This demonstrates how a foreign state can use a criminal organization to conduct operations abroad that maximize on the reputation, capability, and reach of the criminal group, while the intelligence organizations and foreign government maintain layers of plausible deniability. Canadian authorities have separately alleged connections between Indian government agents and violent criminal activities in Canada. India has continually denied involvement in Nijar's killing. In my online course, Sabotage and Proxy Operations and Modern Intelligence, I go through several case studies that provide the example where enemy foreign states have enlisted criminal organizations to conduct extortion, intimidate, and silence diaspora communities, and conduct extrajudicial killings. I will leave a link to the online course in the show notes and the transcript for those who are interested. Goldie Breirer's addition to the FBI's STEM Most Wanted List increases international attention on a man accused of helping direct a network whose alleged activities reach into and have a devastating effect in Canada. The FBI listing also provides more insight and analysis into a story that we have followed from the arrest of the alleged participants to questions about criminal leadership and possible foreign state connections. Hopefully Rembrandt is in custody. Canadian intelligence and law enforcement agencies will have a clearer picture of how the Indian government was involved in the assassination of Hardy Singh Nijar. For our last segment, we head to Japan, where plans for a dedicated foreign intelligence agency raise questions that Canadian listeners will recognize. How much should a country depend on its allies for intelligence? And what capabilities should it develop for itself? Japan's ruling coalition has committed to establishing an independent foreign intelligence agency by the end of fiscal 2027. For non-civil servants, that means March 31, 2028. This is a policy target, rather than a guaranteed date, for a fully functional service, but demonstrates how quickly a country can move forward on a foreign intelligence service initiative. The Japanese Government Liberal Democratic Party, or the LTP, proposals identify Britain's MI6 and Australia ACEs as potential models, an agency conducting overseas human intelligence collection with operational independence under a foreign minister's supervision. Its final structure and legal framework remain under consideration. Humate intelligence, or humate, means obtaining information through people. In an overseas clandestine service, that can include recruiting sources with access to information governments cannot obtain through public reporting or diplomatic exchanges. This proposal is separate from Japan's National Intelligence Bureau, which coordinates and assesses intelligence across governments. Japan's Prime Minister's office confirmed that the first expert meeting on strengthening intelligence capabilities took place on September 28th, and Japan already has its own intelligence capabilities, that the proposed reform would add a dedicated organization for overseas collections rather than create an intelligence system from scratch. One possible foundation is the Foreign Ministry's International Counterterrorism Intelligence Collection Unit, or, as it's known, CTU-J. At an August 18th interview, Chief Cabinet Secretary Minori Kihara identified expanding or recognizing that existing unit as one option. Its experience could provide a starting point, although a broader foreign intelligence mandate would require additional expertise and authorities. Listeners to the podcast will recognize this debate. Last month we examined reporting about whether Canada should establish a foreign state intelligence agency. We discussed the difference between benefiting from Allied intelligence and possessing an independent overseas human capability. In March, we discussed coverage of research by Alan Barnes of Carleton University's Norman Patterson School of International Studies. Barnes examined archival records concerning Canadian proposals for foreign intelligence services between 1945 and 2007. Our discussion highlighted recurring considerations including cost and reliance on allies. Japan's proposal brings some questions into focus again. What information does the government need that can't be shared by allies? And why should they invest in it? And what are the advantages? Well, all one has to do is look at the current state of affairs between what was traditionally been a cooperative collection of Western allies. The world is increasingly becoming a more competitive place, economically, politically, and militarily. This means that shared values that used to bind us are becoming opposing views that are dividing us. And one of the major ways to ensure future prosperity is to know what your enemies and your allies are up to. This is where a foreign intelligence service focused on economic, political, and military advancement of their own country comes in, and Japan is demonstrating that they recognize this need. According to reporting, staffing will be one of the most consequential decisions. A September 11th article by Professor Ken Katoni, an intelligence specialist at Nihon University, discusses a requirement for at least several hundred personnel. That is a published analytical estimate and not unapproved government staffing. There is currently no open source reporting establishing a dedicated annual budget or startup. There is currently no open source reporting establishing a dedicated annual budget or startup allocation for Japan's newly proposed agency. LDP proposal emphasizes gradual development, establishing an organization capable of operating, then expanding its operations as specialists personnel are recruited and trained. It also recognizes the need to consider officer safety, legal prosecutions, legal protections, and operational legality. Viewing this through the eyes of a former intelligence officer, the fact that Japan is in the process of having a foreign intelligence service become active is a reality check. Although Canada and Japan are friendly towards one another, this does not mean that Japan is beyond viewing Canada as a viable target of espionage. This is one of the most difficult concepts for governments to wrap their heads around. Allies spy on each other as well. If it provides economic, political, or military advantage, that may be needed sooner or later. Although creating an agency is an administrative milestone, developing a reliable intelligence capability takes much longer. Proficiency in languages, regional knowledge, operational judgment, and source handling skills require training and expertise. Officers also need secure communications, technical support, analysts, and clear legal authority. And overseas source relationships cannot simply be purchased through a large budget. Trust takes time, access takes time, determining whether information is reliable all takes time. That means Japan could meet its institutional deadline while still requiring years to develop the capabilities associated with an established service. And although Allied intelligence cooperations remains valuable, it doesn't discount that each partner collects according to its own priorities and decides what it can share. Having an independent collection capability allows a government to pursue questions of particular importance to its own foreign policy, economic interest, and national security. It can also provide information that strengthens its contributions to other Allied partnerships, which again strengthens its political role on the world stage, but this expanded capability can bring additional responsibilities. The LDP's proposal addresses parliamentary oversight and independent inspection alongside stronger collection powers. This reflects the decision by a responsible government. Those arrangements help determine whether an agency is seen as operating lawfully and retains both government and public competence. Japan's proposed Foreign Intelligence Agency is a general policy initiative, but its final staffing, budget, and operational authorities remain unsettled. The target for Japan's Foreign Intelligence Agency is to be established by March 2028, but a mature capability will depend on what follows sustained funding, specialist recruitment training, effective oversight, and development of reliable overseas access. For Canada, the comparison is a useful one. Japan is moving from identifying an intelligence gap towards designing an organization to address it. Canada has repeatedly debated and still debates the question of establishing a foreign intelligence service, but as Canadian politicians wait on the decision, another player on the international chess board is posed to enter a game that Canada hasn't even figured out yet. The issue for both Japan and Canada is whether their existing arrangements provide the information their governments need and what they are prepared to invest to close any gaps. Because the value of a foreign intelligence service ultimately rests on the decisions its information allows the country to make. Well, that's going to wrap it up for this week's wrap-up. I want to remind my listeners that the Global Intelligence Weekly Wrap Up is not here to form your opinions. All the links to the stories that I've covered in the segments are in the transcript for you to read and make your own conclusions. What I do is take the information from various articles over weeks, months, and yes, it's been years, to help you understand how the decisions made by governments, including your own, have an effect on you and the ones you care about. If you enjoy and appreciate this type of open source intelligence, please leave a comment, a share, and a like. You can also go to my Buzzbroat support page to provide ongoing or one-time contribution. I'll leave a link in the show notes. With that in mind, you may also want to attend an upcoming speaker series hosted by the Pillage Society on the 20th of October at the Schenckman Center in East Ottawa. Well-known media reporter Andrew Coyne will be discussing how Canada faces an unprecedented national security and productivity crisis, driven by psychological unpreparedness, a weak and under equipped military, insufficient independent foreign intelligence collection capability, and rising geopolitical coercion from a shifting US foreign policy. Tickets are still on sale, but they're going fast. I'll leave a link in the transcript and show notes. As always, until next week, stay curious, stay informed, stay safe.
Podcasts we love
Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.
