A matter of trust

And how Canadians are losing it

Democracy rests, above all, on trust. We trust in our leaders to act in our interests. We trust in our democratic institutions to hold them to account when they fail to do so. We trust in our media to report on those activities, and we trust in our fellow citizens to speak and act in good faith. 

Trust is the fundamental coin of the realm in democracies, and Canadians are experiencing a worsening crisis of it. Left unchecked, such mistrust will undermine the legitimacy of Canada's democratic institutions. 

The latest hit to that trust came in the form of this week’s report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. As has been widely reported, according to the report, one or more Canadian MPs has in recent years “wittingly” cooperated with foreign powers to influence the conduct of Canadian politics, and share confidential information. In other words, they were spying. Other politicians have unwittingly received financial and other forms of support as well. 

Canadian citizens more broadly have been targets of transnational repression, with foreign governments using a variety of tactics to coerce support for regime positions. 

Less widely reported, but similarly concerning, journalists and media outlets have also come under pressure to do the bidding of foreign governments, willingly or unwillingly.  

Despite these revelations, we have nothing like a full picture of the situation. We don’t even know the full range of countries involved.  While the report concluded that China and Russia were the foremost sources of threat, it also noted that “other states, including India, ***, Pakistan and Iran engaged in foreign interference activities.” The three asterisks denote a redacted passage. If there is a legitimate reason for withholding the name of a country undertaking illegitimate influence operations in Canada, I’ve yet to hear it. Indeed, redacting a country's name only gives further fuel to those doubting the trustworthiness of the government, leading them to conclude that the influence must be working well if we can’t even name the country undertaking it. 

In short, we were handed lots of reasons to be very worried, and none to be reassured. The ministerial response was effectively “trust us, we’ll look into it internally.” This is not a tenable position. 

Canada is in a crisis of trust. Consider the analogy of a financial credit crisis—another kind of crisis of trust. In essence, the 2007-08 financial crisis occurred because some financial actors acquired bad debt, but for a number of reasons no one knew exactly who had the bad debt. Banks and other financial actors didn’t know who to trust, so they stopped trusting anyone—and stopped loaning money. Without access to credit, the economy was at risk of grinding to a halt, and the situation continued until governments stepped in with measures to restore trust. 

Our current situation is similar. Voters, not knowing who to trust, may end up trusting no one. 

So what do trust-restoring measures look like in this case? They begin with transparency, followed by accountability. In short, the solution is sunlight, and lots of it.

Such an approach will not be costless. Intelligence work is not the same as a court of law. Governments acting on intelligence reports often must proceed on information that does not clearly meet the threshold of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  Some activities may be illegitimate without being demonstrably illegal in a manner that would satisfy a court. Moreover, information on which conclusions are based may be secret. 

That all means that if particular names are named, it may not be easy, or even possible for individuals challenged to refute those allegations—a fate not unlike that of former Liberal, now independent MP Han Dong, who continues to grapple with allegations that he benefited from Chinese government assistance, and provided advice to a member of the Chinese consulate. 

Despite such costs, transparency now is necessary to begin the work of restoring trust of Canadians in politicians, their political parties, and the institutions that ostensibly keep us safe. Once names are publicized, political parties must find ways to grapple with each situation. This is not unprecedented, however. Indeed there is a long tradition of Canadian parties sidelining caucus members for a range of infractions, including some with little or no public evidence. When confidence is lost in an individual MP, as in a government, parties have the ability and the obligation to act quickly and decisively. 

A dose of sunlight moreover will help clear the names of all who now live under an undeserved cloud of doubt, both in Parliament and in the broader community—doubt all too often tinged with racism. Foreign governments have done their diaspora communities a tremendous disservice. As long as we lack transparency, entire communities of Canadians of varied descent—whether Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Russian or others—face suspicion, prejudice, and discrimination at the hands of fellow Canadians. It will be a long road back, but transparency will bring some relief; indeed, even individuals whose names are released who currently live under that cloud will at least be able to respond to allegations directly.

Simply put, if our leaders want us to trust them, they need to trust us with this information. Canadians are desperate for a political leader able to stand up and say “I’ll keep you safe, in all the ways you currently feel unsafe. You can trust me, and here’s why.” If the country’s current leaders can’t fill that need, voters may ask someone else to try. Much more worrying, if the current situation continues some may give up on the idea that any democratic leader is up to the task.

Image from the NSICP report website.