Independent, impartial and professional experts would do their job diligently, stressed the prime minister, to ensure the integrity of the electoral process was protected.

Justin Trudeau assures us that the recommendations of the Rosenberg report will be taken seriously.

But his half-mocking, half-impatient tone on Friday betrayed a certain desperation, that of having to answer the same question for the umpteenth time: Why not launch a public inquiry?

Justin Trudeau refuses to put himself in a corner by firmly saying no to such an investigation, but we do feel that he has absolutely no desire to say yes.

The prime minister was perhaps hoping that statements from the great monks of security, intelligence and the election committee this week would open a door for him.

light or fog?

Far from illuminating the issue of foreign interference, these experts have rather added to the fog on the matter.

Together, they questioned the reports that sparked the controversy, raising doubts about the origin of the media leak, the veracity of its content (possibly based on rumours), and the Alert Launcher’s motivation.

One of them underlined the consequence of weapons of mass destructionduring the war in Iraq to emphasize that intelligence does not always equate to truth.

Another sent a message to the whistleblower (who may or may not be an employee of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)): If he is unhappy with his superiors’ decisions, there are ways to resolve it internally while protecting classified information .A slap to the hand that also serves as a warning to those who might be tempted to imitate him.

In short, rather than projecting transparency, these specialists appeared to be protective of their services, giving the impression of being on the defensive.

It’s hard to see whether this stance is helping or hurting the Trudeau government.

On the one hand, the argument that top secret information cannot be disclosed in public feeds the argument that a public inquiry would be limited in its work.

On the other hand, the lack of transparency feeds cynicism among the population, leaves the public perplexed and leads to a loss of trust among voters.

The Australian example

To discourage foreign interference, Australia has stricter laws than Canada, a registry of foreign agents, and tougher penalties.

One of the main differences is that, from here, Australian intelligence appears to be proactive. Canada’s seem to be more reactive.

In Canada, the Election Observation Group is only active during the election period. His account of the events of 2021 was only released 17 months after the election. Operational details are almost all redacted.

In Australia, three months before the 2022 election, the intelligence agency announced that it had uncovered and dismantled attempted foreign interference. And leaked some of the information to the public.

A businessman with close ties to a foreign government used offshore bank accounts to fund Australian candidates and influence policy in favor of a foreign power.

We are a long way from the level of detail that has been shared with the Canadian public. Maybe because such a story has never happened in Canada. But we don’t know.

This is the kind of proactive stance (advised elsewhere in the Rosenberg report) that could help restore Canadians’ confidence in their elections and in the work of the intelligence community.

Australia is close to China. It has been targeted more frequently, more actively, and longer than Canada. She has learned the lessons of the past.

Perhaps the episode Canada is experiencing will play the role of alarm bells for the government in power and the political class in general.