Canada’s ‘New Red Scare’ is profoundly undemocratic

In the past decade, a disturbing phenomenon has arisen in the Western world. One might call it the “New Red Scare.” According to many, the West is the target of a highly sophisticated, professional, and dangerous campaign of foreign subversion, coming mainly from the Russian Federation. Accusations abound against “Russian agents,” “Kremlin influencers,” “Moscow proxies,” and the like. Don’t like someone, call them “pro-Russian;” dislike what they say, call it “Russian disinformation;” want to silence them, call them a “Russian agent.” And so on. Increasingly, reasoned debate is being replaced by silencing and name-calling.

Speaking on Thursday to a parliamentary committee, former diplomat and Member of Parliament Chris Alexander painted a picture of Canada as the victim of an extraordinarily successful malign Russian operation. “Far from being marginal players, Russian information assets and active measures are often kingmakers in our elections,” he declared—a truly remarkable claim that will probably have many wondering how they had failed to notice the dominant role that Russia plays in our political life.

But that wasn’t all. According to Alexander, the leaders of “The People’s Party of Canada, the yellow vest movement, trucker protests, and Wexit [i.e. Western Canadian separatism]” were “radicalized online by Moscow’s active measures” and their funding “had all the hallmarks of Russian influence.” The convoy protests of 2022, Alexander claimed, were designed by the Russians “to distract a country with a huge Ukrainian diaspora as it launched its war of aggression [against Ukraine].” Who knew? And who knew that Russian secret services were so devastatingly efficient as to be able to manipulate a political party and a separatist movement, and to engineer the occupation of the national capital? Frankly, it beggars belief.

In my opinion, there’s a serious problem with threat inflation of this sort. It distracts from real problems and prevents a proper analysis of the causes of those problems by blaming them all on outside actors. When “Blame Russia” is the response to any difficulty, proper solutions are unlikely to be found.

But the statements above weren’t even the most striking bit of Alexander’s evidence to Parliament. For Alexander then submitted documents to the committee that he said showed that a journalist codenamed “Stuart,” whom he identified as the Ottawa Citizen’s defence correspondent David Pugliese, had been recruited by the Soviet intelligence service, the KGB, in the 1980s. He said that the journalist had demonstrated “long-running covert ties to Moscow” and had written divisive articles about “Ukraine’s Nazi links, Nazis in Canada, defamatory pieces about the family of deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, provocative takes on [defence] procurement and other issues at the Department of National Defence,” and so on. According to Alexander, “These are themes that Moscow would be delighted to promote.”

In response, Pugliese has called the accusation “total fabrication. … It’s just ridiculous.” He has pointed out that some of the information in the documents presented by Alexander does not fit him. For instance, one of the documents lists the journalist codenamed “Stuart” as having been in Ottawa in 1984, but Pugliese did not live in Ottawa at that time. In a statement on X, Pugliese remarked that “Individuals linked to Mr. Alexander’s false claims have also stated I play hockey on the Russian embassy hockey team in Ottawa. That is a total fabrication and shows the ridiculousness of this campaign to undercut my journalism. I have never played hockey and can barely skate.”

In any event, it seems that the documents don’t actually say that “Stuart” (whoever he might be) was ever recruited by the KGB. Global News reports that “Several experts on KGB documents said the papers appeared to be legitimate but did not suggest the reporter was ever a Russian agent, only that the Soviets looked at him.” According to one expert, “All [the documents] say is that an individual by this name came to the attention of KGB officials, not even necessarily very senior ones, and that they were interested in exploring him as a potential target of recruitment … So nothing in these documents clearly says that this individual was even approached, or certainly says that that approach was successful. All they do is say this is something worth exploring.”

Pugliese commented that “I get that I piss off a lot of people with my articles … I understand that not everybody appreciates my style of journalism.” Certainly, his reporting on issues such as wasteful defence procurement projects, sexual assault in the military, Nazi links to the Monument to the Victims of Communism, and so on, does not make certain people and institutions look very good. But the insinuation that if you write such things you are not fulfilling the basic journalistic role of holding those institutions to account, but rather working to divide our society on behalf of a hostile foreign power, is profoundly undemocratic.

Our society is not without faults. Our domestic and foreign policies are also often flawed. To correct failings, we need people who point them out, however unpopular that may be. In my view, we should be enabling the widest possible framework of public discourse, not seeking to silence people. To date, we haven’t quite reached the level of hysteria of 1950s McCarthyism, but as the paranoia over foreign interference ramps up, we are perhaps coming painfully close.

Paul Robinson is a professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. He is the author of numerous works on Russian and Soviet history, including Russian Conservatism, published by Northern Illinois University Press in 2019.