Does the public trust the institutions of defence and security to tackle the issue of bribery and corruption in their establishments?
Canada score: NS/100
The public view the defence establishment as entirely indifferent to corruption within it, or as clearly corrupt, without the political will to tackle the problem.
The public view is that bribery and corruption are not, according to official rhetoric, acceptable to the defence establishment, but there is a widely-held belief that this is just that: rhetoric, and not seriously intended.
The public view is that bribery and corruption, though not acceptable to the defence establishment, is insufficiently addressed by the measures in place to tackle the problem.
This indicator is not scored. Please discuss conditions in the country context related to good practice (Score 4).
The public view is that there is a clear commitment from the defence establishment that bribery and corruption are not acceptable and must be prosecuted, and that their efforts to tackle the problem are sincere and effective.
This indicator is not assigned a score in the GDI. Scandals related to fighter jet procurement and the Norman prosecution have revealed profound inefficiencies and an institutional corruption in which political (rather than individual financial) interests are placed above operational or military considerations.    Gendered violence in the CAF remains a serious problem, which a leading Canadian academic argues is a form of moral, if not financial corruption.   The institutional integrity of the CAF has become more flawed since the last iteration of the GDI was published in 2015. However, public trust may not have fallen correspondingly, since the withdrawal of almost all forces from conflicts in the Middle East has resulted in such low interest in the military that opinion polling does not ask Canadians about the institution.    A DND-commissioned public opinion survey found that the majority of Canadians had little awareness or knowledge of the CAF, did not know where they were deployed or had recently deployed, and assumed their equipment must be good because Canada is a first world country. Allan English, a military historian at Queen’s University, published an article in 2017 documenting the erosion of trust and the increase of corruption in the Canadian military.  However, he addressed corruption not related to public views of pecuniary abuses or peculation, but rather the corruption of values and integrity within the military. The widespread lack of interest in the CAF by most Canadians is reflected in the absence of any mention of the military or armed forces in surveys evaluating public trust in institutions, whether these surveys are public or private. Auditor General reports on fighter jet procurement and sexual harassment in the CAF concluded that the CAF and DND were not delivering on their obligations, but found causes linked to incompetence or lack of capacity rather than corruption or bribery. 
1. Murray Brewster, “Two proves launched into claims that miliary blocked information requests in Norman case,” CBC News, January 29, 2019, accessed October 1, 2019, https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/norman-breach-trust-access-1.4996445.
2. Richard Shimooka, “The consequences of politicized procurement for Canada’s military,” iPolitics, November 9, 2018, accessed October 1, 2019, https://ipolitics.ca/article/the-consequences-of-politicized-procurement-for-canadas-military/.
3. Views of the Canadian Armed Forces 2018 Tracking Study (Ottawa: National Defence, 2018), accessed October 1, 2019, http://cdacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Views-of-the-CF-Exec-Summary.pdf.
4. Allan English, “Corruption in the Canadian military? Destroying trust in the chain of command,” in Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, Volume 23, Issue 1 (2017), 32-46.
5. Adam Cotter, Public confidence in Canadian institutions (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2015), accessed October 1, 2019, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2015007-eng.pdf.
6. 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer: Canada (Ottawa: Edelman, 2020), accessed October 12, 2020, https://www.edelman.ca/sites/g/files/aatuss376/files/2020-02/2020%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Canada%20-%20FINAL.pdf.
7. “Report 3—Canada’s Fighter Force—National Defence”, 2018 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada, Reports to Parliament, Reports and Petitions, Office of the Auditor General Canada, accessed October 1, 2019, http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201811_03_e_43201.html.
8. “Report 5—Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour—Canadian Armed Forces”, 2018 Fall Reports of the Auditor General of Canada, Reports to Parliament, Reports and Petitions, Office of the Auditor General, accessed October 1, 2019, http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201811_05_e_43203.html.
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||NS|
|United Arab Emirates||NS|