Use your own words, and understand what other phrases mean if you are using phrasing that you picked up somewhere else. Its totally fine if you don't pick up on someone else using controversial 'dog-whistle' phrasing, that's kinda the point of a dog whistle. Don't hide your meaning in implications.

If you think that high levels of Indian immigration are causing a conflict between dominant Canadian culture that relies on "high-trust" transactions because the immigrants come from a "low-trust" group that take advantage of it, then say that (or whatever it is that you actually believe). Phrasing it like OP has, leaves room for multiple interpretations. It is possible that they think this is a transition from high to low trust that Canada is making entirely independently of immigration policy. Because they chose to use ambiguous phrasing preferred by a specific polity, we are forced to interpret for ourselves.

In short: say what you mean clearly in plain language. "[this] cancellation policy only really works in a high-trust society, which at least one prominent nation seems to be backsliding on" is not clear or using plain language.

I guess I still struggle with what amounts to the opposite of "assume positive intent" which can make communicating significantly less productive. I do generally agree with the preference for plain and direct language.

> For those not living in the true north (Canada), 90% of the time, this is dog-whsitle phrasing preferred by the Canadian right wing to complain about Indian immigrants.

I'm not sure I have assumed ill intent. I didn't say anyone was categorically wrong or racist. I simply pointed out that they are using phrasing mostly used by people who dislike Indian immigration.

If that is not what they intended, I have left plenty of room for them to say they are not part of that group, and the phrasing was coincidental, or that they did not understand that the phrase is a reference to the superiority of one culture over another.