The refusal to answer hard questions shows up clearly in the raw parliamentary data. I review Order Paper Questions every week, and when MPs ask for the specific economic impact assessments you mentioned regarding the plastics ban, the government often replies that no such record exists. It suggests the problem isn't just secrecy, but that they often implement policies without doing the math to begin with.
This is an awful - and recurring - problem. I wrote about this myself in my post on recycling policy in Ontario. It seems that no one bothered to calculate the actual costs to consumers imposed by the Extended Producer Responsibility program.
HF, I submit that frequently the government, oh, prevaricates [your name is Hansard so I cannot use the un-Parliamentary word, "lies"]. I further submit that the government actually answers clearly and honestly only those questions that show it in a positive light - questions frequently asked by government side MPs. Finally, I submit that frequently when the government "answers" a question with a response that is neither a prevarication nor from a friendly source it doesn't actually answer the question asked but, instead simply bloviates about something unrelated to the question asked.
There is a specific procedural reason for the frustration you are describing. In the House of Commons, the Speaker has ruled countless times that Ministers are technically only required to "reply" to a question. The rules do not actually force them to "answer" the substance of the inquiry.
That distinction is what allows for the pivoting and talking points you see in the daily transcripts. If you want the unvarnished facts, they are rarely found in the oral exchange. They are usually buried in the written Order Paper Questions, where departments have 45 days to return raw data without the political spin.
The other institution designed to allow for debate of the issues and holding the government to account is Parliament (or, in the provinces, the Legislatures). Increasingly, and sadly, decisions are made by a small number of people in the Prime Minister’s Office (or Premier’s Office) without detailed analysis, then rammed through Cabinet, rammed through Parliament, and implemented without any subsequent evaluation (because who wants to prove that their centrepiece legislation was a dud?). Yes, the media could ask tough questions, but politicians avoid the media and, increasingly, also avoid questions from other elected people. To be in the Opposition is framed up as being unreasonable and objectionable, whereas in fact it’s the purpose of Parliament to debate the issues and proposed solutions. If the system was working as designed, such debate would happen within parties, as well as between parties. To pretend that there’s one “best” solution that can be arrived at by a small group of people is a set-up for failure. Better solutions come with broader input from groups of people with a variety of perspectives. Even so, some mistakes will happen, and the post hoc analysis is required to show which policies failed and need to be abandoned or fixed.
It’s somewhat refreshing that Carney has been willing to reverse some of Trudeau’s policies, but a pity that he’s done so ad hoc, allegedly in response to events elsewhere, rather than admitting that the policies had been reviewed and were failures.
To be fair, I'm not sure Question Period has been a sober forum for the serious exchange of ideas in my lifetime (and I'm not young).
But I can say that both Parliamentary and Senate committees are places where there can sometimes be serious and productive discussion. It's sad that virtually nothing that's said in those sessions ever makes it anywhere near the final legislation.
True, it’s been broken for a long time. Question Period is theatre, not actual debate and accountability. Would be nice to see one party or the other change the pattern….
Interesting article. I would suggest that the issue with journalism is more likely an incentive one. Even when people look for news that asks the hard question, the information ecosystem rewards outrage over meaningful content. News is priced and distributed like entertainment where outrage and controversy generate revenue, not long-form interviews or policy discussions.
If we want to see the return of meaningful journalism, it needs to start from the demand side--the consumer. Without a critical mass of individuals who direct their attention, subscription and sharing habits to support meaningful journalism--well, we won't see any change.
"... the issue with journalism is more likely an incentive one ..."
Oh, you mean, like who is paying the journalists? The government is paying the journalists so the journalists have an incentive to ... tell the truth? ask hard questions? think clearly about alternatives proposed by the Opposition?
Thank you for this article David. It was satisfying to read true questions that need to be asked. Now, if only the next part would take place by main stream reporters (not journalist, stenographers). Asking the questions then investigating and digging for the answers if the politicians and their fixers don't answer truthfully. Independent journalist are doing that.
According to Chat gpt, latest version: “No major public health body has concluded that natural immunity alone reliably reduces transmission to the same extent as recent vaccination + boosters”.( I assume it has also read your sources, but has concluded they have not been sufficiently compelling to convince any major public health body to make such a statement.)
"In summary, the vaccines were engineered to elicit an immune response targeting the spike protein to mitigate individual disease outcomes, not to achieve sterilizing immunity (complete prevention of infection and onward spread). Claims otherwise often stem from misinterpretations of early data or public messaging, but the trial designs and regulatory pathways provide clear evidence that transmission reduction was not a core objective."
I really enjoy your writing, David, and have recommended it to several friends. I’m disappointed in this one, though. For the first time I’m hearing questions asked in a way that doesn’t reflect nuance.
Plug this into your AI, and try and read the response with an open mind:
“I’ve read that natural immunity was at least as effective in reducing COVID transmission as vaccines. Is this true? I hold no strong opinion either way, and I expect a balanced and neutral response from you, backed up by the best available evidence.”
David you’re cherry-picking studies that confirm your bias.
In response to your examples, the overall evidence – as I read it – indicates that both prior infection and vaccination reduce risk in incomplete, time-sensitive ways, and the most consistent protection profile in the evidence is usually hybrid immunity (infection + vaccination) rather than either alone.
Your question also ignores that getting natural immunity requires infection, which carries nontrivial risks for some people.
Having said that, I’m not interested in debating a very debatable idea… my point is that it’s not as cut-and-dried as your question(s) portray. I was expecting something different from you… I get all the bias I want from the Globe and the Post.
Well I'm certainly happy to see exactly this kind of debate here. It's great that we can talk about it.
I will note that, back in 2020-2021 I was certainly not recommending that people go out and look for the infection (actually, as a non-doctor, I wasn't recommending anything). The strains back then were still pretty dangerous.
But by the time I was infected (March, 2021), there was already plenty of hard evidence that there was no community benefit for infection+vaccine. The relevance of that point for this particular article is that the convoy protest could have been quickly defused with virtually no residual social damage by a simple official response acknowledging that fact. Even if governments would have decided to continue their mandates anyway, it could at least have acknowledged the value of the criticisms. Think how much anger and mistrust that could possibly have avoided.
Good questions. To really make a difference, however, the follow on must be “and what will you do about this going forward and how will we hold you accountable?” Absent this, it’s just whining.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”―George Washington
We are arguably at end stage democracy (Tytler's thesis) where bankrupt welfare states transition to despotism. The debates on what limitations need be applied to the state are now only to found in unelectable parties and brutally honest (and unelectable) candidates, and online forums. Illiberalism is now ubiquitous, Justice is now without blindfolds, Marxism is the dominant urban culture trending to Islam (demographically if not voting block-catered). Institutional capture is complete. Fascism is the dominant economic model virtually everywhere reflecting the pragmatic efficacy of corporate enterprise under the thumb of the leviathan state. The partisan divide is pre-civil war in animosity.
I know that you, David, are seeking a return to civil discourse and I wish I were wrong but it sure seems that the arc of history has passed us by.
“State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. "Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: ' I, the state, am the people.” -Nietzsche
“Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” - Robert LeFevre
The refusal to answer hard questions shows up clearly in the raw parliamentary data. I review Order Paper Questions every week, and when MPs ask for the specific economic impact assessments you mentioned regarding the plastics ban, the government often replies that no such record exists. It suggests the problem isn't just secrecy, but that they often implement policies without doing the math to begin with.
This is an awful - and recurring - problem. I wrote about this myself in my post on recycling policy in Ontario. It seems that no one bothered to calculate the actual costs to consumers imposed by the Extended Producer Responsibility program.
https://www.theaudit.ca/p/how-much-will-your-family-have-to
HF, I submit that frequently the government, oh, prevaricates [your name is Hansard so I cannot use the un-Parliamentary word, "lies"]. I further submit that the government actually answers clearly and honestly only those questions that show it in a positive light - questions frequently asked by government side MPs. Finally, I submit that frequently when the government "answers" a question with a response that is neither a prevarication nor from a friendly source it doesn't actually answer the question asked but, instead simply bloviates about something unrelated to the question asked.
There is a specific procedural reason for the frustration you are describing. In the House of Commons, the Speaker has ruled countless times that Ministers are technically only required to "reply" to a question. The rules do not actually force them to "answer" the substance of the inquiry.
That distinction is what allows for the pivoting and talking points you see in the daily transcripts. If you want the unvarnished facts, they are rarely found in the oral exchange. They are usually buried in the written Order Paper Questions, where departments have 45 days to return raw data without the political spin.
The other institution designed to allow for debate of the issues and holding the government to account is Parliament (or, in the provinces, the Legislatures). Increasingly, and sadly, decisions are made by a small number of people in the Prime Minister’s Office (or Premier’s Office) without detailed analysis, then rammed through Cabinet, rammed through Parliament, and implemented without any subsequent evaluation (because who wants to prove that their centrepiece legislation was a dud?). Yes, the media could ask tough questions, but politicians avoid the media and, increasingly, also avoid questions from other elected people. To be in the Opposition is framed up as being unreasonable and objectionable, whereas in fact it’s the purpose of Parliament to debate the issues and proposed solutions. If the system was working as designed, such debate would happen within parties, as well as between parties. To pretend that there’s one “best” solution that can be arrived at by a small group of people is a set-up for failure. Better solutions come with broader input from groups of people with a variety of perspectives. Even so, some mistakes will happen, and the post hoc analysis is required to show which policies failed and need to be abandoned or fixed.
It’s somewhat refreshing that Carney has been willing to reverse some of Trudeau’s policies, but a pity that he’s done so ad hoc, allegedly in response to events elsewhere, rather than admitting that the policies had been reviewed and were failures.
To be fair, I'm not sure Question Period has been a sober forum for the serious exchange of ideas in my lifetime (and I'm not young).
But I can say that both Parliamentary and Senate committees are places where there can sometimes be serious and productive discussion. It's sad that virtually nothing that's said in those sessions ever makes it anywhere near the final legislation.
True, it’s been broken for a long time. Question Period is theatre, not actual debate and accountability. Would be nice to see one party or the other change the pattern….
Interesting article. I would suggest that the issue with journalism is more likely an incentive one. Even when people look for news that asks the hard question, the information ecosystem rewards outrage over meaningful content. News is priced and distributed like entertainment where outrage and controversy generate revenue, not long-form interviews or policy discussions.
If we want to see the return of meaningful journalism, it needs to start from the demand side--the consumer. Without a critical mass of individuals who direct their attention, subscription and sharing habits to support meaningful journalism--well, we won't see any change.
"... the issue with journalism is more likely an incentive one ..."
Oh, you mean, like who is paying the journalists? The government is paying the journalists so the journalists have an incentive to ... tell the truth? ask hard questions? think clearly about alternatives proposed by the Opposition?
Just asking so that I better understand.
If a news agency is sponsored by the government, that can and should be part of the calculus of selecting your news.
Thank you for this article David. It was satisfying to read true questions that need to be asked. Now, if only the next part would take place by main stream reporters (not journalist, stenographers). Asking the questions then investigating and digging for the answers if the politicians and their fixers don't answer truthfully. Independent journalist are doing that.
According to Chat gpt, latest version: “No major public health body has concluded that natural immunity alone reliably reduces transmission to the same extent as recent vaccination + boosters”.( I assume it has also read your sources, but has concluded they have not been sufficiently compelling to convince any major public health body to make such a statement.)
That's interesting. Because, as Grok tells me (https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_93260c55-ca47-43b7-84b8-1ff7e096d2a4):
"In summary, the vaccines were engineered to elicit an immune response targeting the spike protein to mitigate individual disease outcomes, not to achieve sterilizing immunity (complete prevention of infection and onward spread). Claims otherwise often stem from misinterpretations of early data or public messaging, but the trial designs and regulatory pathways provide clear evidence that transmission reduction was not a core objective."
Sterilizing immunity is the strongest possible immune outcome:
• No infection at all (the pathogen can’t establish itself), and therefore
• No onward transmission.
Virtually no vaccine makes such a claim.
I really enjoy your writing, David, and have recommended it to several friends. I’m disappointed in this one, though. For the first time I’m hearing questions asked in a way that doesn’t reflect nuance.
Plug this into your AI, and try and read the response with an open mind:
“I’ve read that natural immunity was at least as effective in reducing COVID transmission as vaccines. Is this true? I hold no strong opinion either way, and I expect a balanced and neutral response from you, backed up by the best available evidence.”
Well you can start with these studies:
* https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
* https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2118946
* https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
* https://europepmc.org/article/ppr/ppr470506
David you’re cherry-picking studies that confirm your bias.
In response to your examples, the overall evidence – as I read it – indicates that both prior infection and vaccination reduce risk in incomplete, time-sensitive ways, and the most consistent protection profile in the evidence is usually hybrid immunity (infection + vaccination) rather than either alone.
Your question also ignores that getting natural immunity requires infection, which carries nontrivial risks for some people.
Having said that, I’m not interested in debating a very debatable idea… my point is that it’s not as cut-and-dried as your question(s) portray. I was expecting something different from you… I get all the bias I want from the Globe and the Post.
Well I'm certainly happy to see exactly this kind of debate here. It's great that we can talk about it.
I will note that, back in 2020-2021 I was certainly not recommending that people go out and look for the infection (actually, as a non-doctor, I wasn't recommending anything). The strains back then were still pretty dangerous.
But by the time I was infected (March, 2021), there was already plenty of hard evidence that there was no community benefit for infection+vaccine. The relevance of that point for this particular article is that the convoy protest could have been quickly defused with virtually no residual social damage by a simple official response acknowledging that fact. Even if governments would have decided to continue their mandates anyway, it could at least have acknowledged the value of the criticisms. Think how much anger and mistrust that could possibly have avoided.
Agreed
Fair point, sadly.
Good questions. To really make a difference, however, the follow on must be “and what will you do about this going forward and how will we hold you accountable?” Absent this, it’s just whining.
Indeed. The trick is figuring out what can be the next step. I have no clue how to get the government interested in real communication.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”―George Washington
We are arguably at end stage democracy (Tytler's thesis) where bankrupt welfare states transition to despotism. The debates on what limitations need be applied to the state are now only to found in unelectable parties and brutally honest (and unelectable) candidates, and online forums. Illiberalism is now ubiquitous, Justice is now without blindfolds, Marxism is the dominant urban culture trending to Islam (demographically if not voting block-catered). Institutional capture is complete. Fascism is the dominant economic model virtually everywhere reflecting the pragmatic efficacy of corporate enterprise under the thumb of the leviathan state. The partisan divide is pre-civil war in animosity.
I know that you, David, are seeking a return to civil discourse and I wish I were wrong but it sure seems that the arc of history has passed us by.
“State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. "Coldly it lies; and this lie slips from its mouth: ' I, the state, am the people.” -Nietzsche
“Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” - Robert LeFevre