Federal Government & Politics II

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by casper

Yes, this government has been far more evidence-based that previous. Quite clear looking from the outside on decisions it has made in public health or environment.

"Evidence-based" is a meaningless buzzword when divorced from the greater context of discussing what goals one is intending to achieve. All decision making, whether utilizing evidence or not, is still inherently political as it's ultimately informed by ideology and a constituency that it's intending to serve.

The previous government was likely just as "evidence-based" as the current one - they just had different priorities and interests that were being pursued.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

"Evidence-based" is a meaningless buzzword when divorced from the greater context of discussing what goals one is intending to achieve. All decision making, whether utilizing evidence or not, is still inherently political as it's ultimately informed by ideology and a constituency that it's intending to serve.

The previous government was likely just as "evidence-based" as the current one - they just had different priorities and interests that were being pursued.

I think there is a lot of truth in this comment. There is a strong narrative that Harper muzzled scientists and was anti-evidence especially in their majority term but when unelected scientists speak against government policy using taxpayer funds what should the government do? Is it anti evidence to eliminate the carbon tax. That is certainly the claim of say Evidence for Democracy that sprung out of this period. PP will have a clear mandate to exit the carbon tax and frankly to ignore climate change for a time and any "evidence" to the contrary can be ignored. The evidence in our system is the electorate.

[casper]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think there is a lot of truth in this comment. There is a strong narrative that Harper muzzled scientists and was anti-evidence especially in their majority term but when unelected scientists speak against government policy using taxpayer funds what should the government do? Is it anti evidence to eliminate the carbon tax. That is certainly the claim of say Evidence for Democracy that sprung out of this period. PP will have a clear mandate to exit the carbon tax and frankly to ignore climate change for a time and any "evidence" to the contrary can be ignored. The evidence in our system is the electorate.

Science does not tell us what decisions should be made. It predicts the impact of the decision.

As an example, if a fisheries scientist does a study that shows building a hydro electric dam will cause reduced flow in a river and a correlating reduction of x% in salmon stocks, that should be published into the public domain. Regardless of what decision government makes at the end of the day. I am also in favour of the government funded economist publishing his study that may show the dam is economically wort it over commercial fishery.

The reason those engineers and scientist are employed by government is to provide expert advise.

While PP may decide government policy is to ignore climate change, I would still expect, federal scientists and engineers to behave like professionals use the best environmental models when designing structures near the water, or predicting river flows when designing bridges, etc.

While the Harper government did questionable things around science. One of the things they that was more palatable, is they accepted climate change was real. That was not an issue, they simply decided the economic cost of addressing climate change was to high.

[Truenorth00]

Harper did muzzle scientists.

Trudeau had their own version of muzzling government staff very early on. It just got less press. This happened a year after they took over pledging transparency:

Liberals order 235 military personnel, bureaucrats to take fighter jet details to the grave

The non-disclosure agreement for the equipment project puts the fighter jet replacement on the same level as top secret counter-terrorism missions

The Liberal government has brought in an unprecedented gag order that prevents 235 Canadian military personnel and federal workers from ever talking about the program, now underway, to replace the country’s fighter jets.

The non-disclosure agreement for the equipment project puts the fighter jet replacement on the same level as top secret counter-terrorism missions undertaken by the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit as well as clandestine operations by the country’s spies, military sources say.

The permanent non-disclosure agreements were uncovered by Conservative defence critic James Bezan after he requested information through Commons “inquiry of ministry” process.

The information provided to Bezan noted that 121 individuals at the Department of National Defence were required to sign the non- disclosure agreement, 39 at Public Services and Procurement Canada; and 18 at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The rest of the 235 were employed by the Department of Finance, Treasury Board, Department of Justice and Privy Council Office.

Five other individuals working on the fighter jet replacement project who are under contract to DND were also required to sign the non-disclosure agreement or NDA.

“The NDA is a life-time agreement,” the response to Bezan noted. Persons signing the NDA are considered “persons permanently bound to secrecy” on the future fighter jet capability project, it added.

Defence industry executives and retired public servants say they have never seen such secrecy surrounding an equipment program.
....

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...n-fighter-jets

Subsequent to this, they came up with a rigged justification to attempt to buy Boeing Super Hornets as a way of getting around the F-35. The only thing that stopped them was Boeing's own incompetence leading to them try to sue Bombardier out of existence.

So to review, just months after taking office, they were resorting to unprecedented lifetime muzzling of military officers and senior public servants to cover up their ploy (the evidence needed for that evidence based decision) to award an extremely expensive (almost double the per unit price of the F-35) sole-source contract to a company that attempted to destroy a Canadian national champion (and mostly succeeded).

Pretty clear to me that both parties love shutting up any public servant who is inconvenient to their agenda.

Also pretty clear to me that evidence based decision-making becomes a dubious claim when you can make your evidence or interpret it to suit your narrative. In the above case, they rewrote the defence policy to require the RCAF to be immediately able to deploy substantial amount of fighters to NORAD and NATO at the same time. And then argued F-35 delivery slots were too far away, so they had to buy Super Hornets from Boeing immediately. Oh and when all of this blew up in their faces with the Boeing suit, we spent a billion buying used Australian jets so that the government could save its narrative. And of course nobody could question them, because everybody who had any intimate knowledge of the plot had signed an NDA. Is that evidence based decision-making?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

I think there is a lot of truth in this comment. There is a strong narrative that Harper muzzled scientists and was anti-evidence especially in their majority term but when unelected scientists speak against government policy using taxpayer funds what should the government do? Is it anti evidence to eliminate the carbon tax. That is certainly the claim of say Evidence for Democracy that sprung out of this period. PP will have a clear mandate to exit the carbon tax and frankly to ignore climate change for a time and any "evidence" to the contrary can be ignored. The evidence in our system is the electorate.

It's the politicization, character assassination and flat out assault on expertise that is the problem. We see this from Conservatives already with housing experts when they call out elements of the Conservative plan or rhetoric. Expertise is only tolerated when it fits the narrative.

If you don't think climate change is worth addressing say so. Don't resort to muzzling scientists doing their jobs or trying to flat out deny the science itself.

That said, I have no illusions about what a PP les government will be like. All raging politics, all the time. I don't expect any science to be considered.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

Science does not tell us what decisions should be made. It predicts the impact of the decision.

As an example, if a fisheries scientist does a study that shows building a hydro electric dam will cause reduced flow in a river and a correlating reduction of x% in salmon stocks, that should be published into the public domain. Regardless of what decision government makes at the end of the day. I am also in favour of the government funded economist publishing his study that may show the dam is economically wort it over commercial fishery.

The reason those engineers and scientist are employed by government is to provide expert advise.

While PP may decide government policy is to ignore climate change, I would still expect, federal scientists and engineers to behave like professionals use the best environmental models when designing structures near the water, or predicting river flows when designing bridges, etc.

While the Harper government did questionable things around science. One of the things they that was more palatable, is they accepted climate change was real. That was not an issue, they simply decided the economic cost of addressing climate change was to high.

The federal government employs thousands of experts in a range of fields. Trudeau has been very selective on which he wants to be allowed to publicly disclose their work. He seems to only allow publication that directly aligns with the government’s narrative.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The federal government employs thousands of experts in a range of fields. Trudeau has been very selective on which he wants to be allowed to publicly disclose their work. He seems to only allow publication that directly aligns with the government’s narrative.

Without re litigating Covid that seems like a prime example. Any contrarian doctors were mercilessly hounded.

Residential schools and the false claims of mass graves is another example.

There is a claim that feels right they have a general propensity to listen to experts more but that's probably because experts lean left.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

"Evidence-based" is a meaningless buzzword when divorced from the greater context of discussing what goals one is intending to achieve. All decision making, whether utilizing evidence or not, is still inherently political as it's ultimately informed by ideology and a constituency that it's intending to serve.

The Soviet Union used to parrot the 'scientifically correct' line as justification for the various schemes it inflicted on its population.

It was malarkey. A bunch of nightmarish concepts wore the so-called 'scientific' badge of honour in their era. These concepts were deeply antithetical to many of the values we hold dear as people.

Science is a process of determining fact through testing and observation, not an ideology unto itself.

Government can use scientific evidence in the context of the values it espouses to advance its agenda. However, the agenda we value is set by the people of the country. Perhaps it's economic advancement. Or mitigation of environmental damage. Or control of disease. So-called 'Evidence-based' decisions can lead down horrible roads if the values that underpin the decision-making body are twisted.

[Truenorth00]

Yes. The LPC has abused "evidence based" decision-making a bit too much. I think we're also forgetting how bad the other side (wilful denial or ignorance of evidence) can be. Remember Trump during COVID?

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The Soviet Union used to parrot the 'scientifically correct' line as justification for the various schemes it inflicted on its population.

It was malarkey. A bunch of nightmarish concepts wore the so-called 'scientific' badge of honour in their era. These concepts were deeply antithetical to many of the values we hold dear as people.

Science is a process of determining fact through testing and observation, not an ideology unto itself.

Government can use scientific evidence in the context of the values it espouses to advance its agenda. However, the agenda we value is set by the people of the country. Perhaps it's economic advancement. Or mitigation of environmental damage. Or control of disease. So-called 'Evidence-based' decisions can lead down horrible roads if the values that underpin the decision-making body are twisted.

We of course got our very own (albeit much more benign) first hand taste of taste of this with Covid, when "Follow The Science" became mantra for proponents of lockdowns & restrictions (the stricter the better). Adherents of this ideology technically weren't wrong - they were making science-based decisions...just ones focused on the singular goal of reducing the spread of the virus without regard for the economic, social, political, or health implications of that.

It's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture when decision making can just ignore the competing interests and values of a society.

[Hackslack]

Happy March Holiday Season everyone!!!! Hahahahahaha… f’n Trudeau and f’n liberals. Jokes

[casper]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

We of course got our very own (albeit much more benign) first hand taste of taste of this with Covid, when "Follow The Science" became mantra for proponents of lockdowns & restrictions (the stricter the better). Adherents of this ideology technically weren't wrong - they were making science-based decisions...just ones focused on the singular goal of reducing the spread of the virus without regard for the economic, social, political, or health implications of that.

It's easy to lose sight of the bigger picture when decision making can just ignore the competing interests and values of a society.

It comes downs to your goal. Out here in BC the government was focused on ensuring hospitals and emergency rooms were not overloaded. The restrictions were increased or reduced to the extent required to avoid that situation from occurring. It worked. The models were accurate. Our restrictions were middle of the road in relation to the rest of out country.

There were more significant restrictions around the most vulnerable. Controls around those who access seniors homes as an example.

It is ok, for political leadership to look at what the science is saying and say, "Given the other economic factors, will take the public health or environmental hit".

Where we have problems, is when political leadership goes for wishful thinking, and say, "I don't want it to be true, so I am going to pretend its not going to happen that way."

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. The LPC has abused "evidence based" decision-making a bit too much. I think we're also forgetting how bad the other side (wilful denial or ignorance of evidence) can be. Remember Trump during COVID?

Ironically Operation Warp Speed was the most pro-science and actually useful thing any government in the world did during the pandemic. He just threw his own policy under the bus because his supporters would rather drink bleach.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by casper

It comes downs to your goal. Out here in BC the government was focused on ensuring hospitals and emergency rooms were not overloaded. The restrictions were increased or reduced to the extent required to avoid that situation from occurring. It worked. The models were accurate. Our restrictions were middle of the road in relation to the rest of out country.

There were more significant restrictions around the most vulnerable. Controls around those who access seniors homes as an example.

It is ok, for political leadership to look at what the science is saying and say, "Given the other economic factors, will take the public health or environmental hit".

Where we have problems, is when political leadership goes for wishful thinking, and say, "I don't want it to be true, so I am going to pretend its not going to happen that way."

Since the thread is about the federal government, the Feds had 3 completely unscientific policies towards masks.

1) Told people that masks weren’t necessary. This was contrary to nearly all the scientific evidence at the time.

2) Told people to wear cloth masks, which are completely useless, at a time when most countries were telling people to wear medical masks.

3) Kept the mandatory cloth mask policy in place at least a year after vaccination was widespread when the rest of the world didn’t see any scientific value in mass masking.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ironically Operation Warp Speed was the most pro-science and actually useful thing any government in the world did during the pandemic. He just threw his own policy under the bus because his supporters would rather drink bleach.

That makes it a rather perfect example of a leader having the best resources in the world and ignoring them because of populism.

I don't think it's a left-right thing. Extremists on both sides are just as likely to dismiss advice and expertise they find inconvenient.

[lio45]

It's pretty normal for the Federal Liberals to be anti-science, whenever there's a clash between science and politics they'll always favor the latter. All governments will do this, it's not just the JT Liberals.

A government is there to implement what their constituents say, not what science says. (Ideally the two are the same, in those cases that's easy.)

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Since the thread is about the federal government, the Feds had 3 completely unscientific policies towards masks.

1) Told people that masks weren’t necessary. This was contrary to nearly all the scientific evidence at the time.

2) Told people to wear cloth masks, which are completely useless, at a time when most countries were telling people to wear medical masks.

3) Kept the mandatory cloth mask policy in place at least a year after vaccination was widespread when the rest of the world didn’t see any scientific value in mass masking.

1 was because we didn't have masks for everyone, and the hospitals needed them. This is where 6 feet apart came from.

2 was because cloth was better than nothing, supposedly. The example being used was if you pee with or without pants on. No pants, your pee goes everywhere, put pants on, you keep most of it to yourself.

3 I think came about from decision paralysis. "I don't want to be the one making the mistake on this". I remember when we went back into lockdown after New Years in 2021 thinking "who's going to be one that decides we can get out of this? Are we waiting for the US to lighten up, other provinces, what's it gonna take?" And it was still another year and a half before most of the restrictions were gone.

[P'tit Renard]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's pretty normal for the Federal Liberals to be anti-science, whenever there's a clash between science and politics they'll always favor the latter. All governments will do this, it's not just the JT Liberals.

A government is there to implement what their constituents say, not what science says. (Ideally the two are the same, in those cases that's easy.)

The key difference being that Trudeau and his TruAnon sycophants constantly virtue signalling about their superiority in embracing science and evidenced-based governance (the first for a modern day Canadian PM), even if that's not the reality. Justin's literally the wish version of Obama.

[Acajack]

Happy Pierre Poilievre He Is Risen! Day

[casper]

Originally Posted by P'tit Renard

The key difference being that Trudeau and his TruAnon sycophants constantly virtue signalling about their superiority in embracing science and evidenced-based governance (the first for a modern day Canadian PM), even if that's not the reality. Justin's literally the wish version of Obama.

Your comparing/arguing equivalency between JT to one of the greatest presidents in US history. While, JT did do some good things in his mandate, I would put him down as an OK Liberal PM. Not spectacular in any way.