Oh, Canada

We find it endlessly fascinating that most Canadians believe they live in a representative democracy, where aspiring candidates engage in authentic politicking to earn their place in office. So accustomed are Canada’s power brokers to getting their way, they rarely bother to cover their tracks. A careful reading of the notoriously pliant Canadian press makes anticipating future events in the country surprisingly straightforward.

Back in December, when Pierre Poilievre was given better than 90% odds of replacing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—and Mark Carney was still just an uncharismatic banker few had heard of—we engaged in some not-so-speculative dot-connecting and correctly predicted Carney’s rise to the top spot. Our interest was driven by the notoriously rocky relationship between Ottawa and the Province of Alberta, home to one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon reserves, and how Carney’s rise might be a catalyst for resetting Canada’s energy trajectory. In a follow-up article titled “The Fix Is In,” we laid out a few more predictions:

“Here’s how the play is likely to unfold in the weeks and months ahead: Carney will be elected Prime Minister on April 28 by a comfortable margin; [Alberta Premier Danielle] Smith will trigger a constitutional crisis, providing cover for Carney to strike a grand bargain that finally resolves longstanding tensions between the provinces and Ottawa; and large infrastructure permitting reform will fall into place. Protests against these developments will be surprisingly muted, and those who do take to the streets will be largely ignored by the media. The entire effort will be wrapped in a thicket of patriotism, with Trump portrayed as a threat even greater than climate change itself. References to carbon emissions will slowly fade…

In parallel, we expect Trump and Carney to swiftly strike a favorable deal on tariffs, padding the latter’s bona fides just as his political capital will be most needed.”

The votes have barely been counted, yet the next moves are already unfolding…

“Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she’ll make it easier for citizens to initiate a referendum on the province’s future in Canada, after warning that a Liberal win in Monday’s election could spur a groundswell of support for Alberta separatism. Smith said on Tuesday that a newly tabled elections bill will give everyday Albertans a bigger say in the province’s affairs.

‘(We’re giving) Albertans more ways to be directly involved in democracy, and to have their say on issues that matter to them,’ Smith told reporters in Edmonton.

If passed, the new law would dramatically lower the number of signatures needed to put a citizen-proposed constitutional referendum question on the ballot, setting a new threshold of 10 per cent of general election turnout — or just over 175,000, based on Alberta’s last provincial election in 2023.”

…exactly to plan:

“US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is looking to make a trade deal and will visit the White House within the next week. Trump said he congratulated Carney on his election victory when the Canadian leader called on Tuesday.

‘He called me up yesterday – he said let’s make a deal,’ Trump told reporters at the White House after a televised Cabinet meeting.”

Remember where you read it first.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Rodney Clifton

Senior Fellow Rodney Clifton calls for renewed scientific scrutiny of two major Canadian narratives: COVID-19 policies and the Kamloops residential school claims. He argues that both bypassed rigorous, evidence-based evaluation, favouring politicized consensus. Critics of pandemic measures, like Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, were wrongly dismissed despite valid concerns. Similarly, the unverified mass grave claims in Kamloops were accepted without forensic proof. Clifton urges a return to the scientific principle of “trust but verify” to safeguard truth, public policy, and democracy.

COVID-19 and Kamloops claims dodged scrutiny – but the truth is catching up

Do we know the best way to decide if specific empirical claims are true?

Of course we do. The best way is by using the procedures of science.

Scientists critically examine the arguments and evidence in research studies to find weaknesses and fallacies. If there are no weaknesses or fallacies, the evidence enters the realm of science. But if there are weaknesses, the research has low or zero credibility, and the evidence does not become a building block of science.

In a historical context, seemingly good evidence may not remain as science because claims are continually evaluated by researchers. This scientific process is not failsafe, but it is far better than other procedures for determining the truth of empirical claims.

This powerful principle is often called “trust but verify,” and it is the idea behind the replication of scientific results.

Today, many such truth claims demand critical examination. At least two come readily to mind.

The first is the claim that the COVID-19 procedures and vaccines were safe and effective.

It is now abundantly clear that the procedures used during the COVID-19 pandemic bypassed time tested scientific protocols. Instead of open scientific debate and rigorous testing, government appointed “scientists” endorsed government-approved narratives. Canadians were told to social distance, wear masks and, most importantly, get vaccinated—often without transparent discussion of the evidence or risks.

Those who questioned the procedures, vaccines or official explanations were dismissed as “deniers” and, in some cases, ridiculed. Perhaps the most notable example is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the Stanford epidemiologist and economist who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration. Despite being vilified during the pandemic, Dr. Bhattacharya is now the head of the U.S. National Institute of Health.

Five years after the pandemic began, it is clear that Dr. Bhattacharya—and many other so-called deniers—were raising legitimate concerns. Contrary to the portrayal of these scientists as conspiracy theorists or extremists, they were doing exactly what good scientists should do: trusting but verifying empirical claims. Their skepticism was warranted, particularly regarding both the severity of the virus and the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines.

The second claim concerns the allegation that Indigenous children died or were murdered and buried in unmarked graves at the Kamloops Residential School.

In 2021, the Kamloops Indigenous Band claimed that 215 children’s bodies had been discovered in the schoolyard. The legacy media swiftly labelled anyone who questioned the claim as a “denier.” Despite millions of dollars allocated for excavations, no bodies have been exhumed. Meanwhile, other bands have made similar claims, likely encouraged by federal government incentives tied to funding.

To date, this claim has not faced normal scientific scrutiny. The debate remains lopsided, with one side citing the memories of unnamed elders—referred to as “knowledge-keepers”—while the other side calls for forensic evidence before accepting the claim.

The allegation of mass graves was not only embraced by the media but also by Parliament. Members of the House of Commons passed a motion by NDP MP Leah Gazan declaring that Indigenous children were subjected to genocide in residential schools. Disturbingly, this motion passed without any demand for forensic or corroborating evidence.

Truth claims must always be open to scrutiny. Those who challenge prevailing narratives should not be disparaged but rather respected, even if they are later proven wrong, because they are upholding the essential principle of science. It is time to reaffirm the vital importance of verifying evidence to resolve empirical questions.

We still need a robust debate about COVID-19 procedures, the virus itself, the vaccines and the claims of mass graves at residential schools. More broadly, we need open, evidence-based debates on many pressing empirical claims. Preserving our democracy and creating sound public policy depend on it because verifiable evidence is the cornerstone of decision-making that serves all Canadians.

Rodney A. Clifton is a professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba and a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Along with Mark DeWolf, he is the editor of From Truth Comes Reconciliation: An Assessment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, which can be ordered from Amazon.ca or the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.