Time to take banal clichés off the table.

If Canadians are going to be subjected to daily briefings from their prime minister and assorted lesser members of the national, provincial and local political classes, the formats for these efforts at message control and propaganda need to change. The country cannot survive many more days, let alone weeks and months, of being whipped into a hazy frenzy by leaders regurgitating prepared statements, authoritarian warnings and harangues against people who are not following the government’s commands.

“Enough is enough,” Trudeau said the other day about people who refuse to distance as far from their fellow citizens as the government instructs. But it is the politicians about whom Canadians should be saying “enough is enough.”

The first step toward ending these daily exercises in banal exhortation is to cease delivering the meaningless cliché-ridden language that has turned these briefings into glorified hockey coach sessions. “We have your back,” “whatever it takes,” “we are right there with you,” “nothing is off the table,” “we have the tools,” “we are all hands on deck.” These clichés could lead to rebellion long before the people tire of social distancing and economic turmoil.

During his daily info session Tuesday, Trudeau chanted that “everything is on the table” when asked about the Liberals’ aborted plan to assume the power to tax without consulting Parliament. In other words, a tax dictatorship is not happening right now, but who knows? As to whether the government is looking at direct surveillance of Canadians through their cellphones, he told reporters there are no plans right now but “everything is on the table.”

It’s time to take these meaningless slogans off the table. The media can help. Reporters need to stop feeding leading questions to politicians who are routinely allowed to dodge and evade — or questions that are solely intended to extract news of the next draconian plan to stop the COVID-19 pandemic. Typical question: “Have you made a decision to close down interprovincial borders and bring the economy to a

INSTEAD OF ALLOWING POLITICIANS TO DODGE AND WEAVE, REPORTERS SHOULD START ASKING HARD QUESTIONS

ABOUT LIFE — AND DEATH.

total standstill.” Answer: “We have not reached the point yet, but everything is on the table.”

And how many more times will Trudeau avoid answering questions about the length of the economic crisis even when he almost certainly has a pretty good idea?

Reporter: “What guidance can you provide Canadians and employers about how long the current maximum containment phase will last before we shift gears to a more targeted containment … Will it be weeks, months or several quarters?”

Trudeau on Monday: “This is a question for scientists, obviously.” On Tuesday, he added that “science and experts have been guiding our approach and response to the crisis … and must continue to guide us.”

Trudeau is effectively shuffling responsibility offstage. It is unacceptable for politicians to download the reasons and background details for their unprecedented decisions onto unidentified scientists, experts and “top researchers.”

The media, when not fanning the fires of fear and anxiety, have failed to ask direct hard questions at politicians and make followup inquiries. At each daily prime ministerial briefing, only a few 30-second questions are allowed. More are desperately needed.

For starters, here are a few issues that should be raised directly during the daily briefing:

Mr. Prime Minister, can you tell us which national and international expert views your government has sought and accepted? And what are their prescriptions and predictions as to the outcome of the measures Canada has adopted?

Along this line, Mr. Prime Minister, scientists at the Imperial College in London say their work “has informed policy-making in the U.K. and other countries in recent weeks.” They add that intensive interventions in social and economic activity “will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more).” Is this in line with your government’s conclusions?

Mr. Prime Minister, the Imperial College study also implies that, even with the most stringent measures, millions will contract COVID-19 and tens of thousands of British and U.S. residents will die from the virus. Do your science experts have estimates of the possible death rate in Canada? How many Canadians can be expected to be infected?

Another followup question, Mr. Prime Minister. The Imperial College scientists say they “do not consider the ethical or economic implications” of the strategies except to say that they will be “profound.” Can you provide us with the economic and social studies undertaken by your government that examine the short-, medium- and long-term impacts on the Canadian economy of the measures your government has taken?

Mr. Prime Minister, did Finance Canada produce any models on its own or in consultation with the Bank of Canada or private forecasters to determine the impact of imposing a national pandemic emergency on the Canadian economy? If so, would it not be appropriate to reveal these details so that Canadian businesses and individuals can more accurately determine how they should be planning for the coming months and beyond?

Anyway, that’s a start on the questions that, so far, have not been asked of the prime minister.