In 2015, a pipeline was designed to cut through a sensitive wetland in B.C. The professional biologist reviewing the project told his company that there could be significant damage to the wetland and an extensive monitoring program would have to be set up to watch for effects.

The larger consultancy the biologist’s company worked for refused to submit the report to the pipeline company.

“They took it and rewrote it, basically,” he told DeSmog Canada. “It wasn’t my document anymore.”

The biologist, who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity, said he engaged in a protracted battle with the consultancy, with little effect.

Eventually the B.C. provincial environmental assessment office stepped in and recommended the same monitoring system he originally suggested.

That fight to alter the environmental impacts documented in a scientific report is just one example of the ways professional biologists, engineers, geoscientists and others across the country face pressure from a system with few legislated requirements for scientific rigour.

In interviews with several current and former consultants, the notion was raised again and again that strict rules for scientific integrity could provide a backstop for professionals who are being pressured to alter their recommendations to benefit a project.

That could be about to change, as the federal government introduces a new Impact Assessment Act to replace Canada’s controversial and much-maligned Environmental Assessment Act.

A large majority of Canadians want the new Act to include stricter rules around the inclusion of science, according to a new study released Monday in the journal Facets.

Looking at the comments from public, industry and government solicited by an expert review panel, researchers found the public overwhelmingly asked for more rigorous and transparent scientific analysis of projects during an environmental review.

“In the online questionnaire, people had to rank their top three concerns; science comes out way up there,” said Aerin Jacob, an author of the new study.

The sample of opinions — being drawn from written submissions to the standing committee — is admittedly self-selecting, leaving the paper open to criticisms of selection bias.

“These are people who care enough to be involved, whatever their views are,” Jacob concedes. But other surveys conducted in more traditional ways have returned similar results.

Coauthor Jonathan Moore says what makes the survey unique is that it’s a way of looking at what people are telling the government — thus allowing people to evaluate what the government actually does with that information.

For example, while industry, scientists and the public were aligned on some issues, such as transparency in the government’s decision making, one major area in which industry opinions differed from those of scientists and the public was how rigorous science should be in environmental assessments.

“I think what that means is that the degree to which the government tackled that or not will reveal the degree to which environmental assessment is created for industry or created for the rest of Canada,” Moore said.

Science often not made public

While language in Environment Minister Catherine McKenna’s mandate letter instructs her to “ensure that decisions are based on science, facts, and evidence, and serve the public’s interest,” there is no formal requirement for evidence to be made public before decisions are made.

The new study broke down that concept of evidence-based decision making in environmental assessments into five categories: openly sharing information, evaluating cumulative effects, scientific rigour, transparency in decision-making and independence between regulators and proponents.

“These results not only show there’s strong support across multiple sectors, they also give a road map of how to do it,” says Jacob.

“Rather than just saying you should use science or you should do evidence-based decision making — what does that actually mean? — here, we’re showing, here are five fundamental components of having a scientific approach to environmental assessments, and truly follow up on that commitment.”

Currently, the federal cabinet has a high degree of discretion once assessments have been presented to the government, and the factors that were or were not considered are not made public.

Increased transparency was one of the categories on which almost everyone agreed. For industry, it could mean saving time on environmental assessments, by knowing what was coming ahead of time. For the public, it could mean being able to hold politicians accountable for not taking into consideration promises they had made, or priorities they had professed to have.

Just three submissions were opposed to increased transparency in decision-making, compared to more than 150 in favour.

That’s reflected in the recommendations made by the expert panel: that “information be easily accessible, and permanently and publicly available.”

While the proposed new Act uses the word “transparent” several times, it does not require that data be made public by default, just that there be instructions on how the information can be obtained.

“That kind of redirection is not useful,” says Martin Olszynski, a lawyer at the University of Calgary Faculty of Law.

“You know that the agency has an internal file that contains all of that information, and we basically just say, all of that information should be on the public registry.”

“What if there’s a little bit of harm on my project, and there’s a little bit of harm on somebody else’s project, which is right downstream…Who’s looking at the big picture?” https://t.co/iyVNkwLqJy

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 7, 2018

No interconnected knowledge

That lack of transparency also means there are limited opportunities to consider cumulative impacts.

Commenters from the public and even many in industry also asked for more consideration of cumulative effects. Whether through greenhouse gas emissions, air or water quality degradation or wildlife habitat destruction, Jacob said the piling up of effects from different projects is what pushes consequences past a point of no return.

“No one project is going to do that. But together, they do,” she says.

A second professional biologist who spoke to DeSmog Canada on the condition of anonymity said cumulative impacts are among the most insidious, because without specific laws around watching for them, it’s easy to feel pressured to overlook how one project’s impacts stack on those of another nearby.

“What if there’s a little bit of harm on my project, and there’s a little bit of harm on somebody else’s project, which is right downstream…Who’s looking at the big picture?” she asked.

That gap in legislation means that industry-hired professionals have little in the way of recourse when asked to make determinations that they might otherwise feel uncomfortable making. British Columbia is currently conducting a review of the system through which paid consultants are relied upon by the province in environmental decision making (known as professional reliance). The province is also reviewing its environmental assessment process with an eye toward cumulative impacts.

Pressure on professionals

In December of 1980, David Mayhood sent in a report evaluating damage CN Rail had done to a forest in Jasper National Park. It had diverted a stream into the forest to protect its railbed. He found the stream had become impassable for fish because of logjams, while 10 hectares of forest had been wiped out.

“I was fairly graphic in the description about the damage that had been done there,” he said. But there was little appetite for graphic descriptions at the consultancy that had hired him.

“When I got the final copy of the report back with our section in it, it had been drastically changed,” he said. “Where I said an area had been devastated, they said it had been ‘altered.’ ”

Mayhood wrote a letter of protest, but the report was submitted.

He says that kind of pressure to water down language, and consequently undermine the science behind it, has persisted throughout his career.

“The fundamental issue is that biologists…should be independent,” he says. “They aren’t. They’re objectively not independent; they work for a government that has a political agenda, and private industry that also has its own agenda.”

Alana Westwood, science and policy analyst with Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, experienced that lack of independence as she began her career as a junior biologist at a consulting firm. She said that although most experiences met the standard of science, there was one particular firm that went far outside what could be considered objective science.

The consulting company was dominated by one client, an electrical generation company, which held an inordinate amount of power over the quality of science Westwood and her colleagues could do.

“I was routinely asked to do things I had no experience for or training in,” she said. For example, she was asked to conduct a bird survey in what she now knows is the off-season for the birds she was ostensibly looking for, using methods she now knows would never be effective.

And it got worse, when she was asked to do a literature review of the known effects of a particular monitoring technique the firm’s sole client wanted to use.

“Then my boss came to me, and said, of the 20 or so papers you found, how many found no effect, or found it didn’t harm them?” she recalls. There were four papers among the 20.

Her boss was clear on what needed to be done, in order to please the client upon which the entire business turned — like so many biologists before and after her, she would be asked to compromise her training, ethics and better judgment to make life easier for a client whose priority was delivering value to shareholders, rather that protecting the environment.

“Use only those four,” Westwood recalls being told.

As the interview comes to a close, co-author Jonathan Moore loops the conversation around to hockey. In recent years, the NHL — concerned that team doctors were facing conflicts of interest as they assessed players for concussions — decided to change their system.

Today, that assessment is done by outside doctors who wouldn’t face pressure to put unfit players back on the ice.

Moore sees the same possibility for environmental assessment reform to take the pressure away from professionals to deliver what their clients want.

“I find that if Canada can do it for hockey, I would hope they could do it for making these huge decisions that affect the environment and people that rely on the environment.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Scientists and environmental groups breathed a sigh of relief when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau quickly followed through on a campaign promise to modernize Canada’s environmental laws.

Within a year of being elected, the Liberals initiated four parallel reviews of key environmental legislation weakened or eliminated under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

But now, as that review process is coming to a close, experts are back to holding their breath.

“There is a real climate of concern right now,” Aerin Jacob, Liber Ero scholar and conservation scientist with the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, told DeSmog Canada.

The federal government’s response to bold recommendations for reforming the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Fisheries Act and the Navigation Protection Act is “underwhelming,” Jacob said.

Federal Response to Environmental Reviews Vague, Concerning

That response — released quietly this summer in the form of a 24-page, diagram-filled discussion paper — was so scant on details experts say it’s distressing.

“This was all under the radar in a very worrying way,” federal Green Party Leader Elizabeth May told DeSmog Canada. “I just get the feeling like someone’s pulling a fast one.”

“Releasing this at the end of June with a public comment period ending August 28th, I can’t begin to imagine the average person or even the attentive environmentalist was properly alerted to the content of this document.”

ICYMI: 10 Reasons Ottawa Should Rebuild Our Environmental Assessment Law from Scratch

After multiple requests, the federal government recently extended the public submissions period until September 15.

May said the federal response lacked substance and paves the way for maintaining the devastating changes made to environmental laws under Harper.

“We’ve had all of these consultations with experts and citizens across Canada and now we end up — either by design or happenstance — with the federal government actually rejecting all the key recommendations by the panels without even explicitly saying so.”

“I’m apoplectic with rage that this is being proposed,” May said.

“Now we’re looking at mild tweaking as opposed to the massive repair of our gutted environmental laws.”

May said the regulatory system has been calibrated to serve the needs of industry.

“The changes to our laws have converted many of our agencies into a corporate concierge service to aid the approval of projects,” she said.

Linda Duncan, NDP member of parliament for Edmonton-Strathcona and Energy and Climate Change critic, said it’s troubling that the Liberals have continued to approve major resource projects while relying on “emasculated” laws and processes.

Federal approvals for several controversial projects, including the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, Enbridge Line 9 pipeline, the Site C dam and the Pacific Northwest LNG export facility, have been granted while the review process has been ongoing.

“The government continues to drag its heels on tabling the promised reforms,” Duncan said, adding onlookers have every right to be concerned appropriate actions won’t be taken to meaningfully restore Canada’s environmental laws.

“The initial concept paper issued by the government in response to their own expert review and public feedback is almost completely dismissive of the reforms called for,” Duncan said.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna told DeSmog Canada in an e-mailed statement, “We are committed to making environmental assessment and regulatory changes that regain public trust, protect the environment, support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and ensure good projects go ahead and get resources to market sustainably.”

ICYMI: Trudeau Promised to Fix the National Energy Board. Here’s What His Expert Panel Recommends

Pipeline and Major Project Reviews Plagued With Problems

The laws under review affect everything from fish to water to climate change to how we get energy.

“We entrust government to guide this process that helps us make decisions as a society on what kind of projects and infrastructure we want to see in our environment and on our lands,” said Katie Gibbs, executive director of the science-advocacy organization Evidence for Democracy. “That’s such a fundamental way government touches on and impacts our lives.”

Some of the most contentious project reviews in Canadian history have taken place in recent years.

The Enbridge Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline hearings were beset with problems stemming from what many have identified as a collapse of public trust in the process and Canada’s regulatory bodies.

Matters were made worse when the Harper government forced changes through the budget process to expedite project reviews and weaken public participation in environmental assessments.

Trudeau’s promise of environmental reform spoke directly to the question of how Canada could conduct more meaningful, credible scientific reviews of resource projects with a goal of selecting projects best situated to serve the public interest. (Although it’s important to note Trudeau did not follow through on an explicit promise to restart the Trans Mountain pipeline hearing under a new, modernized review process).

“These are some of the biggest challenges Canadians face today and we have a real opportunity to do things better,” Jacob said.

Is Trudeau Quietly Turning His Back On Fixing Canada’s #Environmental Laws? https://t.co/x9EcM6Nq6B @LindaDuncanMP @ElizabethMay #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 12, 2017

Federal Position Big Step Back From Bold Expert Recommendations

However, the federal government’s discussion paper takes a big step back from the panels’ bold recommendations, Jacob said.

In partnership with 24 other scientists, Jacobs spearheaded the writing of a report, Strong Foundations, that identifies gaps in the government’s response.

“Some of the gaps we talked about mentioned, for example, that we need to have decision rules. These rules would lay out how government — cabinet or the minister, whoever makes the final decision on an environmental assessment — how they came to that decision,” Jacobs said.

Environmental assessments incorporate multiple streams of information, including science produced on behalf of a project proponent, third-party reviews, academic research and traditional Indigenous knowledge.

“All of this information is taken into account in how we make decisions but unless you clearly lay out what role those things play in a decision, it remains a black box.”

ICYMI: Strategic Assessments: A Surprisingly Simple Solution to Canada’s Stalled Energy Debate

Jacobs said the report also touches on the need for greater transparency in the use and sharing of data, incorporation of the precautionary principle, assessment of regional and cumulative impacts as well as impacts of projects on larger national goals like Canada’s climate commitments under the Paris Accord.

Gibbs said Canada has the opportunity to become much more strategic in how and when it uses environmental assessments and what role science plays in those processes.

“One big issue that is left unaddressed is what will even trigger an environmental assessment. Even if you do have an incredibly strong environmental assessment process, if you don’t have a strong evidence-based trigger for what projects actually go through that process, it could end up being meaningless,” Gibbs, a co-author of the Strong Foundations report, said.

Jacob, Gibbs and their co-authors submitted their report to the federal government as part of the discussion paper’s public comment period.

ICYMI: Open Science: Can Canada Turn the Tide on Transparency in Decision-Making?

Fatal Flaws Not Addressed…Yet

Chris Tollefson, lawyer with the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation, said the Liberals could take a political hit for missing this generational opportunity to repair legislation.

”The government will have to realize the risk it’s taking here by potentially reigning in its aspirations and rolling over to industry pressure,” he said.

The government has been under tremendous pressure both in terms of lobbying and also tight review timelines, Tollefson said, and that could account for some of the gaps in its current position.

Of prominent concern to Tollefson, who has represented numerous individuals, environmental groups and First Nations in hearings and legal challenges of major projects, is the use of science bought and paid for by project proponents.

“In that respect the current model is fatally flawed,” he said.

One of the panel’s recommendations for environmental assessments is that Canada move to a model that relies on truly independent, cutting-edge science.

“That is a game changer,” Tollefson said.

“If we miss this opportunity to think more broadly about how we assess major projects, to put them into the proper social, environmental and economic context they deserve, that really is a missed opportunity we potentially won’t have for another generation.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It describes a framework but could just as easily be read as a request: open science.

And it’s something top of mind for Canadian scientists right now as the federal government is considering changes to the very way science is used to make major decisions about things like pipelines, oil and gas development and mines.

The ongoing federal review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is a huge opportunity to restore scientific integrity to decision-making, scientist Aerin Jacob told DeSmog Canada.

“I really can’t underscore how big an opportunity this is,” Jacob, Liber Ero postdoctoral scholar at the University of Victoria, said, adding Canada could transform the very way science feeds into the environmental assessment and decision-making process.

“One of the challenges being a scientist in wanting to evaluate government’s decisions is that we can’t see the evidence. We can’t see how decisions are being made.”

“It’s like a black box of decision-making. That’s not scientifically rigorous.”

In a conference meeting room in Nanaimo recently, Jacob had the chance to tell the federally appointed review panel how an environmental assessment could be improved by opening up science, not just to the greater scientific community, but to the public.

“All the information from an environmental assessment should be permanently and publicly available,” she said.

“This is more than having binders physically in a library or documents on a server.”

Other participants who presented to the federal review panel pointed to specific examples of when a lack of transparency was detrimental to the environmental review process.

Patrick McLaren, a geologist and expert sediment analyst, participated in the environmental assessment process for the controversial Pacific Northwest LNG terminal proposed for the coast of British Columbia. The project received federal approval in September.

McLaren, who was hired by local First Nations to provide scientific analysis of Flora Bank, a unique eelgrass estuary which provides resting grounds for juvenile salmon in the Skeena watershed, said he was consistently prevented from knowing what specific information the project’s proponent Petronas, and their private consultants, were using to determine no impacts would be made to salmon as a result of the project.

“In my research I came to the conclusion that the design of the terminal would probably result in Flora Bank being totally lost,” McLaren told the panel.

But when McLaren asked what information Petronas used to make the assertion no harm would be done to salmon, he was boxed out.

“I was precluded from asking the modelers questions,” he told the panel, adding that the data that challenged Petronas’ conclusions was not used in the decision-making process nor made public.

“The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans kept the data that did not support their conclusions secret…it was not put into the public domain because it was contrary to the ‘no harm’ mantra that was coming out of the modeling work.”

The Pacific Northwest LNG environmental assessment process, which scientists have called flawed and inadequate, is currently being legally challenged through multiple court cases.

Open Science: Can Canada Turn the Tide on Transparency in Decision-Making? https://t.co/mpZFb6dwUb #cdnpoli #environmental #assessments

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 21, 2016

Adam Ford, Canadian chair of wildlife ecology and assistant professor at the University of British Columbia, worked as a consultant on numerous environmental assessments in Alberta and British Columbia and said the lack of transparency around data plagues the environmental review process.

“I have created something of a wish list for the environmental assessment panel after years of being involved in these reviews and seeing the same problems come up over and over again,” Ford said.

One of the requests submitted to the panel is to increase transparency and reproducibility of findings in environmental impacts assessments.

“In this process they collect data, but it’s tricky because it’s collected by private companies that keep their data and methods secret,” Ford told DeSmog Canada.

“It would be good to see more meta-data on how they collected this data.”

Ford said if all participants in the process were to make their methodologies and findings public it would help standardize the research being done in these ecosystems and landscapes.

It would also help increase accountability by allowing other scientists to understand and retest any conclusions made.

“In other scientsits’ sampling efforts, for example, we could go to those same places and look at the data they collected, ask them ‘how did you choose these samples, when and why?’ We could try to reproduce their findings.”

“But those standards aren’t there and this research is treated as proprietary.”

Ford said from a scientific and peer-review perspective this lack of transparency undermines the integrity of public environmental assessments by not standing up to the expectations of scientific rigour.

Furthermore, he said, not sharing research is simply inefficient. Scientists end up having to do the exact same research over again for environmental assessments because they can’t access the basic information that went into prior reviews.

“If they just shared the data it would help scientists.”

“There are efficiencies to be had throughout this transparency initiative — that’s where Western science is headed. Science is moving us to a more transparent process.”

When thinking about where Western science is headed, Jacob said Canada now has the opportunity to not only modernize its review process but become a world leader in forward-thinking environmental assessments.

“Beyond the raw data we want to see the reproducible code used to analyze it,” Jacob told the review panel.

“This is the recipe we use to come up with conclusions,” Jacob said, showing a chart with raw spreadsheet data on the left and reproducible code for analyzing data on the right.

“It’s not good enough to say ‘I pressed 10 buttons, this is the result I got.’ You need to have other people be able to plug that into their own computer and get the same result.”

It might look complex, Jacob said, “But now kids in High School are learning how to do this.”

Opening up the science to review by other scientists, opening up methods and raw data to the public — all of this is “done in a spirit of making the process stronger,” Jacob said.

“It blows my mind this is not already part of environmental assessments. This would be so easy to implement.”

She added the default for scientists and officials involved in the review process “ought to be sharing information.”

“This is the standard,” Jacob said. “This is a part of a next generation environmental assessment.”

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Photo: Prime Minister’s Photo Gallery

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.