An open letter to Environment Canada staff from Deputy Minister Bob Hamilton and Associate Deputy Minister Andrea Lyon says science done at the department has become an “issue…receiv[ing] attention recently,” prompting the letter to provide official “perspective” on the matter.

Throughout 2013 22 per cent of media requests for interviews with scientists were denied while requests in the past five months have increased by 50 per cent, the letter states. In total Environment Canada received just 316 media requests in 2013, of which 246 (78 per cent) were approved.

Climate scientist at the University of Victoria and Green party MLA Andrew Weaver says the fact that Environment Canada is giving such a small amount of interviews is “shameful.”

“If a federal organization, comprising thousands of scientists across the country is giving 246 media interview in a year, that’s not too dissimilar to what I was doing as an individual faculty member at the University of Victoria,” he said. “It’s unbelievable. That’s way down from what it used to be.”

Communication Lockdown

Weaver says media no longer expect to be granted interviews from federal departments like Environment Canada, so overall requests are lower than in previous years.

What is more troubling, says Weaver, are the kinds of interview requests being denied. He said a journalist looking for answers regarding toxicology research in the Lake Athabasca is unlikely to find support at Environment Canada.

“It’s really troubling. It’s essentially message management and we have to realize these scientists are civil servants, they are public servants….They are there working on behalf of the public and the public has a right to the information and the science results that they are actually looking at. And they have a right to an interpretation of those results.”

The Environment Canada message explains media contact with department scientists “needs to be well coordinated” because “issues in the media, including environmental issues, are often complex, have an impact beyond the scope of one person’s work or even one department, and can have important policy implications for the Government.”

The letter goes on to state “the role of a public servant in this context is to provide technical information, not to express personal views or comment on policy issues.”

For Weaver there is a difference between discussing science and voicing one’s opinion on policy and a more effective communications regime wouldn’t try to prevent scientists from doing either. He points to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S.

There is a long history of scientists discussing their research without going into the policy realm implications of their work, he says. To protect the independence and freedom of scientists, groups like NOAA take “the very bold step of saying their scientists can even talk about policy provided that they say these view are my own views, not the views of the government.”

He adds, “in an open and democratic society that is exactly the type of policy we should be aiming for.”

A Pattern of Muzzling

In June 2013, the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre and Democracy Watch released a report cataloguing “systematic efforts by the Government of Canada to obstruct the right of the media – and through them, the Canadian public – to timely access to government scientists.” The 128-page report, entitled "Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy," led to a federal investigation launched by Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault. That investigation is still ongoing.

According to the authors “the report shows that the federal government is preventing the media and the Canadian public from speaking to government scientists for news stories – especially when the scientists’ research or point of view runs counter to current Government policies on matters such as environmental protection, oil sands development, and climate change.”

At the time of the report’s release, UVic’s Environmental Law Centre director Calvin Sandborn said “it’s indefensible to conceal publicly financed government science from the public. Citizens need to know what the facts are so they can decide on critical issues like climate science, the tar sands development and pipelines and all sorts of other issues.”

The message to Environment Canada scientists states the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, which prevents government scientists from speaking to the media without following certain communications protocols, underscores the government’s “responsibility to respond to the interests of Canadians, and of media in our science.”

Yet for Sandborn, these burdensome policies can be what gets in the way of transparent science communication. “Those restrictive policies…indicate a 

clear pattern of political control over anyone talking about science,” he said.

Sandborn also claimed that muzzling doesn’t occur across the board, but tends to coincide with politically unfavourable topics.

“It is interesting to see that topics that require the highest level of ministerial control are topics related to tar sands, climate change, polar bears, caribou and the oil and gas industry. Those are all terms used in federal government politics and on those topics the rules are the strictest. The scientists have to get the highest level of ministerial approval to talk about those topics. I’ll leave it to you to decide whether that’s a coincidence,” he said.

This past fall a report released by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) called “The Big Chill” found 90 per cent of federal scientists felt they were prevented from speaking openly about their work. The study also found 86 per cent felt they would be reprimanded for criticizing departmental decisions they felt detrimental to public interest. 

PIPSC president Gary Corbett told DeSmog Canada that he found the results “very surprising” especially revelations about “the degree of political interference.”

“Right now scientists can’t do the job they were hired to do.”

Here is the full text of the Environment Canada letter: 

Communicating our Science

The issue of the science done at EC and how it is communicated externally has received attention recently and we would like to take this opportunity to provide our perspective on this issue.

Environment Canada (EC) is a science-based department with a history of scientific accomplishment and rigour that is recognized nationally and internationally. We are extremely proud of the excellent work we are doing together as a department, and we appreciate the dedication and expertise of our scientists and of all of our staff.

Every day, staff at EC conduct a wide range of environmental monitoring, research and other scientific activities in fields such as atmospheric sciences, meteorology, physics, biology, chemistry, toxicology, hydrology, ecology, engineering, and informatics. The information and knowledge is used to inform our programs, policies and services. We know that sharing our science is important.

We recognize that we have a responsibility to respond to the interest of Canadians, and of media in our science. The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada underscores this point. Since January 2013, we received 316 media requests for interviews with scientists, 246 (or 78%) of which resulted in completed interviews. Interestingly, we are witnessing an upward trend in the number of media interviews being completed by EC scientists: the average number of scientist media interviews per month for the last five months is 50% higher than in the previous five months.

That said, access by media to departmental officials, including scientists, needs to be well coordinated in the context of a fast-paced 24/7 media environment. Issues in the media, including environmental issues, are often complex, have an impact beyond the scope of one person’s work or even one department, and can have important policy implications for the Government. This is why media outreach is achieved in accordance with the Communications Policy, with which all public servants must comply. While Ministers are clearly the principal spokespersons of the Government, public servants, including scientists, may be designated as spokespeople, typically as an expert on a specific issue. The role of a public servant in this context is to provide technical information, not to express personal views or comment on policy issues.

EC scientists have our support, and the support of the senior management team, in communicating their research through many channels, such as presenting at conferences, publishing in journals, and, with approvals, discussing with the media. Our scientists are encouraged to publish and, in 2012, for example, our scientists published more than 700 articles, a level of productivity that has been relatively constant since 2006.

With one of the largest science programs in the federal government, EC is a national and global-leader in advancing, connecting and applying scientific understanding of the environment to anticipate and address pressing environmental issues.

The strength and credibility of our science helps Canadians to be confident that EC’s policies, regulations, programs and services are based on the best available scientific evidence.

We are proud of the world-class science that we are doing together as a Department, and the services that we provide every day to Canadians. In the context of Blueprint 2020, we will be exploring channels such as webinars to further this discussion. We are committed to hearing your concerns and look forward to working with you to improve how EC science is communicated, both internally and to the public.

Bob Hamilton, Deputy Minister

Andrea Lyon, Associate Deputy Minister

Image Credit: Screenshot from The Big Chill report.

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.

Government records newly released under access to information legislation say that Canada supports carbon pricing as part of a global climate change strategy.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that the documents "come from the Privy Council Office and Environment Canada, and they contrast with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public criticism of carbon taxes."

As De Souza explains, the Privy Council Office (PCO) is "the central department in the government that supports the prime minister's office."

The PCO notes were reportedly prepared for the November 2011 G20 summit attended by Harper a month before Canada's pullout from the Kyoto Protocol. They highlight the World Bank's recommendation for "putting a price on carbon for developed countries," and comment that "Canada could support other countries implementing this proposal."

The PCO records also say that "Canada supports the development of new market-based mechanisms that expand the scale and scope of carbon markets." De Souza adds that the records suggest Canada "wanted to expand markets that require polluters to pay and allow other companies to profit from deploying technologies or other methods to reduce emissions in the atmosphere."

The Environment Canada documents were notes given to Deputy Environment Minister Bob Hamilton after he was appointed in July 2012, briefing him on the potential for job creation and economic growth in a strong climate change strategy.

The notes say that a "well-designed environmental policy, including GHG emission reduction policies, can also support economic objectives, in areas such as innovation, improved energy and resource productivity, and opportunities in global clean technology markets."

The briefing observes that "environmental damage and natural resource degradation can have important economic costs" in addition to posing "serious" and "significant impacts on human health and safety…and ecosystems in Canada and throughout the world."

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq's spokeswoman told Postmedia News "that the government does not support a carbon tax," reiterated the Harper government's position "that an NDP climate change proposal from the last election to raise billions of dollars by auctioning of pollution permits as part of a market-based carbon pricing scheme — was a tax on gas, groceries, electricity and everything else."

Aglukkaq's office said Canada is "playing a leadership role in addressing climate change."

De Souza writes that despite all major Canadian federal political parties supporting carbon pricing in the 2008 federal elections, "the Conservatives later decided to favour binding regulations in each industrial sector instead, because of the failure of the U.S. Congress to pass legislation creating a carbon market."

Several provinces have implemented their own forms of carbon pricing or taxes on greenhouse gas emissions, such as British Columbia's highly-successful tax on buying or using fuel.

The Environment Canada briefing notes suggested Canada inteded to meet its "GHG emission reduction target of 17% under 2005 levels by 2020," especially with "greater international pressure to demonstrate concrete action and to outline how Canada's national emissions targets will be met." A new report from Environmental Defence shows Canada cannot, however, met its emission reduction targets given current planned expansion in the tar sands – Canada's fastest source of growing GHGs.

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Office / Fickr

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.

Instead of consulting with the Canadian public before cutting millions in green spending at Environment Canada, the Harper government consulted with communications strategists who helped gauge potential public reactions to the budget cuts.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that according to "internal briefing documents" released through access to information legislation, the "Harper government included communications strategists in closed-door discussions that led to an estimated $60 million in cuts at Environment Canada in the 2012 federal budget."

"Strategists from the communication branch were involved in Environment Canada's deliberations on its contribution to the deficit action reduction plan from the beginning," said the records, which were labelled "secret advice to the minister." The briefing documents, containing up to 500 pages, were prepared for Environment Canada Deputy Minister Bob Hamilton, after he replaced Paul Boothe in summer 2012.

Hamilton was also warned in a communications strategy that "Media and public alike have been highly critical of the government of Canada, expressing concern over its cuts to science-based activities." The strategy listed "Reassuring Canadians that their health and safety have not been put at risk as a result of recent cuts" and convincing them that the "government of Canada takes the environment portfolio seriously" as among their "communications challenges."  

The released documents explain that bringing the communications branch in on the closed-door discussions preceding the budget cuts "allowed an analysis of communication issues, stakeholder reactions and public perception to be weighed during the consideration of each and every proposal." It also kept communications staff primed and "ready to hit the ground running once the decisions were announced."

In a follow-up piece, De Souza reports Environment Canada spokesman Mark Johnson as confirming that the communications specialists' analysis "consisted of identifying stakeholders who may have an interest in any particular proposal, studying the positions they have taken on related issues, and extrapolating from that, what their reactions might be to the proposal at hand."

Johnson added that the "confidential nature" of the deliberations prevented "actual formal consultation on any particular proposal with stakeholders."

NDP environment critic Megan Leslie told De Souza she was disappointed to see the Harper government's "backwards" method of reaching decisions, saying she feels "their guiding principle in making these decisions is: 'Let's see what we can get away with.'"  

Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, also found the approach "a bit backwards," saying it's "wrong for communications people to be involved in deciding what decisions to make. Communications people are there to communicate the decisions after they're made. It seems the government is just being political rather than (doing) what's in the best interests of Canadians."

Leslie advised the Harper government to "hire and consult scientists on how to manage the department, not communications experts to give us spin about these ideological cuts."

Environment Canada said that "senior science managers, knowledgeable in the relevant areas, were involved as appropriate in order to provide context."

De Souza observes that the documents didn't elaborate on "what sort of consultations might have taken place with Environment Minister Peter Kent or deliberations with government scientists, who worked in the field, on spending reductions in areas such as federal response capacity to environmental disasters or quality control in enforcing industrial air pollution regulations."

Kent's office responded by saying that they "led in arriving at the final decisions regarding the measures across the department and were therefore, obviously regularly informed and briefed accordingly."

De Souza notes that the records "estimated that Environment Canada's 2015-16 budget would be $949 million, down from a peak of $1.3 billion in 2007-08."

Image Credit: The Prime Minister's Office / Flickr

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.