Cue the lab coat-clad politicians with their bubbling beakers: the #VoteScience campaign launches today with a goal of putting science front and centre in federal candidates’ minds as they go about campaigning this fall. 

Organizers say the campaign is filling a void in the conversations we expect as the election progresses.

“Realistically, if we did nothing, the baseline is that there would be almost no mention of science in the election campaign,” says Katie Gibbs, director of Evidence for Democracy, one of the groups behind the campaign. “The bar is often pretty low.” 

When Gibbs talks about science, she means the funding structures, the integration of science into policy and transparency and openness. 

Cuts to science have been in the news more in the last few years as U.S. President Donald Trump has for three years in a row attempted to rampage through the edifice of American publicly funded science.

“All Canadians benefit from our track record of scientific discovery and progress,” says Farah Qaiser, a graduate student and president of the Toronto Science Policy Network. “But these kinds of contributions and life-saving discoveries can only happen in a society where we support the funding of scientific research and support the next generation of scientists.” 

Together with Evidence for Democracy and the Toronto Science Policy Network, four other science organizations including the Science and Policy Exchange and the Canadian Association for Neuroscience are supporting the push for science to factor in the federal election.

‘Science is rarely a key issue in federal elections’

The platform the groups have launched gives a number of pathways for people to get involved. There’s a form letter that visitors to the site can edit and send automatically to candidates in their ridings, with language like “I’m hoping that you will champion policies that invest in public-interest science; ensure open, honest and timely communication of scientific information; and make public the evidence considered in government decisions.” 

A sign can be printed with a custom slogan pledging support for science, with the intention of supporters taking a selfie with it and posting it to social media.

There are also tools for people interested in going further — resources for writing and placing op-eds in newspapers, for engaging directly with candidates or for hosting events such as debates or roundtable discussions.

Ultimately, the tools are intended to communicate to candidates that there is a constituency in Canada that cares about science.

“Science is rarely a key issue in federal elections — and we think that has to change,” Qaiser says.

Holding politicians accountable for science promises

The lack of attention to real issues of science is mirrored by a feverish desire among politicians to appear on the side of science. The terms “science-based” or “evidence-based” appear somewhere in the promotional website copy of every major political party (besides Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party) running in the 2019 federal election. But Gibbs worries that through their widespread adoption the terms have lost some of their meaning and have been reduced to buzzwords.

“We’re at that point where there’s a risk of every politician just saying, ‘Oh, we’re going to make science-based decisions,’” Gibbs says. “It’s great that we have made progress in politicians supporting these ideas, but the next step is: how do we hold them accountable?”

Even the term “science” itself can be both overly narrow and overly broad: it can be broad enough to be hijacked in Orwellian ways by anti-science groups like the Friends of Science climate denial organization, while it can be too narrow to carry meaning for many people. 

“It can be captured by proponents of various advocacy issues,” explains Paul Dufour, adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa. “That needs to be explained sometimes — that we’re not just talking about some person in a lab.”

During the last federal election, the Liberals promised to restore the status of science after years of cuts and undermining during the Harper years. Some of those promises were met, while others were not. 

A promise to invest $40 million a year to increase co-op placements for students in STEM subjects was reduced by half. There is no evidence of progress on a promise to create a single portal for accessing government science. 

But other election promises, such as restoring funding to ocean science, or creating a position of chief science adviser, were followed through on. A promise to unmuzzle government scientists has been officially — though, in practice, halfheartedly and inconsistently — implemented.

“I definitely think we have made progress over the last four years, and that’s partly due to the work of the science community,” says Gibbs. “But the gold standard for a lot of these things are pretty far off.” 

‘Science is an important part of our civic duty’

Dufour expects that with campaigns like #VoteScience, science will become a major part of the election, with the parties vying for youth votes by one-upping one another’s scientific credentials. But he cautions that the relationship needs to be a “two-way street” — with scientists making their case for how they can help politicians do their jobs more effectively, through better informed decisions.

“Politicians are used to the fact that people come to them looking for money, let’s put it bluntly,” he says.

An important step, he says, is to convince the public to make sure politicians are making use of the science that’s available to them.

“Science is an important part of our civic duty, if you will, in terms of turning up to vote and ensuring that the candidates understand that the decisions they are going to make are going to rely on some rational basis.”

Correction made at 4:30 p.m. on August 8: The article originally stated that U.S. President Donald Trump has made cuts to science. In fact, the president has attempted to make cuts to the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, but was prevented from doing so by Congress.

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.

Essential information on Arctic climate change, ozone depletion and pollution reaching the Arctic from B.C.’s recent forest fires will be lost unless the federal government comes through with funding to save Canada’s unique high Arctic research station.

After years of funding cuts to scientific and climate change programs under the Conservatives, the Liberal government’s emphasis on making science-based decisions in response to climate change was a welcome relief to researchers, but some are now shocked that crucial projects are about to be lost because the 2017 budget did not renew the five-year Climate Change and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) funding which expires this year.

Unless the Trudeau government comes up with approximately $7-million a year, six projects, including the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) on Ellesmere Island, will close down next year. A seventh — Canadian Sea Ice and Snow Evolution Network — will shut down the following year.

The projects, in addition to providing vital information about climate and atmosphere, serve as training grounds for up-and-coming researchers at Canadian universities.

If funding is not renewed it will mean gaps in data that has been painstakingly collected over the last 12 years and will also mean an exodus of young scientists, predicted James Drummond, PEARL principal investigator.

“I can’t imagine how many researchers will be looking for positions in other countries. This would dislocate research programs and mean we can’t progress with the knowledge we have been working on. The time sequence of measurements will be lost,” Drummond said.

In addition to PEARL, other threatened projects are the Network on Climate and Aerosols, Canadian Arctic GEOTRACES Program, Ventilation, Interactions and Transports Across the Labrador Sea (VITALS), Canadian Network for Regional Climate and Weather Processes and the Changing Cold Regions Network.

PEARL has operated in Nunavut, about 1,100 kilometres from the North Pole, since 2005 and research has focused on ozone gaps and pollution and, most importantly, climate in the high Arctic, where changes are taking place at a much faster rate than in the south.

Lab team members out for a hike near the PEARL research centre in Nunavut. Photo: Dan Weaver via CREATE ArcticScience

“We are one of very few stations in the high Arctic. We are right at the top of Canada. Some maps cut off before they get to us,” Drummond said.

“We are also one of the very few stations operating 365 days a year… I think the government needs to get a grip on this and realize how important it is,” he said.

Without funding, mothballing plans will get underway early next year and the operation is already being affected as it is not known whether new equipment should be purchased and shipped up to the station, Drummond said.

It is not the first time PEARL has faced such a crisis. Mothballing plans were underway in 2012 when the Harper government cut the previous program, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Services. However, at the last minute, after an outcry by scientists and the public, the CCAR program was announced.

Stable funding is needed in order to do good research, said Drummond, adding that he is an optimist and believes that the Trudeau government will come through with the cash once the importance of the programs is understood.

The budget set aside $73.5-million over five years to set up a Canadian centre for climate services, but that funding does not appear to support networks funded by CCAR.

In an emailed statement, in answer to questions from DeSmog Canada, Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan said the Liberal government is doing more to combat climate change than any other government in history.

“While the CCAR program has reached the end of its funding cycle, officials are working with researchers to find other avenues of support, including through the approximately $50-million in climate change research that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funds annually,” she wrote.

“As a researcher who led an expedition to the Arctic, I know we need a thoughtful, comprehensive approach to Arctic research — one that includes indigenous voices and the role of traditional knowledge. I am working to deliver on this ambitious vision,” Duncan said.

But time is running out, according to Duncan and she is pleased that PEARL is now getting a boost from the group Evidence for Democracy, which has launched a petition asking Duncan to reinstate stable funding.

Key Arctic Research Station Set to Close As Liberal Governments Cuts Funding https://t.co/p11hO6jVJ9 #PEARL @E4Dca @CREATEArcticSci #cdnsci

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 20, 2017

“With the impacts of our changing climate already being felt in Canada and around the world, investing in climate science is a necessary part of ensuring that our decisions and actions around climate change mitigation and adaptation are based on up-to-date science and evidence,” says the preamble to the petition.

Katie Gibbs, Evidence for Democracy executive director, said the group was surprised at the funding cuts.

“(The projects) seem to fit very well with the government’s stated priorities acting on climate change according to science. That’s exactly what this research does,” she said.

The funding appears to have fallen through the cracks and government initially seemed to be taken by surprise. However, months after it was brought to their attention, no solution has been presented, so it is necessary to let Canadians know what is being lost, Gibbs said.

The petition was launched Friday and already has over 1,500 signatures, including many scientists, she said.

“I have been in touch with a number of the principal investigators of the networks that are going to have their funding cut and they are very alarmed… We are losing a whole funding stream dedicated to climate research and it doesn’t seem there is any other funding to replace that,” she said.

In the grand scheme of federal government finances, $7-million annually is a relatively small amount to spend on unique and important research, Gibbs said.

“Over 300 students have been trained at these research networks over the past five years of this grant, so it’s not only paying for the current professors, it is also necessary for training the next generation of climate scientists,” she said.

Image: Researchers at PEARL. Photo: Dan Weaver via CREATE ArcticScience

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.

Contracting out scientific work to non-government professionals, while cutting back on ministry scientists and experts, is threatening the B.C. government’s ability to make decisions based on sound science, says a highly-critical report released Thursday by the Ottawa-based group Evidence for Democracy.

The report, based on a survey distributed to 1,159 B.C. government scientists in 10 ministries, found that almost half of the 403 who responded to 64 questions believe that political interference is compromising their ministry’s ability to develop laws, policies and programs based on scientific evidence and that decisions are often not consistent with the best available scientific information.

Since the Liberal government was elected in 2001, B.C.’s public service has been reduced to the smallest per capita in Canada and departments with science-based mandates have lost 25 per cent of staff scientists and licensed expert positions, according to the survey, which was partially funded by the Professional Employees Association.

“Overwhelmingly, the scientists felt that their ministries had insufficient resources to fulfil their mandates and that means they don’t have the ability to produce the expert reports that they used to,” said Katie Gibbs, one of the report’s authors.

At the Ministry of Energy and Mines a whopping 72 per cent said they feel there are insufficient resources to do their work effectively.

One of the major concerns expressed by scientists was the government’s “professional reliance” policy, which they believe can lead to conflict of interest.

“Fifty-seven per cent of government scientists surveyed believe that the government’s increased reliance on external rather than ministry staff is compromising their ministry’s ability to use the best available evidence in decision-making,” says the report.

“In many cases these external professionals are hired by or are employees of the very industry or the very company that is applying for a permit, so there are certainly concerns around the independence of the research,” Gibbs said in an interview.

Other provinces do hire contractors, but they are usually limited to doing research or writing a report, she said.

“My understanding is that what is unique about professional reliance in B.C. is that it’s outsourcing not only evidence-gathering, but also decision-making in a number of cases,” Gibbs said.

B.C. is the only province to pass legislation establishing a college of biologists in an effort to shuffle off government accountability to professional organizations.

Examples of what can go wrong are exemplified by the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse, says the research paper, pointing to reports detailing the lack of compliance and enforcement culture and too few resources within the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

“The Auditor General also implicated overreliance on external qualified professionals and subsequent lack of oversight,” it says.

A policy planner with Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations said cuts to staff and funding has made it impossible to conduct scientific work that would best support changes in policy.

“Instead, policy is most often developed because of political pressure from select interest groups, in particular, forest industry stakeholders,” the planner wrote in response to the survey questions.

#FLNRO #BCgov policy planner: “policy is most often developed b/c of political pressure from select interest groups” https://t.co/x2Il1Ltdei pic.twitter.com/7UOgKOA1hC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 11, 2017

Scott McCannell, executive director of the Professional Employees Association, said all British Columbians should be concerned about the research findings.

“We need to avoid the next Mount Polley by acting now to reverse the situation and restore the level of oversight and protection that British Columbians deserve and expect from their government,” he said.

Problems with political interference, cuts to capacity and the use of external professionals are then made worse by unclear communications strategies, says the report.

It is unsettling that 32 per cent say they cannot talk to the media about their work and 42 per cent say they need to obtain permission before speaking to the media while only three per cent say they can speak directly to media without seeking approval, Gibbs said.

“We would like to see them able to answer the phone from a journalist directly without having to ask permission first. With journalists on tight deadlines, if there is a need for complicated permission, that could mean an indirect muzzling,” she said.

Calvin Sandborn, University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre legal director, said government has to remember that research by government scientists is information that all taxpayers have paid for.

“It is not information that should be manipulated by politicians,” said Sandborn, recommending that politicians follow the policy of former U.S. president Barack Obama who emphasized that scientists have a public obligation to share their findings.

“This is more like the (Donald) Trump administration,” he said.

The federal government, in an effort to turn around the extensive muzzling of scientists during Stephen Harper’s government, recently announced it would be creating science integrity policies and it is hoped provincial governments will follow suit, Gibbs said.

The situation in B.C. is not as severe as with the former federal government, but there should be clear, science-specific communications policies and a defined timeline for access to government researchers, the report recommends.

“For example, media requests must be responded to within two working days,” it says.

Other recommendations include giving government researchers the right to have the last review of documents to make sure they are not being misrepresented and for government to protect against conflict of interest by allocating adequate staff and financial resources to compliance and enforcement duties.

Government should retain oversight of work done by external professionals and increase research capacity, it recommends.

Evidence for Democracy has conducted similar studies at the federal level, but B.C. is the first province to come under the microscope, Gibbs said.

“With the election coming up we figured it was good timing. We would certainly like to see science talked about as one of the issues in the election as we’ve heard from a lot of people who are concerned about science integrity in B.C.,” she said.

Image: Christy Clark visits the Kitimat Valley Institute. Photo: Province of B.C. via 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.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned aggressively on the issue of science in the lead up to the last federal election. And it makes sense that he did: for the first time ever in Canadian history the issue of scientific integrity was a major election issue for voters across the nation.

Images of shuttered libraries, gagged scientists and dumpsters full of books haunted the Canadian imagination under the Harper government.

Trudeau promised to change all of that. Brandishing the language of the scientific community itself Trudeau painted a vision of a Canadian scientific renaissance, with the restoration of scientific integrity and the veritable holy grail of political vows: evidence-based decision-making.

“As a scientist, I was personally thrilled with the Liberal government’s vocal support for science, especially regarding the critical role that scientific evidence should play in informed decision-making,” Wendy Palen, associate professor and biologist at Simon Fraser University, told DeSmog Canada.

In the early days of the federal government under Trudeau, there were several events that shored up that sense of optimism including the anchoring of ministerial duties in science in open mandate letters and restored funding for research in the first Liberal budget.

Trudeau also promised to bring social and scientific credibility back to the environmental assessments of major resource projects.

“I think I can say the scientific community breathed a sigh of relief over the change in attitude around science and the role of scientific decision-making,” Palen said.

But, she added, that sentiment has stopped short in recent months.

In September the federal government approved the controversial Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C. The terminal is expected to become Canada’s single largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Although opposed by all major environmental organizations in B.C., the project and its treatment under the federal review system raised a number of red flags for the scientific community in particular.

Flora Bank juts out towards Lelu Island, where the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal is to be located. Photo: Ocean Ecology

Proposed for the Flora Bank estuary, a unique eelgrass bed that provides resting grounds for hundreds of thousands of juvenile salmon from the Skeena watershed, the LNG terminal’s proposed site clashed hard with biologists and members of the conservation community who say, when it comes to salmon, a worse location simply couldn’t have been selected.

The federal environmental assessment of the LNG terminal — which concluded destroyed salmon habitat could simply be rebuilt elsewhere — was so fraught with problems members of the scientific community penned an open letter to Trudeau and his cabinet, pleading with them to reject the project’s review.

In that letter, scientists detailed a fundamentally flawed assessment process in which peer-reviewed science was ignored, basic principles of scientific investigation were violated and research paid for by the project’s proponent, Malaysian-owned Petronas, was given primacy.

The federal government ignored those pleas from the scientific community and on a September evening environment and climate minister Catherine McKenna announced the project’s approval.

“This project was subject to a rigorous environmental assessment and today’s announcement reflects this commitment,” she said.

Hearing those words, many scientists in B.C. were simply perplexed.

More recently Trudeau along with members of his cabinet approved the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline under a review process so thoroughly broken, Trudeau campaigned on the explicit promise to scrap it entirely.

But that’s not what happened and last month scientists were again baffled at the cooptation of the language of science in the pipeline’s approval.

“This is a decision based on rigorous debate, on science and on evidence. We will not be swayed by political arguments," Trudeau said.

"If I thought this project was unsafe for the B.C. coast, I would reject it."

For Palen, the announcement was particularly confounding.

Along with two co-authors, Palen wrote to Trudeau in the weeks prior to the pipeline announcement informing him of a new analysis that identified significant gaps in knowledge and research specifically on the impacts of Alberta oilsands crude, known as bitumen, on marine organisms.

A review of over 9,000 studies found not enough is known about the potential effects of an oil spill from the tankers that will be fed by the Trans Mountain pipeline to say with certainty the project is safe.

“The government’s words and use of the words ‘evidence-based decision-making’ are starting to be questioned by myself and others in the scientific community,” Palen said.

“I heard many of my colleagues wonder what the government really means by ‘evidence-based decision-making’ because those aren’t just empty words — they have a really specific meaning to those of us in science policy and in scientific fields.”

Palen said two important components of the scientific use of evidence are one, that the information is publicly available and preferably independently verified and two, that subsequent decisions are made on the basis of that evidence.

“That’s in contrast to making decisions and then subsequently backing up that decision by the selective use of science or evidence,” she said.

“That’s a big philosophical difference.”

Canadian Scientists Say They’re Unsure What @JustinTrudeau Means When He Says ‘Science’ https://t.co/nY9aCktGiB #cdnsci #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/MPEyzW1Bad

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 16, 2016

Palen said the federal government does not make publicly available the information it bases its decisions on so there is no way to independently verify the data or research undergirding these major project approvals.

Kathleen Walsh, executive director for the science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, said that’s a big problem for a government that wants to present itself as evidence-based.

“If government is serious about these decisions being based on science, they need to make that kind of information open and available and they need to be transparent about it,” Walsh told DeSmog Canada.

When it comes to gaps in knowledge, like on the effects of bitumen in marine environments, making evidence-based decisions becomes even more problematic.

“It’s one thing to ignore the evidence that exists but it's another to completely ignore gaps in evidence and pretend they’re not there,” she said.

“So for the federal government to say these decisions are based on evidence or science is not necessarily truthful.”

Walsh said she doesn’t want to elide the progress this government has made on the science file, more generally.

“Certainly there have been some big wins for them in the last weeks on science,” Walsh said, referring to the announcement of a Chief Science Advisor position as well as new rules to prevent the muzzling of federal scientists.

“But we can’t get that confused with their record and say it’s perfect.”

And making those grand claims about science will become more difficult going forward when the Chief Science Advisor position is filled, Walsh said.

“That person is going to have to answer these really hard questions about evidence and government decisions. I’m really looking forward to seeing how that plays out.”

In addition to the introduction of a scientific advisor, Walsh said the federal government’s current review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is also a huge opportunity to start getting science right in the country, especially as it relates to major project approvals.

Aerin Jacob, a Liber Ero postdoctoral fellow in environmental studies at the University of Victoria, couldn’t agree more.

“One of my motivations for being involved in the environmental assessment review is it’s not a very sexy topic,” Jacob told DeSmog Canada. “A lot of people think it’s boring.”

The Act went underwent significant changes in 2012 under the Harper government that many say has left some of the nation’s most important environmental legislation toothless.

“This is an opportunity to take a look at the changes to the Act in 2012 and the ramifications those changes have had. And not just to repeal those changes, but to take a good look at what good environmental assessments can be and to make sure Canada is a leader in that regard.”

Jacob recently organized the creation and release of an open letter from nearly 2,000 young scientists and researchers to the federal government as part of the review, calling on the government to return scientific integrity to the environmental assessment process.

The letter, which Jacob presented to the expert review panel in Nanaimo this week, outlines five ways the federal government could improve scientific rigour in the assessment process, including the use of best available evidence, making information and data available to the public, evaluating cumulative impacts of projects and eliminating conflicts of interest.

Dr. Aerin Jacob speaks at a Before the Abstract event about her research in the Serengeti. Photo: Before the Abstract

“We see what happens when science takes a back seat in this process,” Jacob said, pointing to the “entirely preventable” tailings pond collapse at the Mount Polley mine in B.C. and the recent approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

“With something like the Kinder Morgan decision, there was a lot of concern that has been raised over the last couple of years about that process. Scientists and independent experts have said again and again the evidence being present there isn’t the best evidence, it doesn’t paint the whole picture.”

Jacob said the lack of transparency around the evidence the government used to makes it decision about the pipeline is “deeply concerning.”

“Although it’s possible there is other evidence the government is considering, it’s not evident because we can’t see it.”

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

Jacob said what her and other young scientists and researchers are proposing isn’t radical.

“These aren’t crazy new ideas, to share that information and share how you arrive at a conclusion. This is what we’re taught since elementary school: show your work.”

Jacob said she feels when it comes to science, there is a culture change underway in Canada.

Scientists were eager to get involved in the environmental assessment review, she said.

In Nanaimo, Jacob told the panel young scientists like herself have had a “coming of age.”

“Muzzling of scientists, putting data in dumpsters — that was the norm” for her and other young scientists under the former government. 

“It was not a good time to be looking at a scientific career in Canada and we do not want that ever to be the case professionally or personally.”

“I really can’t underscore how big an opportunity this review is,” Jacob told DeSmog Canada. “It could influence everything about how we make decisions about the environment.”

Jacob said so many of the social concerns that have arisen around major projects like pipelines and LNG terminals could be resolved through a more robust assessment process, starting with greater transparency and rigour from the outset.

The federal expert panel will conclude its review of the environmental assessment act this week and will make recommendations to the federal government by the end of January 2017. A secondary process, which will include the input of a multi-interest advisory committee, will follow on the heels of the panel’s report.

“I really hope the panel will take a bold approach. We’re talking a major overhaul here. And I hope our elected officials have the courage to implement it.”

Image: Justin Trudeau at a Science North event in Sudbury, Ontario. 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.

Canada’s federal scientists have won the right to speak freely about their research and science without upper level bureaucratic control, a feature central to restrictive communications protocols under the Harper government.

The move to officially unmuzzle scientists comes after the Professional Institute of Public Service Canada (PIPSC), Canada’s largest union federal employees including 15,000 scientists, researchers and engineers, negotiated to include scientists’ right to speak in a collective agreement deal.

“This is an enormous win not only for federal scientists but for all Canadians,” PIPSC President Debi Daviau said in a statement.

“Following the defeat last year of the Harper government, we vowed that no government should ever again silence science. This new provision will help ensure that remains the case now and in the future.”

A memorandum of agreement contained in new member agreements states employees “shall have the right to express themselves on science and their research, with respecting the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector adopted on April 2, 2012, without being designated as an official media spokesperson.”

The language was agreed to in a tentative deal with the federal government, but Daviau said she expected it to be adopted by other federal agencies like the National Research Council, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in future negotiations.

Under the former Conservative government scientists were unable to speak with media or members of the public without first gaining approval of departmental superiors, a procedure that opened even basic interview requests up to political interference and message control.

In 2013, PIPSC released a report that found 86 per cent of federal scientists surveyed believed they could not inform the public about a departmental decision that could harm the environment or public health and safety without fear of reprisal.

Scientists also reported being unable to provide basic answers related to their research on topics as uncontroversial as snowfall pattern.

As DeSmog Canada has previously reported, media requests on potentially controversial topics like the oilsands or marine contamination were subject to significant departmental oversight. Scientists were often denied the right to give interviews or were chaperoned by bureaucratic ‘minders’ who limited interviews to pre-determined topics.

Information requests were often responded to by communications staff rather than scientists, even if the subject matter pertained to an expert federal scientist’s own research and even when that scientist was media trained.

Kathleen Walsh, executive director of Evidence for Democracy, a science advocacy group launched in 2012 to improve scientific integrity in Canada described the new policy as historic.

“We haven’t seen anything like this before,” she said. “It’s a pretty big win for Canadian scientists and Canadians.”

“In an era of post-truth and fake news I think it’s really important for Canadians to know they are hearing from experts and scientists without political interference on their research or their findings.”

Federal Scientists Officially Unmuzzled in New Collective Agreement with Federal Government https://t.co/S3xPuglyJE #cdnpoli #cdnsci

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 13, 2016

In March, Evidence for Democracy sent an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister of Information, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains and Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan, calling on the government to free federal scientists and researchers to pursue public-interest science.

Over 5,500 Canadians signed the open letter, which also called on the government to enshrine scientists’ right to speak in collective agreements.

The new language will make it harder for current and future governments to interfere with scientific communication.

“But the right to speak is only one part of scientific integrity,” Walsh added. “There are a number of things the federal government can do to bolster science integrity in federal science…like ensuring federal science is free from undue corporate influence…and ensuring there is whistleblower protection.”

“It’s not just about how federal science is created or communicated but also how it’s used,” Walsh said.

Canada recently announced the creation of a Chief Science Advisor position and is currently conducting a review of Canada’s federal environment assessment act — two moves Walsh sees as promising.

“I’m cautiously hopeful,” Walsh said.

Giving scientists the ability to freely communicate is also seen as a strong step in the right direction.

“Governments and government policies come and go, but the right of Canadians to unbiased scientific information from their own scientists should survive both,” Daviau said.

“At a time when the United States is at renewed risk of turning its back on science and evidence-based public policy, it is essential that government scientists in Canada and other countries be assured safeguards that protect their right to speak and the public’s right to know.”

Image: Stand up for science rally in Vancouver, 2013. Photo: Zack Embree

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 already feels like a long time ago.   Remember way, way back when Canada’s federal scientists were shackled to their laboratory tables, unable to speak out or walk freely in the light of day?   I don’t mean to sound trivial; the war on science in Canada was real and severe in its implications and in some places devastating in its consequences.   But looking back on what Canadians are calling the ‘dark decade’ already feels ridiculous somehow, like it’s a caricature of our past reality. How did things get so bad?   That’s something the scientific community at large is asking itself, in a serious attempt to prevent ideology-driven, anti-science policies from taking root once again.   “Science should never be silenced again,” Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), a union representing more than 15,000 federal scientists, said in a statement released Wednesday.

PIPSC, as well as the science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy (E4D), released an open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as well as ­to science ministers Kirsty Duncan and Navdeep Bains, requesting policies be put in place to protect the scientific integrity of Canada’s public employees.   (Full disclosure: I recently became a volunteer member of Evidence for Democracy's board of directors.)   The two groups say they commend the Liberal government for restoring the mandatory long-form census in Canada as well as lifting strict communications procedures that prevented federal scientists from speaking to the media or the public without upper level bureaucratic oversight.   In the joint letter released today, the groups are calling on the government to take their effort to restore scientific integrity in Canada a step further.   “The government clearly supports science integrity — now we need them to safeguard it from future attacks,” Katie Gibbs, executive director of E4D, said.

“Creating strong science integrity policies in all federal science-based departments will go a long way to ensuring that critically important government research is available to the public and used in policy development.”

The letter also requests scientific integrity provisions be added to collective bargaining agreements, to ensure federal employees have an enshrined right to work and communicate freely without fear of censure.

According to Daviau, having clear rules in place for scientists is critical for the restoration of scientific integrity at the federal level.

“By including the right of scientists to speak in collective agreements we can ensure there exists a consistent policy and a binding process to resolve disputes as well as prevent in future the kind of chill imposed by communications policies under the Harper government,” she said.   The open letter comes just one day after the release of a report from the Institute for Research on Public Policy and the Canadian Academy of Engineering that calls for the better use of science in the creation of public policy.   “As governments grapple with evermore complex policy problems, science and technology must play a bigger role in providing an evidence base for decisions and supporting government efforts to manage risk and uncertainty,” Pierre Lortie, president of the Canadian Academy of Engineering, said in a release.   The report calls on the Liberal government to foster informed debate by making research used in decision-making more readily available to the public, to strengthen internal decision-making policy, establish a national science advisory board and build bridges between parliamentarians and the scientific community.   Graham Fox, president of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, notes scientific evidence is meant to play a role in decisions, but that other factors are always taken into consideration.   “Of course, evidence should weigh heavily in the balance, but it will not necessarily replace or trump budget considerations, citizens’ concerns, campaign commitments and other considerations,” Fox said.   “The challenge is not to remove politics from decision-making, but rather to create an en­vironment in which the public debate is appropriately informed by science.”

Image: PMO 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.

Canada’s new Minister of Innovation, Science and Development, Navdeep Bains, told reporters on Parliament Hill on Thursday that the federal government is restoring the mandatory long-form census just in time for its next rollout in 2016.

Canada conducts a census every five years by sending an eight-question form to Canadian households. However, one-fifth of those households traditionally received a mandatory 61-question census that provides the government with much more insight into the lives of Canadians.

In 2010, the Harper government cancelled the mandatory long-form census, replacing it with a short voluntary survey developed by Statistics Canada. Researchers said the data provided through the voluntary survey lacked detail, leaving major gaps in knowledge about areas with poor survey response rates.

Munir Sheikh, the former head of Statistics Canada, resigned in protest.

Bains said the decision to reinstate the long-form census falls into the government’s commitment to rebuild scientific knowledge in Canada.

“Our plan for an open and fair government starts with the reinstatement of the mandatory long form census,” Bains tweeted.

Our plan for an open and fair government starts with the reinstatement of the mandatory long form census. pic.twitter.com/quyL3TQrav

— Navdeep Bains (@NavdeepSBains) November 5, 2015

Our government is committed to creating and implementing sound, evidence-based policies built on quality data.

— Navdeep Bains (@NavdeepSBains) November 5, 2015

“Our government is committed to creating and implementing sound, evidence-based policies built on quality data.”

“Success!” science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy posted to its Facebook page. “The new Liberal government has announced that the mandatory long for census will be reinstated immediately…This would not have happened without your calls for smart government decision-making.”

Wendy Palen, associate professor of ecology at Simon Fraser University and board member with Evidence for Democracy, said the long-form census is key to evidence-based decision-making in Canada.

And while the idea of evidence-based decision-making “is a little wonky and process-oriented,” it’s actually a “really important and fundamental cornerstone of effective democracy,” Palen said.

Practicing evidence-based decision-making means that “we invest in things like our pubic science capacity to study things that are of national importance…so we can craft policies around that evidence we’ve collected,” Palen said.

She added the long-form census is a “really important piece for evaluating the consequences of [our] decisions” and gives us deeper insights into “our environment, our economy and our internal demographics.”

Palen said the best available science was excluded from the decision-making process in Canada under the Harper government, which spent $22 million taxpayer dollars switching the long-form census to a voluntary survey.

At the time, the government justified its decision by arguing they were protecting Canadians’ privacy, although the statistical information gathered in the census is purged of personal details so cannot be traced to any individual.

The limited data made available from the 2011 census left all levels of government, researchers, universities, civil society organizations, commerce groups and city planners unable to determine basic facts about the populations they served.

Faith-based organizations said the shoddy information made it difficult to track the effect of policy on religious and cultural minorities. Business groups including the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce urged the Harper government to reverse its decision.

The Canadian Medical Association said the lack of data would limit the effective use of health information and delivery of programs.

Advocacy organizations said it was impossible to tell with any accuracy how poverty rates were affecting marginalized, low-income families.

City planners in Hamilton, Ont., were left wondering about the sudden decline of the city’s Chinese population while Toronto struggled to understand if high-need communities would benefit from more subsidized child care or free skills training programs.

Palen said organizations like Evidence for Democracy play a crucial role in providing a network of scientific experts to help improve the use of evidence in support of the democratic process in Canada. She added her organization will also track how well the Liberal government is keeping its science-related campaign promises.

“I think it’s important to hold our government accountable,” she said, adding, “but now is not the time for that.”

“Right now our role I think is in cheering the government on, saying, you made these great promises in the campaign and you elevated the issues around science during the campaign because they are important to Canadians.”

“I think our role right now is to offer our expertise, offer our help on making good on some of those promises.”

Image: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister Navdeep Bains via 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.

Today is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s first day in office and when it comes to science, his new cabinet appointees look like a step in the right direction.

On top of naming Catherine McKenna the first ever Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Trudeau also appointed a Minister of Science, Kirsty Duncan, as well as a Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, Navdeep Bains.

Duncan has a doctoral degree in geography, previously taught meterology, climatology and climate change at the University of Windsor and was a contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

These appointments combined with Trudeau’s point blank response to questions about his 50 per cent female cabinet mandate (“Because it’s 2015”), his inclusion of indigenous leaders and his collaborative approach to the upcoming Paris climate talks have inspired a lot of hope in the new Prime Minister.

But with an abundance of commitments about science, electoral reform and transparency some Canadian scientists are left wondering if Trudeau will be able to live up to the promises.

Minister Duncan, we've done some of the intelligence gathering for you and here's what Canadian scientists say they hope to see from the new government.

Return to Evidence-Based Decision-Making

“I’m tremendously excited about this change in government,” Wendy Palen, associate professor of ecology at Simon Fraser University, told DeSmog Canada.

Palen, who also sits on the board of the science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, said the Liberal government has made big promises to undo the damage done by the Conservatives.

“Many Canadians think Harper’s policy regarding science has really looted what it means to be Canadian — both at home and how we’re seen by the international community,” Palen said.

“I think the Liberals have their job cut out for them but I think they’ll make progress restoring evidence-based decision-making in a way that hasn’t been there for a while.”

Create a New Culture of Science Among Public Servants

Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy, agrees there is a lot of work to be done but that many of the Liberal’s platform promises “will go a long way to restoring and rebuilding science in Canada.”

“A lot of the promises they made are certainly feasible — reinstating the long-form census, un-muzzling government scientists, creating a Parliamentary Science Officer — these are all doable. They just require the political will to make them happen,” Gibbs said.

But some policies will be easier to change than the mindset of scientists working within federal departments, she added.

“Changing the communication policy is fairly easy and could be done quickly, but changing the culture among government scientists could take much longer,” Gibbs said.

Prioritize Science and Evidence, Quickly

Gibbs added that a major challenge for the Liberal government will be prioritization. With so many important election promises on the table, competing interest groups, lobbyists and civil society organizations from across the country are jockeying for first dibs. 

“[It] can't all be done immediately, so what is this government going to prioritize?” Gibbs said. “Which is also why it's really important to recognize that the work isn't over, it's really just beginning.”

Set Measurable Environmental Targets the Public Can Evaluate

Isabelle Côté, professor of marine ecology at Simon Fraser University, describes herself as “very cautiously optimistic” about the Liberal government’s campaign promises.

“I don’t think it can be as bad as we’ve had it for the past 10 years,” Cote said, adding, “but that’s the problem: expectations are so high because we’ve been battered so hard and essentially decimated for so many years.”

Côté said Trudeau’s reluctance to set specific greenhouse gas emissions targets is troubling.

“I find that worrisome because obviously if we don’t have targets, we can’t evaluate how well we’re doing. Without targets we can say we’re doing better but we don’t know. And that worries me a bit.”

Côté added Trudeau’s inconsistent position on pipelines as well as the fact that “one of his campaign managers seemed to be buddy-buddy with the oil industry” is also cause for concern.

Trudeau’s commitment to meet the Convention on Biological Diversity’s goals for ocean protection is unlikely to happen, according to Côté.

“[Trudeau] wants to meet our CBD commitment of 10 per cent of our oceans protected by 2020 but right now we’re at less than one per cent,” Cote said.

“The reality is that given the legislation we have now and the amount of consultation that has to happen for permanently protected marine areas — we don’t have the time.”

Cote noted that one protected area off the B.C. coast took a decade of consultation to put in place.

Getting Canada back on track to do more than just marine protection is going to take a tremendous amount of work, Côté said.

“We feel like the page has been turned but we need many, many pages to be turned just to get back to where we were 10 years ago.”

A good place to start would be with the implementation of a Parliamentary Science Officer, she added. “I think that’s something he could do tomorrow. He could say, ‘the search begins.’ ”

But Côté remains realistic: “The reality is it’s going to take a heck of a long time to reassemble the expertise that’s been lost by all the cuts. It’s not like these people are just waiting in the wings to jump back into the positions they had. Those people are gone.”

Bring Science Funding Back

One of those lost federal scientists is Peter Ross, former federal scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Ross, a marine contaminants expert now working with the Vancouver Aquarium, said Canada “has serious work to do” when it comes to restoring science.

“I’d be remiss if I didn’t say I was optimistic,” Ross said.

“Even though these last few years have been hard, I’ve always remained optimistic.”

Ross said after major budget cuts and a restrictive communications environment, he would like to see the mandate of science expanded in Canada.

“If we look at the history of science in Canada we spend half of what the OECD spends on science — we always have,” he said. “If we’re going to excel in terms of the knowledge economy, in terms of the global village, we have to invest in science.”

Trudeau has promised to return $40 million in funding to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, a federal body that saw a research exodus after major funding cuts under the Harper government in 2012.

Stick to Liberal Party’s Scientific Integrity Motion

Jeremy Kerr, professor of biology at the University of Ottawa, said he is “definitely optimistic” science will fare better under this new leadership.

“It’s like coming out of a cave,” Kerr said. “The last 10 years have been an almost unrelenting series of efforts to suppress scientific information, shut down programs, supplement normal communications with clearly organized propaganda efforts.”

“It has been an incredibly dark time.”

Kerr, who worked with the Liberal party and new Minister of Science Kirsty Duncan in May to craft a parliamentary motion to restore scientific integrity, said he has “every expectation” the Liberal government will follow through with many of the good ideas — including unmuzzling scientists and creating a Parliamentary Science Officer — in that document.

Kerr said some members of the scientific community are unnecessarily pessimistic about implementing changes.

“A lot of the scientific integrity changes that we have called for and many others have called for are not going to require an act of Parliament to achieve,” Kerr said. “What they are going to require, with careful thinking, is a few days writing a policy and communicating it to the public service.”

Kerr said people think restoring science in Canada will be “some monumental Everest challenge.”

“But I just don’t think it is,” Kerr said, adding that though these things can be done easily they must be treated as urgent.

“Some of that stuff has got to be done quickly. If it doesn’t get done quickly the opportunity for using electoral momentum will pass and they will be slowed down by the inevitable inertia of being in power.”

Kerr said the Liberal government should work to restore broken relationships with the public sector through the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. Morale among scientists is at “subterranean” levels at this point, he said.

Kerr also said the government needs to repair the holes in environmental protection, such as the loss of protection for practically all freshwater bodies in Canada, and enforce the Species at Risk Act.

“The federal science issue in Canada right now is basically a field of debris,” he said. “I think that’s over now, but we don’t know — the proof is going to be in the pudding.”

Image: Twitter

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.

A diverse group of experts, scholars, First Nations and civil society organizations recently released a sweeping program that shows just how Canada can transition to a low-carbon society.

Building on a March 2015 report, Acting on Climate Change: Solutions from Canadian Scholars, a group of academics from Sustainable Canada Dialogues reached out to individuals and groups from across Canada in an attempt to engage society in the question of our low-carbon transition.

The result, Acting on Climate Change: Extending the Dialogue Among Canadians, brings together a broad range of insight from across the social and political spectrum.

The report comes on the heels of an open letter (attached below) to federal leaders, calling for a “national dialogue on climate change policy.” The letter, released by 60 academics with Sustainable Canada Dialogues, states a national conversation is needed “to identify socially acceptable transition pathways to a low-carbon society and economy.”

“We hope each party will enrich its position with ideas put forward by Canadians, before, during and after this election campaign, to restore Canada’s global leadership as a champion for the environment.”

Catherine Potvin, editor of the new report, writes 2015 is an important year for climate intervention.

“It is crucial to elect a federal government that has a climate action target with a coherent plan to achieve it,” Potvin states in the report’s foreword.

“I hope [this report] helps citizens make clear demands on their governments and believe in the future.”

First Nations Rights a Priority Concern

Among the report’s highlights is a submission by the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Sustainable Development Institute that emphasizes the importance of First Nations political sovereignty in government-to-government relations.

“Considering the wide-ranging impacts that climate policies could have on the Aboriginal Title and Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of First Nations, in particular regarding the use of their territories, it is essential that First Nation governments be involved from the beginning in this dialogue,” the authors write.

The importance of First Nations constitutional and territory rights are critical when considering the role the extractive industries play on traditional lands and within the context of climate change.

Government and Industry Need to Seek Opportunities

A submission from the International Institute for Sustainable Development’s president Scott Vaughan questions the capacity for market mechanisms to adequately address the need for urgent climate action.

Vaughan, Canada’s former Environment Commissioner, argues a more intentional collaboration is needed between government and industry to spur low-carbon innovation.

Vaughn points out the “various rigidities” of the oil, gas and coal sectors when it comes to measuring performance and expenditures.

“Climate debates need to turn towards the opportunities,” Vaughan writes, “to accelerate zero-carbon energy options that benefit from a longer tradition of purposeful industrial policy.”

Workers Must be Considered in Low-Carbon Transition

Erik Bouchard-Boulianne from the Centrale des syndicats de Québec (CSQ), one of the largest trade unions in Quebec, said transitioning to a low-carbon economy will bring big changes to each of the provinces. 

“There will be winning sectors and losing sectors,” he said in an interview included in the report.

Bouchard-Boulianne pointed out that Quebec will benefit from a move away from oil, which represents a large portion of the province’s trade deficit. Quebec imported about $18 billion in petroleum products in 2014.

Alternatively, he points out that Alberta, as an oil-producing province, will be hit hardest in the transition.

The key to helping workers throughout this transition is implementing support programs like unemployment insurance and re-qualification training.

Bring Science Back

Science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy argues a low-carbon transition will require both scientific and political leadership.

“Integrity of science and evidence have an important role to play in not only facilitating this transition, but also providing the forecasting and monitoring skills necessary for adaptive management throughout the process.”

Evidence for Democracy recommends the federal government play a central role in reducing carbon emissions, increase funding support for scientists and monitoring programs, fund academic researchers engaged in non-commercial science and produce climate and emissions policies that are transparent and based on best available evidence.

Make it Count for Youth

Generation Squeeze, an organization that advocates for young Canadians, writes a low-carbon society should focus on “leav[ing] at least as much as we inherit.”

That will require the better use and collection of tax dollars, leading to the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies and putting a price on pollution, writes author Paul Kershaw.

“Generation Squeeze recommends that Sustainable Canada Dialogues contribute to telling a broader narrative about generational prosperity and intergenerational fairness.”

Charting Low-Carbon Pathways

The David Suzuki Foundation also contributed to the report, outlining Canada’s various opportunities to cut carbon including reducing the use of coal and prioritizing renewable energy, a sector that now contributes $12 billion to the Canadian economy.

As Canada heads to the UN climate summit, policy makers can look to domestic successes for carbon-reduction opportunities.

“When Canadians head to the polls in October, we are deciding who will represent us at the 2015 Paris Climate Summit and the vision they have for Canada’s role in acting on climate change,” Dr. Mark Stoddart, from Memorial University and one of 60 co-authors of Sustainable Canada’s Dialogues original climate action plan, said.

“Extending the Dialogue Among Canadians provides novel ideas that can inform the next federal government,” he said.

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.

A one-of-a-kind debate in Victoria this week brought science and technology to the minds of federal candidates who all, despite their differences, agreed vociferously on one thing: Canada needs to be freed from the “war on science.”

In a packed room at the University of Victoria federal candidates for the NDP, Liberal and Green parties voiced unanimous concern with the muzzling of scientists, the cuts to research funding and the lack of transparency in government decision-making — all of which have, the candidates argued, became common place in the last four years of Conservative party majority rule.

Event organizer Aerin Jacob, a postdoctoral fellow in Geography at the University of Victoria, said Canadians are aware that there is a science crisis in Canada, even if they aren’t clear on the details. She invited candidates from all parties in four Vancouver Island ridings to speak to the community about those concerns.

Jacob said candidates from the Conservative Party did not respond to multiple invitations to participate in the science and technology debate.

Science Under Seige

“I think everyone in this room knows we’re seeing a war on science that is unprecedented, dangerous and deeply ideological,” Liberal candidate Tim Kane told the audience. “There is no doubt science in Canada is under siege.”

Jo-Ann Roberts, former CBC journalist and Green party candidate said the issue of science in Canada “is a big reason why I decided to run for office after being a journalist for 37 years.”

“It is not just war on science: it is information and knowledge in this country that is under siege,” Roberts said. “Canadians are angry about it.”

NDP candidate Murray Rankin said Canada has “moved from the age of enlightenment to the dark ages” due to “arbitrary funding cuts, centralization of power and a lack of respect for research.”

“Stephen Harper’s war on science is everywhere to be seen and his victims are everywhere in our system,” Rankin said.

CBC radio journalist Bob McDonald, who moderated the event, said, despite the current situation, “Canada has a long history of doing really excellent science.”

“We need scientific literacy in politicians and in the public because we have hard decisions we need to make about the future,” he said, “about how we keep ourselves warm, how we move from place to place and where that energy is going to come from, where our food and water is going to come from.”

McDonald told the audience “science is one of the last institutions we have that actually looks for the truth.”

All three candidates said if elected they would take steps to introduce a parliamentary science officer in Ottawa and bring back the mandatory-long form census.

Roberts said the Green Party’s platform includes a plan to make publicly funded science freely available to the public — something both Rankin and Kane said their parties would also pursue. Kane said the federal Liberal Party has plans for a central online portal that would make federal science more easily accessible to the public.

Rankin said the NDP will institute a bill of rights for science in government, something that would protect public servants from the fear of political reprisal.

“There should be an understanding that you can’t be fired for speaking truth to power,” he said.

Science a Number One Election Issue

The non-partisan science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy has been working hard to make science a relevant election issue. The group recently reviewed questions from federal leaders debate since 1968 and found none mentioned science policy.

Katie Gibbs says events like this week's science and technology debate show how much science has become a major player in the upcoming federal election.

“I have actually have been amazed to see how much science is playing into this election,” Gibbs said.

“And I think unprecedented that we’re seeing science as one of the main issues being discussed.”

Gibbs said the issue of science and the current challenged being faced with funding cuts and communications restrictions has “reached the next level of public awareness.”

This week Maclean's listed science as the top policy concern for Canadians who voted in the magazine's policy "face-off." Seventy-four per cent of participants said they wanted to see publicy funded science more readily available to the public.

“It’s really the public that is bringing this up,” Gibbs said. 

Transition Off Fossil Fuels Pressing for Candidates

All three candidates promised to reinstate funding for federal science, redirecting funds from contentious oil and gas subsidies.

McDonald asked the candidates to address the “big elephant in the room,” the fact that Canada is an oil producing country.

“How do you make the transition” off of fossil fuels, McDonald asked.

“The majority of fossil fuels must stay in the ground,” Roberts said. “We’re the only party that is opposed to the expansion of the oilsands…because if you’re expanding you’re going to need more pipelines and if you’re expanding you’re not bringing down your greenhouse gasses.”

Roberts said other countries provide a view of what a greener future could have in store for Canada.

“We have seen in Germany their renewable energy is 11 per cent of the GDP,” Roberts said. “Our oil and gas accounts for six per cent [of the GDP] and two per cent of the population works in the sector.”

The transition to cleaner forms of energy won’t occur without incentives, Roberts added.

Rankin said the NDP’s view on oilsands projects and pipelines is that decisions about these kinds of projects has to be “based on science, not ideology.”

“It’s just as bad for the Conservatives to never meet a pipeline they didn’t like for ideological reasons and to simply say we hate them for ideological reasons, “ he said.

Rankin added the transition to renewable energy will affect the approximately 550,000 people employed in the fossil fuel industry and must be “taken seriously.”

Rankin said there are smart ways of looking to transition. “If we move to geothermal — which is a technology that is much easier on the environment —geothermal is found where natural gas is found so that gives us an easy transition from the natural gas industry.”

“The question is sensitive to the reality that we have to look after those people who will be displaced,” he said.

Kane said he saw “lots of commonalities” between the three parties positions, adding the Liberal Party would work to create a favourable tax regime to draw renewable energy technology to cities like Victoria.

Kane also promised the Liberal Party will work with provincial premiers to formalize emissions reductions targets for the nation as a whole and “restore credibility” to the federal environmental assessment process which determines the fate of major oil and gas projects and infrastructure like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Jacob said she hoped the event would remind Canadians of the importance of science to the upcoming federal election.

“Science is about discovery and it’s exciting. Talking about science is talking about optimism, it’s talking about the future, about what we don’t know and what we want to find out and how we will go about doing that.”

“When people go to the polls they might be thinking about their jobs or their families,” Jacobs said, “but their jobs and families are deeply connected to science and technology whether or not they know it.”

“It’s important for politicians to pay attention to science and tech and for people to ask them questions about it.”

Jacob said she was “thrilled” to see the room so full of community members.

“It gives me hope.”

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.