In late May, Canada’s “energy leaders” met in Toronto for the Energy Council of Canada's Canadian Energy Summit.

The theme of the summit? “Telling the Energy Story.”

“The aim is to raise awareness and improve understanding of the many ways that the energy sector influences the economy, regional development, innovation and aboriginal partnerships across Canada,” a press release proclaimed. “We believe that improved understanding will lead to better-informed energy dialogue and energy decisions.”

Sounds nice and all, but there’s a catch: the various players in Canada’s energy debate are telling very different stories.

While industry emphasizes jobs and economic growth, environmentalists and First Nations focus on air and water contamination, climate change and aboriginal rights.

The problem for the energy sector isn’t “telling the story” — it’s the massive logic gap between their story and the very real concerns of the Canadian public.

Right now, Canada’s energy debate is like a dysfunctional family dinner, with drunk Uncle Ed blowing a gasket on one end, Aunty Hilda screaming back and everyone else staring down at their dinner plates wishing they’d stayed home.

On the one hand, you hear rhetoric about oilsands destroying the planet and needing to be “shut down” and on the other hand you hear oil execs talking about extracting as much bitumen as possible out of the ground ASAP.

“Those extreme arguments are the ones that make everybody roll their eyes,” says Ken Chapman, former director of the Oil Sands Developers Group and proponent of triple-bottom line resource development.

“And there’s about 20 per cent on one side and about 20 per cent on the other side and neither one of them will ever bridge that gap.”

Left watching the shouting match are the 60 per cent of Canadians who aren’t on either extreme, Chapman says.

“The 60 per cent in the middle don’t know who to believe, don’t know who to trust and don’t know who to rely on,” he told DeSmog Canada.

Canada’s energy debate is stuck in what’s known as a “logic schism,” in which two sides talk past each other, impeding meaningful dialogue.

“In a logic schism, a contest emerges in which opposing sides are debating different issues, seeking only information that supports their position and disconfirms their opponents’ arguments,” describes Andy Hoffman, a professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan.

“Each side views the other with suspicion, even demonizing the other, leading to a strong resistance to any form of engagement, much less negotiation and concession.”

Instead of leading the way, the federal government has been part of the problem.

In October, Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources Greg Rickford spoke to a closed-door meeting of about 40 to 50 oil and gas executives, urging them to get outside the board room and pitch projects to the public to win the public relations battle over energy.

“Enhance and expand your outreach. Communicate more effectively and clearly to Canadians with solid facts and evidence,” Rickford said, according to the documents revealed through an Access to Information Request.

Notably, Rickford mentioned nothing about improving performance in the oilsands — Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

CAPP spokeswoman Chelsie Klassen told The Guardian that industry is taking Rickford’s advice and “embarking on a different level of engagement,” including “moving to a ground campaign model to activate industry supporters.”

Since then CAPP has opened an office in Vancouver to bolster its “Canada’s Energy Citizens” campaign.

CAPP is trying to spread the message that oilsands producers share values around developing the resource sustainably and transporting it safely, CAPP’s CEO Tim McMillan told the Vancouver Sun.

While there’s no doubt some truth in that statement, it overlooks the fact that CAPP has fought new greenhouse gas regulations and successfully lobbied to weaken Canada’s environmental laws — preventing Canada from “acting responsibly.”

It’s little wonder that a poll by Alberta  Oil Magazine found that fewer than one in 10 post-secondary graduates find oil and gas industry associations credible when it comes to carbon emissions.

So who can Canadians trust and how can we move beyond the dysfunctional dinner debate?

“Everbody is trying to prove each other wrong on the facts and quite frankly this is now like religious belief. And it doesn’t matter what the facts are; it’s the belief systems that are dominating,” Chapman says.

“What is open yet is the adult conversation, as opposed to the elementary school recess conversation.”

This week, well-known environmentalist Tzeporah Berman stepped into that “adult conversation” space with an op-ed in the Toronto Star:

It’s time for a new, honest conversation in Canada. It’s time to recognize that the oilsands are, in fact, a technological marvel that took great Canadian ingenuity and acumen. It’s also time to acknowledge that when we began the exploration of the oilsands we did not know what we know today.

Finally, something most Canadians can actually agree on.

 “We’re going to be in the fossil fuel business for a while,” Chapman said. “We have a responsibility to do it better. [The leadership] will have to emerge, but the leadership isn’t in two extremes.”

With the new NDP government in Alberta, Chapman sees an opportunity for a significant change.  

“There are calmer heads, cooler heads, deeper thinkers and people who understand complexity now dealing with the issue at the political level,” he said.

The first step is acknowledging that the issues in the oilsands can’t be solved with public relations. No advertising campaign, faux grassroots outreach effort or multi-million dollar messaging exercise is going to address growing greenhouse gas emissions, habitat destruction, air and water contamination and treaty violations.

Demonizing the oilsands as a planet-killing monstrosity also isn’t going to move us any closer to a responsible management regime.

The first step to recovery is acknowledging you have a problem — and what we have in in the oilsands is not a PR problem, it’s a performance problem due to a lack of regulation. And it’s high time Canadians got the conversation they deserve about how to do better.

Image: CAPP

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.

“Our messages are not resonating,” Natural Resource Minister Greg Rickford told a room full of oil and gas executives in a luxury Rocky Mountain resort last fall. “You are fighting an uphill battle for public confidence.”

Rickford, who attended the meeting at the request of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), encouraged the executives to do more to spread the oil industry’s message to the Canadian public.

“Much of the debate over energy is characterized by myth or emotion,” he said, suggesting scientists and campaigners critical of development in the Alberta oilsands were “crowding out the real facts.”

Rickford made no mention of Canada’s international climate commitments, but he did deride concerns about pollution from the oilsands — the country’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Rickford’s advice, released to Greenpeace via an Access to Information request, marked the beginning of a decisive shift in industry’s public relations campaigns.

As CAPP described it to The Guardian: “The energy industry is embarking on a different level of engagement and CAPP is moving to a ground campaign to activate industry supporters.”

While we’ll likely never know the level of coordination happening behind the scenes, the shared vision going forward was clearly articulated by Rickford: “Those of us here in this room have a responsibility to tell our shared energy story,” he intoned. “We must all be on the same page.”

Of Oil and Patriotism

Rickford’s call for a new “shared energy story” was in October of 2014.

At that point, the narrative that environmental advocates were “un-Canadian” had been seeded in public discourse, most doggedly by blogger Vivian Krause and most famously by key Conservative players high in the political party hierarchy.

The connection between pro-industry ideals and patriotism had been ham-handedly advanced by controversial personality Ezra Levant through his Ethical Oil campaign (which seemed to lose steam after its industry and Conservative-party connections were exposed by DeSmog).

Since then, the attempt to persuade Canadians of the Canadian-ness of the oil industry has ramped up and become much more polished.

A whole host of campaigns designed to advance the agenda of the fossil fuel industry have cropped up: Resource Works, British Columbians for Prosperity, Energy Citizens, Coal Alliance, Canadian Natural Resources Alliance, Pipeline Action, and many others.

But no individual has mastered the art quite as effectively as the oil industry’s citizen activist Cody Battershill, founder of Canada Action.

Described as a “one-man oil sands advocate…in [a] PR war,” last year Battershill told the National Post he wants to create a more “balanced conversation” about the Alberta oilsands.

But DeSmog Canada’s research indicates Battershill and Canada Action appear to have close ties to the oil industry and to powerful campaigners from the Conservative Party of Canada.

Who are Cody Battershill and Canada Action?

Battershill is a young Calgary realtor in the top one per cent of agents in his Canada-wide company. As he tells the story, his oilsands advocacy began in 2010 when he was walking along Vancouver’s Robson Street and noticed that a LUSH cosmetics store had placed some “Stop Oilsands” posters in its window. It caught his attention, he says. He knew nothing about oil and gas but “common sense says that everything in that store is made possible by natural resources.”

Battershill said he decided to get involved to foster “a more informed conversation about resource development.” He started a Twitter account and has been building Canada Action ever since.

His non-profit organization, Canada Action, sells clothing for men, women and children with the statement: “I love oil sands,” designed by Canada Action’s Robbie Piccard.

It echoes a longer-running campaign in the U.S. — run by Alex Epstein from the pro-industry Center for Industrial Progress — that makes a moral case for fossil fuels. Epstein, like Battershill, argues social prosperity relies on the consumption of fossil fuels while overlooking the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows the negative impacts of industrial pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Did you know you can move somewhere where it’s #EarthHour, every hour? (Always enjoy hearing @AlexEpstein speak) pic.twitter.com/7BOSp66buP

— Cody Battershill (@codyincalgary) June 16, 2015

Battershill declined to comment on his relationship with Epstein. Epstein did not respond to an interview request.

Battershill, right on point with Rickford’s advice, has said critics of industry add “a lot of fear and emotion to the argument that’s not supported by facts.”

Alongside his prolific Twitter activity, Battershill writes articles for the Huffington Post, the Calgary Herald and the Journal of the Canadian Heavy Oil Association, where he often opposes the opinions of climate campaigners or other environmental advocates.

Canada Action also produces numerous slick infographics that promote industry views on oilsands development. These are in turn shared by Canada Action sub-groups, Oilsands Action and Pipeline Action, which play an active roll disseminating industry-friendly information to large audiences on Facebook and Twitter.

Not bad for a realtor.

So is Canada Action a one-man band as Battershill would prefer people to believe or is there more than meets the eye?

Deep Industry, Conservative Connections

Canada Action was registered as a federal not-for-profit society in September 2014. With a little help from his friends, Battershill held a launch party at the Woods Buffalo Brewing Co. in Fort McMurray the same day. (Through a corporate registry search, DeSmog Canada discovered Canada Action existed as a numbered corporation between 2012 and 2013 before being renamed Canada Action Coalition in August of 2013.)

Kim Farwell, leader of oilsands extraction at Syncrude and two-time former president of the Conservative Party of Canada’s riding association in Fort McMurray helped Battershill organize the event along with Robbie Picard, Canada Action campaigner. Another organizer, Diane Slater, announced she was retiring as chief administrative officer at the Fort McMurray Chamber of Commerce — whose ranks are loaded with heavy oil businesses — to take on a more active role in Canada Action.

Canada Action’s registration as a non-profit society reveals its board of directors. Most interestingly, Canada Action’s society documentation indicates Battershill brought in an accomplished Conservative campaigner as a director.

Matt Gelinas and the 2011 Robocall Scandal

Although he was only 26 when Canada Action was incorporated, director Matt Gelinas already had a long history of political campaigning and advocacy for conservative causes. In 2006, he supervised phone banks for the Alberta Progressive Conservative leadership campaign of the most right-wing candidate, Ted Morton.

As a University of Calgary political science student, Gelinas helped organize the visit of right-wing, incendiary speaker Ann Coulter to the university campus in 2011. In one of her more famous claims about Muslims, Coulter said, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

By the time he graduated, Gelinas was a seasoned political campaigner working closely with key conservative organizations.

Gelinas went on to work with the Manning Centre, an organization that promotes conservative ideas and politicians. In 2013, before the Alberta provincial election, he presented a workshop at the Manning Centre titled: “Do you know how to get your voters out?”

Gelinas is also an expert consultant on NationBuilder, which provides software for political campaigns, helping candidates organize their online presence. NationBuilder’s power lies in converting social media activity into datasets useful for elections campaigning and fundraising.

Gelinas studied under conservative political strategist, and Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan. In his book, Winning Power: Canadian Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century, Flanagan writes that he contracted Gelinas’ company Blue Direct to perform “auto-dialler polls and electronic town halls.”

Blue Direct is still run by Gelinas’ colleague and conservative campaigner Richard Dur who was credited for helping win the 2011 federal Conservative majority. Dur is a trainee of the Koch brothers-funded Leadership Institute, a training centre for “conservative activists” that counts many senior Canadian conservative leaders among its alumni.

According to his LinkedIn account, between 2012 and 2013, Gelinas worked for the Responsive Marketing Group, an automated call service. The company has played a key role in the history of the Conservative Party of Canada and was a central player in the 2011 robocall scandal, before Gelinas joined its ranks.

Gelinas is also listed on Yatedo.com as an owner of Alberta Blue Strategies, a company that provided fundraising, voter identification services and automated calling services to the Conservatives. The Alberta Blue Strategies web address is no longer active, but according to urlmetrics.com the only available links currently redirect to the Blue Direct website.

Alberta Blue Strategies was paid more than $5,000 in 2011 from a Conservative candidate in a riding blanketed with misleading robocalls. The calls in that riding were later traced to an automated phone service provider called RackNine, which claims it provided services to a third-party who tried to “disrupt voting.” Although there is no overt connection between RackNine and Alberta Blue Strategies, Gelinas notes in a client testimonial on the company’s website that he recommends RackNine, which he uses for all his “web solutions.” DeSmog Canada could not confirm if Gelinas was connected with Alberta Blue Strategies in 2011.

Screenshot from the RackNine website hosting Matt Gelinas’ testimonial.

Furthering the connections between Gelinas’ businesses, colleagues and the Conservative Party of Canada, Riley Braun, an employee of Alberta Blue Strategies from 2011 to 2012 went on to become a stakeholder relations assistant in the office of Stephen Harper.

Canada Action’s listed address is the same as Alberta Blue Strategies. It is also the same as Patchwork Investments, owned by Susan Gelinas, the third member of Canada Action’s board of directors. There is little information about Patchwork Investments available online, but it is described on several websites as providing investment advice. Several calls to Patchwork’s listed phone number went unanswered.

Canada Action also shares an address with Data Trek Inc., an oil and gas data service provider. According to LinkedIn, the president of Data Trek is Dave Gelinas, who is a Facebook friend of Matt Gelinas, Richard Dur and Cody Battershill. DeSmog Canada tried to contact Matt Gelinas through Blue Direct to clarify his relationship to Dave Gelinas, but messages were left unanswered. A publicly available phone number for Data Trek is no longer in service.

Following the Money

As a non-profit society, Canada Action’s funders are not on the public record. Battershill says his supporters are ordinary citizens volunteering their time and effort to achieve that more “balanced conversation” about responsible resource development.

When asked who funds Canada Action by Stu McNish, producer of the Conversations That Matter video series, Battershill replied, “I’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars out of my own pocket.”

“There is nothing astroturf or fake about my passion for my country,” he added. “I’ve put my money, my time and my actions where my mouth is.” McNish did not ask Battershill if he receives industry or political funds.

DeSmog Canada made several interview requests to Battershill, who declined to answer questions e-mailed to him at his request. These included questions about Canada Action’s relationship with the Conservative Party, Battershill’s relationship with Matt Gelinas and whether or not Canada Action is currently or has ever received funding from individuals or groups associated with the fossil fuel industry or the Conservative Party.

In an e-mailed statement Battershill said, “We’re strong supporters of Canada’s oilsands and the resource sector generally because we know how important these industries are to Canada’s present and future prosperity. We believe it’s critical to educate Canadians about the social and economic benefits provided by the resource sector and its commitment to world-class environmental stewardship.”

He added the organization is non-partisan.

“We accept donations from individuals and we sell Canada Action merchandise to support our campaigns,” the statement said.

Food, Shelter, Clothing and Family Vacations. This is what Canada’s resources mean to Matt from Nanaimo, #BC. pic.twitter.com/JYutrG5yws

— Canada Action (@CanadaAction) July 18, 2015

Canada Action “Oversimplifies” Oilsands Issue

Battershill says he is standing up for more balanced and inclusive conversations about Canada’s energy resources. Although to onlookers, Battershill’s shrill criticism of climate and environment advocates may be working in the wrong direction.

In addition to celebrating Canada’s strong economy and its reliance on the extractive industries, Battershill also spends ample time countering the claims of prominent environmental organizations and renewable energy advocates.

In December, Battershill attacked the credibility of the director of Clean Energy Canada, Merran Smith, calling her an “eco-activist” with a “divisive campaign to injure the oilsands in the view of the public.” He has similarly criticized climate campaigner Mike Hudema from Greenpeace, Canadian journalist and author Naomi Klein and celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Neil Young who have joined campaigns to advocate for the treaty rights of First Nations in the oilsands region.

Battershill has also taken up the narrative of blogger Vivian Krause who argues critics of the oilsands industry are merely paid protesters advancing the interests of U.S. companies (DeSmog has debunked Krause’s theory in an in-depth post).

According to Ken Chapman, former director of the Oil Sands Developers Group and proponent of triple-bottom line resource development, Battershill’s antics are not part of a constructive conversation.

“I think his intentions are sincere,” Chapman said of Battershill. “The problem is that I think he’s too much of a fan and I think he gets clouded. It’s difficult from Calgary to see the oilsands in perspective. I see lots of people have that problem. It’s also difficult from outside of Alberta to see the oilsands clearly,” he said.

Chapman said pro- and anti-oilsands groups take extreme positions, “like religious beliefs” that dominate the conversation, crowding out the facts.

“And it doesn’t matter what the facts are, it’s the belief systems that are what’s dominating. And quite frankly, they always will. What is open yet is the adult conversation, as opposed to the elementary school recess conversation.”

Chapman said that while Battershill’s “heart is in the right place…he is a little naïve.”

“This guy wants to win an argument. The thing is it’s not an argument. It’s about a design. We have to take a design approach to this thing, not an adversarial approach.”

Chapman added that while he thinks Canada will continue to develop fossil fuels for years to come, “we have a responsibility to do it better.”

He said that he owns an “I love oilsands” button that he wears in Fort McMurray. “I’m an owner of the oilsands. I want to be proud of it. I want to love the oilsands,” he said, adding, “I’m not there yet.”

“People are trying to oversimplify the issue. And people like Cody is well-intentioned on the industry side, but he’s oversimplifying the issue.”

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 push to prioritize economic gains over basic research is endangering science and academic freedom in countries around the world, according to a new report published by a leading researchers union, the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers (SNCS-FSU).

The group surveyed higher education and research unions in 12 countries including France, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S.

The research union found governments internationally are pushing for policies “geared towards innovation in order to spur consumption and competitiveness,” according to Patrick Monfort, secretary-general of the SNCS-FSU. “Budget cuts are often blamed for our problems,” he said, “but they are only part of the picture.”

Monfort told the prestigious journal Nature that scientists in Canada have been particularly hard hit, not only by broad funding cuts, but contentious communications protocols that prevent their freedom of expression.

The new French-language report mentions Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick, who was prevented from speaking about his research on the ozone layer as well as Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristi Miller, who was prevented from speaking with the media about her research into declining salmon stocks.

The report also notes Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore who was not allowed to speak with media about a flood that occurred 13,000 years ago without receiving ministerial approval.

The turn to applied research and science that directly benefits the economy threatens the job security of professional scientists, concludes the new report. The problem is affecting the international scientific community to such an extent the group will call for an international science campaign at their upcoming Higher Education and Research Conference this November.

Canada’s so-called “War on Science” has made international headlines, especially after deep funding cuts led to the closure of some of Canada’s most important research centres. Thousands of federal scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as Environment Canada have lost their jobs as a result of the cuts.

Since 2006 the Harper government has introduced strict communications procedures that prevent scientists from speaking freely about – and at times even publishing – their research. Federal scientists are required to gain upper-level bureaucratic approval before they speak with journalists about their work, leading the international scientific community to call for the 'unmuzzling' of Canada’s scientists.

A report last year from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre catalogued numerous instances of muzzling and led to an investigation by Canada’s information commissioner Suzanne Legault. That investigation is on-going.

Another report, released by the Professional Institute for the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), released in October 2013 found 37 per cent of federal researchers and scientists felt that within the last five years they were directly prevented from sharing their expertise with the public or media.

Nearly 25 per cent said they were forced to by government officials to modify their research for non-scientific reasons.

PIPSC president Gary Corbett told DeSmog Canada he found the level of political interference in federal science “very surprising.”

“The findings should be very concerning to the public,” he said, adding a full 50 per cent of scientists said they were aware of cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

The PIPSC survey came on the heels of a fundraising letter from the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association that referred to a group of Canadian scientists as “radical ideologues.”*

The letter was mentioned in the recent SNCS-FSU report, noting the phrase “radical ideologues” is “a term normally reserved for terrorists.”

Excerpt from the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers report.

The muzzling of scientists in Canada – and its political implications – is well documented in DeSmog Canada contributor Chris Turner’s book “The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Willful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada” and has gained celebrity attention from the likes of actress Evangeline Lilly.

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Lilly recently said she was “terrified” to hear about the muzzling of Canadian scientists.

“All over Canada right now scientists are having their funding pulled,” she said, “especially scientists who are speaking about climate change.”

“I rely on the experts in this world, experts like scientists and journalists, to give me the information to help guide me, to help me guide the government and I think that circle is the way democracy is supposed to work,” she said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the letter calling Canadian scientists "radical ideologues" was sent by Minister Greg Rickford. It was sent by the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association. 09/09/2014

Image Credit: Stand Up for Science rally in Vancouver. Photo by 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.

This post originally appeared on MikeDeSouza.com and is republished here with permission.

Some 300 scientists are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reject a report that recommended approval of a major oil pipeline to the west coast of British Columbia, describing it as a “flawed analysis” that downplayed key environmental impacts.

Following lengthy hearings, a review panel last December recommended approving Enbridge's Northern Gateway project – a 1,177 pipeline network that would send 525,000 barrels per day of bitumen, the heavy oil from Alberta’s oilsands, to Kitimat, B.C. The panel recommended 209 conditions be attached to the project approval.

But the scientists, led by Kai Chan, an associate professor and principal investigator at the University of British Columbia’s Connecting Human and Natural Systems Lab, sent Harper a letter on Monday concluding that the review’s final report wasn’t balanced and had five major flaws that made it “indefensible.”

“We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report,” wrote the scientists, who are mainly from Canada and the United States.

The five major flaws of the review, as identified in the letter, were:

• A failure to articulate a rationale for numerous findings;
• Considering narrow risks, but broad benefits and an omission of key issues such as the environmental impacts of increased production in the oilsands;
• Relying on information from the project proponent, Enbridge, without an external review of the risks;
• A contradiction of official government documents such as threats identified in federal recovery plans for species at risk;
• An inappropriate treatment of uncertain risks and a reliance on yet-to-be developed mitigation measures.

Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford has said the government will make a decision on the project soon.

The Harper government hasn’t directly or openly stated its position on the project, but it has generally endorsed the idea of building new infrastructure to support expansion of Canada’s natural resources, starting with an open letter signed by former natural resources minister Joe Oliver — who is now finance minister — in January 2012, that attacked environmental groups and accused them of conspiring to hijack Canada’s economy with foreign funding.

Chan said the scientists are not trying to weigh in on the merits of the project, but instead are trying to highlight the “critical” mistakes made during the review that appear to downplay the risks.

He added that these weaknesses in the review don’t necessarily mean the project must be stopped.

“We recognize it’s not our call,” Chan said. “We just want to make sure that the decision doesn’t go forward relying upon a deeply flawed report as if it’s complete, balanced and accurate.”

Oliver’s 2012 letter kicked off an overhaul of Canada’s environmental laws that eventually led to the cancellation of nearly 3,000 environmental reviews of industrial projects in 2012.

One month before the letter was released, his deputy minister at Natural Resources Canada, Serge Dupont, drafted a series of personal notes that highlighted a strategy to “advance a strong and coordinated advocacy and communications plan, with early pre-positioning for legislative and other actions” including offering “support” for the Enbridge project, which would open up access to new markets in Asia for Canadian oil resources.

The oilsands are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions, the heat-trapping gases that contribute to climate change, in Canada. The Canadian government hasn’t introduced plans to slow down the oil industry’s pollution, even though its own estimates show that oilsands emissions growth would prevent Canada from meeting an international climate change commitment made by Harper.

Enbridge says the project would create about 560 long-term jobs and about 3,000 jobs during construction. But the project has also generated fierce opposition from First Nations communities and environmentalists, among others who say the economic and environmental risks of a catastrophe or long-term damage outweigh the potential benefits.

Scientists Enbridge NGP by mikedesouza

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 new survey of federal researchers and scientists reveals the startling degree to which they are limited in their ability to share their research findings with the public, including in cases of the public good, and for the first time gives a clear view of the degree to which scientists feel political interference determines how their work presented.

The study, called The Big Chill, reveals that 86 percent feel they would be reprimanded if they spoke out to the media in a situation where a decision by their department goes against what their research finds to be in the public interest.  A full 90 percent also said they are simply not allowed to freely speak to the media about their work.

In more concrete terms, 37 percent say that, within the last five years, they have been directly stopped from sharing their expertise in response to a question from the media or the public, and nearly one quarter have been forced by government officials to modify conclusions of their research for non-scientific reasons.

The study was commissioned by the Professional Institute for the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents scientists and researchers across the federal government. While it was already well-known that regulations brought in by the Conservative government had limited the ability of researchers to share their findings, PIPSC President Gary Corbett said even he was surprised by the results.

“I found it very surprising, including the degree of political interference,” he said in an interview with DeSmog Canada. As an example, Corbett pointed to the fact that 50 percent of respondents said they were aware of actual cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

“The findings should be very concerning to the public,” he added.

The survey was sent to 15,398 PIPSC members who are scientists, researchers and engineers in over 40 federal departments and agencies. Of these, 4,069 (26%) responded. The survey, conducted by Environics Research, is considered accurate + or – 1.6%, 19 times out of 20.

This survey is one more voice in a growing chorus calling on the Conservative government to roll back restrictions on government scientists speaking publicly. Since last year, two days of protest have taken place, and concerned scientists have launched Evidence for Democracy (E4D), a non-profit group dedicated to ensuring federal researchers and scientists are able to speak freely about their work.

Organizers with E4D say that these findings help to reinforce what observers have noticed over the past several years.

“For the past few years, we've seen different groups raising alarm bells, we've seen a number of specific cases of government scientists being muzzled,” E4D co-founder Dr. Katie Gibbs told DeSmog Canada over the phone. “But whenever the government did respond, they would usually say, 'No, there's no muzzling going on.' And people would say, maybe these are just a few isolated incidents.”

“What I think is really important about the survey is that it shows that these aren't just a few isolated incidents… It really is across the board that scientists feel that they cannot speak out.”

When reached for comment about the latest study, Minister of State for Science and Technology Greg Rickford responded with an email statement that the Conservative government has made “record” investments in Canadian science and that, “We are working to strengthen partnerships to get more ideas from the lab to the market-place and increase our wealth of knowledge. Science can power commerce, create jobs, and improve the quality of life for all Canadians.”

The Minister did not specifically acknowledge the survey, nor did his office respond when asked in a follow-up about whether he finds the results of the study concerning. Rickford was recently at the centre of some controversy after a leaked fundraising memo from his riding referred to a group of Canadian scientists as "radical ideologues."*

This lack of meaningful response from the government has been common, said Gibbs. In order to raise public awareness, E4D have launched a website to compile instances of government interference at http://scienceuncensored.ca, to present a more global look at the issue.

Starting in 2010 with Environment Canada adopting a new policy of “speaking with one voice” which would go through the communications department, the timeline on the website documents several cases of what have become high-profile instances of scientists being stopped from speaking with the press. This includes Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristi Miller not being able to speak publicly about her research on salmon fisheries, even though it had been published in the journal Science in 2011.

Later that year, Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick was not allowed to speak with the media about research he did on ozone layer depletions, which was published in Nature. In 2012, federal scientists attending the Polar Year conference in Montreal saw themselves shadowed by media handlers. Most recently, US scientists working on a joint US-Canada project under the DFO refused to sign on to new, strict confidentiality measures saying it would lead to “muzzling.”

The site also contains a form letter that readers can send to all five party leaders, calling for reforms to government policy.

Both Gibbs and Corbett believe that the survey, combined with the recent history of government restrictions, points to a need for an overhaul of communications policy when it comes to scientific research. “Right now, scientists can't do the job they were hired to do,” said Corbett.

“What we've been calling for is for the government to implement a new communications policy that makes it explicit that scientists are able to communicate their research to the media,” said Gibbs, pointing to recent changes in the UK and the US along those lines. “It's not impossible.”

With a federal government that refuses to address the issue publicly, though, any change coming soon seems improbable.

* An earlier version of this post stated a memo referring to Canadian scientists as "radical ideologues" came from Minister Rickford. It was written by the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association in Minister Rickford's riding. 09/09/2014

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.