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.

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.

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 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.

This is a guest post by Katie Gibbs, PhD, a biologist and the Executive Director of Evidence for Democracy and Alana Westwood, a PhD Candidate at Dalhousie University and research coordinator for Evidence for Democracy. Evidence for Democracy is a not-for-profit organization promoting the transparent use of evidence in government decision-making in Canada.

Science, unquestionably, improves our everyday lives.

The work of scientists is everywhere; their efforts are reflected in everything from the cleanliness of our water to the success of medical treatments to the smartphones glued to our hands.

Canada’s commitment to science, and our scientific capacity, made us an international leader for years. It was Canadian medical researchers who decoded the breast cancer genome, invented medical insulin and have developed a promising Ebola vaccine. Social scientists and statisticians help us understand our changing demographics, guiding decisions on everything from where to build new schools and hospitals to helping businesses make smarter investment choices. Right now, environmental scientists are using their expertise to guide the fight against forest fires in British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

Given the clear importance of science in our lives, why has a question about science policy never — not once — been asked in a federal leaders’ debate?

Evidence for Democracy analyzed debate questions in all the televised English-language federal leaders’ debates from 1968 to 2011 (with the exception of 1997, for which we could not find a record) to see which topics were discussed. Unsurprisingly, 32 per cent of all debate questions focused on the economy — taxes, unemployment, trade agreements, etc. Social policies including medicare, child care, and women’s issues covered 25 per cent of the questions. Government accountability and ethics accounted for 20 per cent, with national unity, foreign affairs, and public safety making up most of the rest. Only 2 per cent of debate questions focused on protection of the environment.

But not one question on science.

Certainly, these are all important topics that matter a great deal to Canadians. However, the science that underlies these issues has been ignored. Monitoring and research is how we evaluate whether our social programs are working, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being well spent. Without systematic demographic data (like the long-form census used to provide), predicting the impact of new economic policies becomes no more than guesswork. Environmental monitoring allows us to identify and address potential issues before they become catastrophes.

Science is even integral to understanding how we vote … certainly something politicians should be interested in.

With millions of viewers tuning in, the leaders’ debates are often the pinnacle of the election period, both reflecting the issues of the day and helping to shape them. This election season the leaders’ debates have become a political issue in their own right. With Prime Minister Stephen Harper pulling out of the media consortium organized debates, this year will be the first election with multiple independently organized debates on specific topics.

Perhaps it’s time for another first: a debate about the state and future of Canadian science. Once a world-leader in scientific research, recent decisions have eroded our science capacity and our international scientific reputation. It’s estimated that up to 5,000 federal scientists have lost their jobs, and over 250 research and monitoring programs and institutions have been closed.

Our recently launched website called True North Smart and Free, documents dozens of examples of funding cuts to science, government scientists being silenced and policy decisions that ignore the best available evidence. This is essential public-interest science needed to protect Canadian’s health and safety, from food inspection to monitoring toxic chemicals in water.

Many Canadians, including our scientific community are speaking out. Even beyond our borders, the current government has been widely criticized for its treatment of science. In recent years scientists have stepped out of their labs in large rallies on Parliament Hill and across the country. By the thousands, Canadians have joined with them not only in protest but in a shared commitment to strong public science and evidence-based decision-making. Every major Canadian newspaper, including the Toronto Star, has written high-profile editorials on science.

Even international media such as New York Times and the prestigious science journal Nature have commented on the decline in Canadian science and the treatment of our government scientists.

Political parties clearly want to discuss it as well. This last session of parliament saw an unprecedented focus on science policy issues with the NDP, Liberals, and Greens all introducing bills and motions aimed at improving the state of public-interest science in Canada.

With the federal election campaign underway, Canadians are looking to the federal party leaders to share their platforms. Yes, we want answers on the economy, security, public health and the environment. But we also need to know about the research and science capacity that provides the evidence on which economic, security, health, and environment decisions should be based.

Only in this way can Canadians judge for themselves the true merits (or lack thereof) of the policy decisions our leaders claim are in our collective interest.

Image Credit: Richard Webster

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.

The number of anti-science decisions the federal government has made in recent years is staggering: axing the long-form census, trying to shut down the Experimental Lakes Area, sending media relations personnel to accompany scientists at international conferences.

There are so many mindboggling instances, in fact, that the non-profit organization Evidence for Democracy has decided to create an interactive website to chronicle them all.

“Even for those of us who are following the issue closely, it’s still hard to keep track of it all,” says executive director Katie Gibbs.

“We were a little worried that if people hadn’t been following this from the get-go, they might think it’s just too complex or overwhelming of an issue to learn about this late in the game. We wanted this site to really be that entry point for people who haven’t been following it all along and see what has happened and why it matters.”

True North Smart and Free

The site, titled True North Smart and Free, divides the issues into three broad categories: funding cuts, communication restrictions and policy decisions that overtly disregard evidence. In addition, the site promotes Evidence for Democracy’s “Science Pledge,” which serves as a petition of sorts to reprioritize science and evidence-based decision making.

Gibbs notes more than 50 federal election candidates have signed it, including Elizabeth May, Marc Garneau and Kennedy Stewart. In addition to raising the public profile of the pledge, Gibbs says such commitments will help voters keep candidates accountable after the election.

Despite science not emerging as a priority in previous elections, Gibbs is hopeful that will change in the coming federal election. She says she’s heard from quite a few candidates who have noted the issue of muzzling scientists often comes up while door knocking.

Evidence for the Death of Evidence grows

In 2012, Gibbs helped lead the Death of Evidence rally, which famously drew hundreds of scientists to the streets.

That was followed in 2013 by the publication of Chris Turner’s The War on Science and in 2014 The Fifth Estate’s ominous documentary Silence of the Labs. The New Republic reported on the issue later in 2014, concluding: “Our northern neighbors are taking a page from George W. Bush's playbook.”

Just over two months ago, Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientist Steven Campana loudly quit due to alleged muzzling. Evidence for Democracy’s initiative may just push the matter into critical mass territory.

“I think the issue has got big enough,” Gibbs concludes. “It’s not just the science community that’s upset, it has reached that next level of awareness.”

Photo: Richard Webster

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.

Media policies in most Canadian government departments do not effectively encourage open communication between federal scientists and journalists, says a report released Wednesday.

Published by Evidence for Democracy (E4D) and Simon Fraser University (SFU), the report said more than 85 per cent of the 16 departments studied were assessed a grade of C or lower in terms of openness of communication, protection against political interference, rights to free speech, and protection for whistleblowers.

The 22-page report also said that when compared to grades for U.S. departments (scored by the Union of Concerned Scientists), all but one Canadian department performed worse than the U.S. average.

“Overwhelmingly, current media policies do not meet the basic requirements for supporting open communication between federal scientists and the media,” Katie Gibbs, E4D’s executive director and an author on the report, said in an accompanying media release.

“These policies could prevent taxpayer-funded scientists from sharing their expertise with the public on important issues from drug safety to climate change,” Gibbs said.

The report — “Can Scientists Speak?” — gave the Department of National Defense the highest mark, a B grade, while the Canadian Space Agency, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada each received an F.

Policies governing science-based departments received on average a C- for how well they facilitate open communication between scientists and the media, the report added.

Described as the first of its kind in Canada, the report comes after a 2013 survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) found 90 per cent feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their work.

The PIPSC survey also found almost 86 per cent of the scientists felt they would face censure or retaliation for speaking about a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment.

The survey, which is included in a report titled “The Big Chill,” is described as the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of “muzzling” and political interference among federal scientists since the Stephen Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists.

On Wednesday, PIPSC President Debi Daviau said the C- average for policies that govern science communication with the media is not something to be proud of.

“This is a grade that says Canada is failing its most fundamental obligations to keep Canadians adequately informed of urgent science matters such as climate change,” Daviau said.

E4D, a national non-partisan, non-profit organization promoting evidence-based public policy, provided several key recommendations in its report that departments can implement to improve communication between federal scientists and the Canadian public.

Policies should be easily available online for scientists, journalists and the public, E4D recommended, and it should be explicit that scientists can speak freely about their research to facilitate clear and timely communications.

Another recommendation said scientists should also have the right to final review of media releases that make substantial use of their work to protect against political interference.

In addition, scientists should be able to express their personal opinions as long as they make clear they are not representing the views of their department.

The report also recommended there be provisions to protect whistleblowers and effectively resolve disputes.

Federal government scientists play an important role in keeping Canadians safe and healthy by providing their expertise to both the public and decision-makers, the report said.

“The safety of our food, air, water, and environment depends on the ability of federal scientists to provide information to Canadians,” it added.

CBC News said it requested comments about the report from several government departments, who redirected the request to Ed Holder, minister of state for science and technology.

Holder did not respond directly, CBC said, but stated in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon that “ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments yet scientists have and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

Arne Mooers, an SFU professor of biodiversity and an advisor for the report, said federal scientists are important public servants with critical expertise.

“They should be encouraged to inform the public in their areas of expertise because only an informed public can evaluate what governments are doing on their behalf,” Mooers said.

“Strengthening communication between scientists and the public strengthens our democracy.”

The E4D report was published one day after Julie Gelfand, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, released an audit showing Canada will almost certainly not meet its international greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2020 and doesn’t even have a plan showing how the nation might achieve its climate change goals.

Image Credit: 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.

Facing criticism in the lead up to today’s UN Climate Summit, which prime minister Stephen Harper is not attending, the Harper Government released a new public outreach campaign through Environment Canada, praising the country’s action on climate change.

The campaign points to four pillars of Canada’s climate progress including efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, investing in climate adaptation, “world-class scientific research to inform decision-making,” and international leadership in climate action.

Already critics are pointing to the apparent disparity between the Environment Canada campaign and Canada’s waning reputation on the international stage for its climate obstruction, the muzzling of scientists, the elimination of environmental legislation and massive cuts to federal research and science programs.

“Reading the Harper government’s claims about its climate efforts is like reading one of Orwell’s books,” Mark Jaccard, professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environment Management, said.

“Eliminating policy is to implement policy. Blocking and abandoning global negotiations is to lead global negotiations. Muzzling scientists is to have science inform decision-making. Working hard to increase carbon pollution is to decrease it. Black is white. Dishonesty is truth.”

Jaccard told DeSmog Canada, “We can no longer say that we are unsure what meaningful action on climate would look like.” Provinces across the country could follow Quebec’s lead and join California’s cap-and-trade system, he said, which would increase the effectiveness of the whole system, “making it much harder for some U.S. politicians to continue to present this as an economy killer.”

Recently prime minister Stephen Harper publicly criticized a polluter pay solution to growing emissions, saying no country would undertake climate action that might harm the economy. Onlookers were quick to critique Harper’s economy versus environment framing, an outmoded way of viewing the transition to clean energy, a growing sector of the global economy.

Katie Gibbs, co-founder of the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, told DeSmog the Harper government’s cuts to science positions and research stations prevents the country from responding strongly to the challenge of climate change.

She said Environment Canada “has undergone many staff and funding cuts which means they simply don't have the research capacity that they used to.”

“This hurts the government's ability to make science-informed decisions on many environmental issues, including climate change,” she said. 

Gibbs also pointed out that a special working group within Environment Canada that was tasked with working on oil and gas regulations with industry appears to have been disbanded in early 2013. 

Similarly, the Harper government also disbanded the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy (NRTEE), a government solutions think tank, after the body recommended the government implement carbon pricing.*

“Instead of listening to the experts at NRTEE, the government cut their funding,” Gibbs said.

“The government needs to listen to the experts: scientists, policy analysts and economists all agree that some form of carbon pricing is need to get our CO2 emissions down to safe levels.”

Despite Environment Canada’s claim that Canada is taking climate action, there are no binding emissions regulations for oil and gas development in the country. Canada committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord, although a recent Environment Canada report showed Canada’s current weak emissions reduction measures will prevent us from meeting that target.

“The government has been saying since 2011 that they were going to introduce regulations for oil and gas sectors but it hasn't happened yet,” Gibbs said.

Canada is one of the only major developed nations to have no climate legislation.

According to Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, that likely has to do with the current government’s close ties to the oil and gas sector.

“Our current federal government confuses what is good for oil companies with what is good for Canada and so refuses to recognize all of the amazing opportunities that would be open to us if we started pushing action on climate change rather than desperately trying to hold it back,” he said.

“There are, however, some promising signs at the provincial level such as Ontario's coal phase out and Green Energy Act, B.C.'s carbon tax and Quebec's focus on electrification of transportation.”

But he adds, in order to take meaningful action on climate change, the current government may need to distance itself from industry influence.

A report by the Polaris Institute showed industry lobbyists met with the federal government 463 per cent more than environmental organizations between 2008 and 2012.

“Meaningful action on climate change requires kicking the oil industry lobbyists out of the backrooms so we can get on with finally putting a price on pollution and investing in green alternatives like great public transit, wind and solar power, and more efficient homes, offices and factories,” he said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the NRTEE proposed introducing a carbon tax. They called for carbon pricing.

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.

There has been a lot of discussion around Canada’s “War on Science” over the last two years, prompted by a major gathering of scientists in Ottawa during the summer of 2012 who announced the “Death of Evidence” in the country. The scientists marched in response to the infamous Budget Bill C-38 that killed funding for numerous federal science positions and research labs coast to coast. The rally’s lead organizer, scientist Katie Gibbs, says the Death of Evidence protest made way for a whole new breed of young Canadian scientists who are eager to stand up and defend their laboratories. It’s about more than just science, says Gibbs, it’s really all about democracy.

Katie Gibbs was known around the lab as the graduate student who cared deeply about the implications of her science. “While I was doing my PhD, I was kind of the rabble-rouser on the floor. You know, I always had volunteers coming to the lab to pick up posters, or storing protest signs under my desk, that sort of thing,” she told DeSmog Canada.

Most of the professors she worked with didn’t participate in any kind of advocacy, she said. “My supervisor, in particular, he wouldn’t even write a letter to the editor.”

In the summer of 2012, however, it wasn’t Gibbs pushing for the Death of Evidence rally, the event that forced Canada’s science crisis into the public eye. Instead a group of professors at the University of Ottawa began organizing a public event and turned to Gibbs when they realized they needed someone brave to be the face of the march.

“What was interesting was that it was a group of professors that started thinking around the rally. My supervisor poked his head into my office one day and said a bunch of professors were meeting to talk about doing something in response to the Omnibus Budget Bill. He said, ‘does anybody want to come,’ and I was like ‘hells yeah!’” Gibbs said, adding she became lead organizer after that meeting.

Gibbs says her professors’ involvement was an indication of how concerned the traditional scientific community was with the changes that were being made through new legislation under the Harper government.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Generally scientists shy away from any form of advocacy, or even perceived advocacy, Gibbs explained. But given the current crisis of science in Canada that is changing with younger students, she said.

“The younger generation of scientists doesn’t seem to have the same hang ups around science advocacy that the older generation of scientists does.”

In order to channel the momentum of the scientific community after the 2012 rally, Gibbs launched Evidence for Democracy (E4D), an advocacy group dedicated to keeping science linked to decision-making in the country.

Part of the work of Evidence for Democracy consists in creating a distinction between advocating for policy and advocating for science itself, Gibbs explained.

“Normally in science when we talk about science advocacy we’re talking about: you do some research that shows A would be a good policy versus B, so you become an advocate for A and try to actually get that policy put in place.

Whereas what we’re advocating for is one step before that, in that we’re just advocating for science and for decisions to be made based on science. So it’s kind of less political or less polarizing than even traditional advocacy.”

For Gibbs, there is still some resistance to the very idea of science advocacy within the scientific community, but supporters are increasingly convinced of its necessity.

“I still feel scientists are hesitant but my argument is ‘if you’re not willing to advocate for the crucial role of science in public policy decisions then who is going to do that?’ That really has to come down to scientists,” she said.

The job of convincing the younger generation of scientists to get involved, however, has been much easier, Gibbs said. 

Katie Gibbs speaking at the Stand Up for Science rally in Ottawa. Photo by Kevin O'Donnell. 

“All the graduate scientists I worked with, they absolutely see the need for scientists to engage in that way and they have such a strong desire for their science to be relevant and for it to get out in the public space,” she said.

“Even for us [E4D] we have a ton of volunteers, most of them graduate students and it’s because we offer most of them the chance to work on policy outreach. They wouldn’t really get the opportunity to work on those kinds of issues in their traditional academic experience.”

Gibbs said younger scientists are choosing to study in the sciences because they are passionate about the outcomes of the science, rather than merely curious or passionate about the process. While more traditional scientists consider themselves separate from the policy outcomes of their research, younger scientists see themselves as a part of the larger complex of society, politics and policy.

“I know that was my case as well,” Gibbs said. “I was only interested in doing policy-relevant science. I enjoyed doing the science but my main passion was that it be used, rather than doing it just for the sake of doing it.”

As she sees it, this way of viewing science is politically “empowering.”

“I see evidence as really being the only way to hold governments accountable for their decisions,” Gibbs said. “Unless we actually know what information they are using to make decisions, we have no way of judging the quality of the decision.”

When it comes to the relationship between science and democracy, Gibbs said, it all comes down to evidence-based decision-making and accountability.

“I often say…that facts are a check on political power.”

Image Credit: Katie Gibbs by DeSmog Canada.

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.