The Narwhal’s investigation into the muzzling of Parks Canada staff has created quite the stir in the month since it was published.

The article — based on nearly a year of research, interviews with 10 Canadian journalists and several sources within Parks Canada — revealed that despite promises by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to unmuzzle government staff, Parks Canada employees continue to be limited in their freedom to speak to the press.

Journalists reported lengthy wait times for interviews, advanced e-mail approval of questions, limited access to experts and denial of field requests. Parks Canada scientists, too, expressed their frustrations with being so heavily managed by media relations staff, confirming they were unable to speak openly about their work.

The story raised such serious concerns that a week after publication, the Society of Environmental Journalists and Canadian Association of Journalists sent a letter to Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna and Parks Canada’s incoming interim CEO Michael Nadler.

The letter called for transparency and greater public accountability from Parks Canada, and insisted that journalists be able to speak freely and openly with Parks Canada staff and scientists in a timely manner, whether that be on the phone, in person or in the field.

In response, Nadler agreed to set up a conference call between Parks Canada and members of the Society of Environmental Journalists. A month after the investigation, he also issued a four-page letter in response to the concerns expressed by Canadian journalists.

Nadler’s response largely failed to take responsibility, choosing to refute the investigation rather than acknowledge a problem within Parks Canada.

In the follow-up, on-the-record conference call on October 18, which was intended to be a two-way dialogue with Parks Canada media relations staff, journalists posed a number of questions and commented on their own experiences.

Asked how Parks Canada intended to improve the relationship between Parks Canada and journalists, Nadler responded:

“I think we have a good relationship with journalists. Our level of responsiveness is very, very high. We’ve got a very collegial, positive and constructive relationship with journalists at the local and national level. Over the last two years, under a new government we’ve had the ability to be even more open on science than we were in the past.”

Contrast that with comments from a Parks Canada scientist who described the agency’s media protocol as “embarrassing” and “tragic.” Or with the comments of Ed Struzik, an award-winning environmental journalist and author who’s been covering the Arctic for more than three decades.

“It’s absolutely clear to me that Parks Canada scientists are not free to speak to the press,” Struzik told The Narwhal for the original article.

Parks in the dark

With few constructive remedies being proposed, Emma Gilchrist, editor-in-chief of The Narwhal and member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, stepped in:

“We have lots of environmental issues we need to report on — far more than we ever possibly could. I assure you we are not using our limited resources to write on non-issues. There are more than 10 environmental journalists quoted in this piece. We also have spoken with several scientists from within Parks Canada who can not go on the record, even anonymously, for fear of reprisals about speaking about their work. These are scientists who want to speak about their work and who are continually blocked from doing so. The first step to solving a problem is to acknowledge it exists, and right now I’m not hearing any acknowledgement that a problem exists within Parks Canada.”

Nadler responded that he didn’t think the data supports what journalists are asserting and added that he suspects Parks Canada media relations numbers are probably better than the other departments.

When asked to address the issues raised by journalists, Nadler said, “I want to underscore that four out of five interviews are interviews with experts or scientists. They aren’t a written response. An interview has been facilitated with an expert at hand. I hope that’s clear.”

This runs counter to the direct testimony of journalists covering Parks Canada, and still doesn’t address whether those questions had to be screened in advance.

Nadler pointed out that Parks Canada scientists are working in applied science, which may make them less accessible than scientists in other departments.

“They aren’t working on bench science. These scientists are often literally on the backside of a mountain introducing new species to an ecological area, or dealing with a survey, or gathering data, or even working with our firefighters to manage the risk to ecology. They are not as accessible as a bench scientist will be in some other federal institutions.”

However, journalists’ experience indicate that logistics are often not the barrier to gaining access to Parks Canada scientists. For instance, while in the Banff townsite in 2017, I ran into a Parks Canada staff member who said they would have been more than happy to provide a ride-along, but that the higher-ups would not allow it. My request for access was denied.

Ultimately, The Narwhal stands by its investigation, and the journalists and scientists who shared their experiences with us. A number of scientists have reached out to us in the past few weeks, and we would love to speak to more Parks Canada staff for a follow-up article.

We recommend reaching out to us from a personal device, using a personal e-mail address. Your comments are extremely valuable, even if you appear anonymous in our coverage. We treat all contact with sources who wish to remain anonymous as confidential.

You can contact us at editor@thenarwhal.ca to share your experiences and perspectives. Hopefully you’re not on the backside of a mountain.

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.

When Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government assumed office in November 2015, it came with promises of overturning Stephen Harper’s regressive, nine-year media regime which prevented many of the nation’s scientists from speaking with the press, often regarding hot-button environmental issues like climate change.

Some of the hardest hit by Harper’s policies had seemingly been Parks Canada employees.

In 2012, staff received letters warning they were not allowed to criticize the agency or the federal government amid job cuts. In 2014, a new policy forbade Parks Canada employees from speaking to the media without approval and required all requests for information to go through the national office.

And in the months leading up to the federal election, Parks Canada employees were even muzzled on operational issues, such as bear deaths, rescue operations or wolves in the townsite of Banff National Park.

On November 6, 2015, two days after the Trudeau government took office, Navdeep Bains, minister of innovation, science and economic development, openly stated that “government scientists and experts will be able to speak freely about their work to the media and the public.”

But nearly three years later, Parks Canada staff and scientists report significant freedom of information issues remain under Trudeau’s government.

Journalists say they continue to experience absurdly long wait times for media requests; are required to e-mail interview questions ahead of time for prior approval; and are frequently denied access to accompany employees on field operations. Many of these factors have ultimately led to media outlets killing stories about Parks Canada due to their non-compliance.

After Harper, Parks Canada staff thought things could only get better. But “if anything, it’s gotten worse,” one Banff National Park employee told me.

The Narwhal spoke with 10 environmental journalists across Canada for this investigation. Every journalist reported facing significant challenges with Parks Canada since Trudeau’s Liberal government came to power.

Requests for field access denied

Last summer, I arrived at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity to work on a feature regarding grizzly bear deaths on the railroad, and the efforts of Parks Canada and Canadian Pacific Railway to address the issue. This was meant to be a follow-up to some reporting I had done back in fall 2014, under the Harper government, when Banff and Lake Louise-Yoho-Kootenay media relations staff facilitated the opportunity to shadow scientists, engineers and human-wildlife conflict specialists on how they were addressing issues with bears in the parks. But this time, my requests for field access were denied.

First, media relations responded that staff were too busy. When I pressed further, I received another reason. “Thanks for your interest in bear/human management in Banff National Park. Unfortunately, at this time we are unable to accommodate shadowing of our resource conservation staff for the safety of wildlife, staff and media,” wrote Christie Thomson, the public relations officer for Banff Field Unit, after several e-mails in which I explained the work I had done prior and what I was looking for.

This was in marked contrast to my previous experience. Something felt off.

As a science and environmental journalist, I routinely report on environmental issues in the United States and Canada. This requires dealing with several federal agencies on both sides of the border, including the U.S. Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency. In Canada, I report on the work done by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Department of Ocean and Fisheries. It’s fair to say that Parks Canada has been far and above the most difficult agency to access.

After my own troubling experience, I began asking around the town of Banff where I heard the same thing again and again from local reporters. It quickly became clear that this was now the status-quo for the mountain parks of Banff, Jasper, Yoho and Kootenay.

Colette Derworiz, who spent four years working as the environment reporter for the Calgary Herald, departed the paper a year into Trudeau’s administration, but recalled still facing issues as of November 2016.

“[Press access] has improved on some fronts, but there are still challenges with speaking to Parks Canada scientists in a timely manner,” Derworiz said.

“I can’t do my job. It’s really frustrating.”

“Journalists mostly work on daily deadlines and it’s never helpful to wait several weeks to speak with someone who knows the subject area. Parks Canada scientists are often experts in their field, and they have to wait weeks to speak. If a new study is published, the news value is instantly diminished.”

A reporter who asked to remain anonymous cited repeated issues since the Trudeau government moved in.

“Interviews are highly scripted and can take a lot of time to organize,” she said. “We often have to go to sources outside of Parks Canada, so we don’t actually have the full picture.”

“I can’t do my job,” she said. “It’s really frustrating.”

Lack of access a ‘terrible disservice to the public’

After my field access requests were turned down by Parks Canada, I was directed to speak with Colleen Cassady St. Clair, an unaffiliated University of Alberta researcher who had worked with Parks Canada and Canadian Pacific Railway on their five-year joint action plan to investigate why grizzly bears were dying on the rail corridor between Banff and Yoho. St. Clair was one of three representatives at a press conference in January 2017, accompanied by Rick Kubian, acting superintendent of Lake Louise, Yoho and Kootenay, and Joe Van Humbeck of CP Rail.

Since then, St. Clair had been doing the majority of media relations on behalf of muzzled Parks Canada scientists, picking up the slack. When I met her on a June day in Tunnel Mountain Campground, our visit was sandwiched between two press trips with CBC.

“We have so many great stories to tell — hopeful and inspiring stories…It’s tragic.”

“No one can speak more knowledgeably and effectively about many of the things that matter to Canadians than their own publicly funded scientists,” she said. “That’s especially true of the Parks Canada agency ecologists, who have been tremendously tightly managed, even sanctioned for speaking out. Muzzling those voices and replacing them with generic statements by upper managers is a terrible disservice to the public, as well as science. Sometimes, it also causes lasting harm to the very resources those scientists were hired to steward and protect.”

And, she added, Parks Canada scientists and media relations staff in the field units are frustrated, too.

A Parks Canada biologist who spoke to The Narwhal on condition of anonymity due to fear of reprisals said he’s “painfully aware” of Parks Canada’s restrictive treatment of media, which he called “embarrassing.” “There is often a pretty big disconnect between the managers I deal with and what the minister actually wants to happen,” he said. If scientists speak out of turn, he says it could be a “career-limiting move” and they’d be stripped of their ability to speak with the media in the future. “We have so many great stories to tell — hopeful and inspiring stories — but the risk management prevents us from sharing many of them. It’s tragic.”

Eventually, I began to wonder, was this issue only happening with Parks Canada staff working in the mountain parks? Or was it bigger than that?

“Banff was always a highly political park,” former Banff superintendent Kevin Van Tighem told The Narwhal. “Anything that happens in Banff can make national headlines.”

It stands to reason, then, that staff might be under tighter control here. But as I would uncover in the months to come, the issue was hardly limited to the Rocky Mountains.

‘This shouldn’t happen in a democracy’

Ed Struzik is a Canadian environmental journalist who has been writing on the Arctic for more than three decades. He’s the author of Future Arctic: Field Notes from a World on the Edge and the 2017 non-fiction book Firestorm: How Wildfire Will Shape Our Future.

While flipping through an advanced copy of Firestorm last year, one paragraph regarding Struzik’s experience in Yukon’s Kluane National Park stuck out to me:

“We didn’t stop to see how the spruce bark beetle had ravaged the park’s forests because the Parks Canada fire and vegetation specialist wasn’t allowed to take us on a tour. (I had made the request six weeks beforehand.) The muzzling of Canadian scientists that occurred in the years when Stephen Harper’s climate-change denying Conservative government was in power still lingered in the first year of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration.”

And into his third, apparently.

I called up Struzik to talk more about his experience with Parks Canada.

“In spite of what the Trudeau government has said about liberating scientists from the gag orders they had under the Harper administration, Parks Canada, in particular, seems to be stuck in that mentality. It’s not entirely clear to me why, but it’s absolutely clear to me that Parks Canada scientists are not free to speak to the press.”

His story about Kluane, he noted, was not particularly incendiary (the same thing I had said about my human-bear conflict reporting) and yet he was told he would not be able to go out into the field, though could get an office interview.

“I’ve had this problem in other cases — I was working on a story for Arctic Deeply a couple years ago right at the beginning of the Trudeau government about the future of tourism in the Arctic. I wanted to go to one of the western Arctic parks — I’ve already been to all of them and written many stories with the cooperation of Parks Canada prior to Harper — and could not get them to talk at all about what they were doing for tourism. They did absolutely nothing to encourage me on that story.”

Eventually, even with funding secured, Struzik gave up and didn’t write the story.

“It’s absolutely clear to me that Parks Canada scientists are not free to speak to the press.”

“This business of writing down all the questions beforehand — they treat every enquiry from a journalist as though it’s a bomb that’s about to blow up.”

Though Struzik noted he did get some cooperation from the mountain parks on the book, where he had previously built up relationships, he thinks it’s still a nationwide issue.

“I kind of stay away from Parks Canada now. It’s a crazy mentality. This just shouldn’t happen in a democracy.”

Judith Lavoie told me she had a similar chilling experience when working on a feature story on Wood Buffalo National Park in the Northwest Territories for The Narwhal.

During the Harper years, Lavoie worked on the environment beat at Victoria’s local newspaper, the Times Colonist, frequently reporting on Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, Pacific Rim National Park Reserve and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve.

“I dealt with Parks Canada on a routine basis. They were always great. Every time you phoned, they usually persuaded you to come out on a trip. I never anticipated this,” Lavoie said.

Lavoie hadn’t covered Parks Canada since she semi-retired, up until The Narwhal sent her on assignment to cover diminishing water flows and pollution in the Peace-Athabasca Delta this June. UNESCO is considering adding Wood Buffalo to the list of World Heritage Sites in Danger because of threats such as oilsands development and hydro dams.

The experience left her flabbergasted.

Lavoie had intended to hitch a ride in an empty airplane seat with Sierra Club B.C., which was visiting the area. (The entirety of Lavoie’s trip was paid for by The Narwhal.) But when Parks Canada found out that Sierra Club would be bringing a journalist with them to report independently on Wood Buffalo, their tone swiftly changed.

“We can’t speak to you as a journalist without knowing the topic and without going through our process. We want to be open and helpful but we cannot take shortcuts with that process. We can talk further when you arrive in town,” wrote Parks Canada Southwest NWT Field Unit media relations officer Tim Gauthier in an e-mail on May 31. The trip was still five days out — ample time to receive such unnecessary press permissions from Ottawa. Gauthier indicated this would be impossible.

When Lavoie arrived with Sierra Club at the Parks Canada office in Fort Smith on June 1 she was immediately separated from the Sierra Club representative and taken to a separate room. “Divide and conquer,” she surmised. “They sat us down and said, ‘You know, we’re not going to be able to talk to you.’ ” The park’s resource conservation manager, Stuart Macmillan, she recalled, stood there looking sheepish.

Over the next two days in Fort Smith, while Lavoie visited sites with Parks Canada and Sierra Club, Parks Canada staff stayed entirely silent. After the trip, she was told if she e-mailed her questions — a subversive tactic for the government to be able to review questions from the media before responding — she could get a response that way. The final results were, expectedly, generic.

Eventually Lavoie was able to cobble the story together using about 10 sources besides Parks Canada. But the experience left her angry. “Parks Canada, which is supposed to be in control, is not giving us any useful information at all.”

Illustration: Carol Linnitt / The Narwhal

Who is responsible for muzzling Parks Canada?

So where is this Parks Canada gag order coming from?

Kevin Van Tighem, who retired as Banff National Park superintendent in 2011, thinks it ties closely to a bureaucratic problem within the agency. (It’s worth noting that Van Tighem also writes books and articles about nature, and the parks. He says he has had similar challenges with lengthy wait times as a writer).

“The philosophy during most of my years at Parks Canada was that media relations was about managing the relationship and facilitating communication. Now it’s moved very much into gatekeeping and risk management and that persists to this day.”

This, he says, is bizarre and controlling given Parks Canada’s strong mandate for public education. “There’s a million stories to be told and they’re sitting on them. They’re surrounding them with firewalls instead of enabling people to be informed by it.”

“You’re not respecting the media for what the media is.”

At the start of July 2018, I  reached out to Parks Canada’s national communications office. I wrote:  

“It’s become apparent that this is not a hearsay problem, and that journalists around the country are struggling to adequately report on Parks Canada issues (….)

I think it would be appropriate that Parks Canada issue a response to these concerns, and the public’s right to know about PC operations. If your policy does indeed state that ‘Parks Canada is wholeheartedly committed to working proactively with the media to promote public awareness and understanding of government policies, programs, services and initiatives’ then how are you going to improve upon access and relations with Canadian media given the number of complaints from working journalists?”

After nearly a month, a Parks Canada spokesperson responded:

Parks Canada is committed to providing Canadians with timely, accurate and clear information. The Agency adheres to the principles of open and transparent communications of the Government of Canada. As it relates to media relations, Parks Canada follows the Government of Canada’s Directive on the Management of Communications to ensure that communications activities are effectively managed, well coordinated and responsive to the diverse information needs of the public.

Parks Canada researchers and experts are available to share their research and speak freely about their work with the media and the public. The Agency regularly communicates the work of Parks Canada researchers through media interviews as well as speaking engagements and other activities, including open houses and public forums as well as through the Parks Canada website or other digital channels. Parks Canada also delivers large media events and announcements, some of these relating to science and conservation. Due to the high volume of media requests following these events and announcements, written responses are often provided to media to enable more rapid handling of requests for general information and to help media outlets meet their publication deadlines.

As an Agency that directly serves the Canadian public, Parks Canada actively seeks opportunities to share information and engage Canadians on the research happening at national parks, historic sites and marine conservation areas. Parks Canada promotes scientific research and conservation through proactive media outreach, on the Agency website, over social media, and on other digital channels, such as the Agency’s Youtube presence. Parks Canada’s commitment to open and transparent communications is evidenced by the high rate of responses to media requests in the chart below, which includes details on the number of media interviews provided on subjects related to science and conservation. Information for all of Parks Canada and for the Mountain National Parks are provided below.

Suffice to say, this was not the response I had hoped for, but one I was definitely expecting.

Attached were the numbers of press enquiries and responses received nationally and by the mountain parks division in 2017. Parks Canada received 482 media enquiries on science and conservation last year, 78 per cent of which resulted in interviews. However, such raw numbers don’t reveal the timeliness or quality of information, whether it was delivered in person, via telephone or e-mail, nor the number of journalists, who like Struzik, Lavoie and I, were requesting field access and offered e-mail or phone interviews instead.

“I’m aghast. All of this is very disquieting.”

For example, while wrapping up this story, The Narwhal contacted Parks Canada media relations staff for a separate story, asking for usage of stock photos from the Banff bison reintroduction. One week later, we received a nine-question “proposal form” to fill out. Most notably, Parks Canada asked how this project would benefit Parks Canada and the bison reintroduction program. (It is not the media’s job to benefit the government nor the topics we cover.)

Canadian restrictions worse than those under Trump administration in many cases

Finally, I spoke with Nikita Lopoukhine, who served as director general of national parks from 2000 to 2005 and continues to be involved with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. He also serves on Environment Minister Catherine McKenna’s national advisory panel on Canada’s Conservation 2020 initiative.

“It’s really fascinating to hear this,” he told me after I filled him in on my experience and those of others. “I’ve had some contact with [Environment and Climate Change Canada] Minister Catherine McKenna who adamantly says there is no concern about scientists talking about science. I’m aghast. All of this is very disquieting.”

Though Parks Canada scientists aren’t under a topic-wide gag order, problems with response times, reviewing of questions and field access pose a long-term and more insidious problem.

In a June 2017 poll by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, which was sent to more than 15,000 federal scientists, 53 per cent of respondents disagreed that they were able to speak freely and without constraints to the media about their work. How many of those scientists, I wondered, work at Parks Canada?

“Canadians are generally complacent,” said author Ed Struzik. “We haven’t cared that the government hasn’t responded to the media as they have in the past. But look south of the border, at the Trump Administration, and you can see where that leads you. You can end up having an autocratic regime because they know they can get away with it.”

Indeed, many Canadians are quick to criticize press freedoms in the United States with little inward reflection. I serve on the board of directors of the U.S.-based Society of Environmental Journalists, including their Freedom of Information task force. Over the past year, we’ve written several letters to the Department of Interior and Environmental Protection Agency condemning new restrictions on the press in the United States. But, it occurred to me as I contemplated the Canadian side, that many of these restrictions were exactly how Parks Canada has been operating for years under Trudeau and Harper, unchallenged.

“You can end up having an autocratic regime because they know they can get away with it.”

“There’s this assumption that the Trudeau government have changed things, and no doubt they have, but we still have this hangover from a bureaucracy that got its start with the Harper administration,” said Struzik. “Don’t think big. Don’t get into the newspapers. Don’t promote your agenda. Just maintain the status quo and we’ll get along. That’s not what we need to build a country.”

— With files from Emma Gilchrist

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.

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.

In an absolutely unprecedented move Canada’s Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) announced it will engage in political activity in the lead-up to and during the next federal election.

“Extraordinary times call for extraordinary actions,” PIPSC president Debi Daviau said in a press release.

“This government has forced non-partisan organizations such as ours to make a very difficult choice: to remain silent or to speak out. We have chosen to speak out,” added Daviau.

PIPSC, Canada’s largest union of federal government scientists and professionals, represents some 55,000 public sector employees across the country.

The organization says the Harper government’s harsh treatment of union employees is damaging the public sector and the nation’s democracy.

In a recent annual general meeting the group pledged to “take all necessary action to ensure that Canadians are aware of what is at stake in federal public service collective bargaining.”

The group also agreed to “energetically defend and promote federal public services and expose the damage this Conservative government has done to these.”

In addition, the organization is preparing for potential “job action.”

“This government is driving our members down the path to job action,” Daviau said.

“It has launched an unprecedented assault on unions, and other democratically elected organizations in this country. It has cut thousands of federal public service jobs, programs and services. It has targeted, through bills such as C-377, C-525 and last year’s C-4, the very existence of unions and collective bargaining.”

In 2013 PIPSC released a study called The Big Chill that revealed the degree to which federal researchers and scientists were prevented from speaking about their work under the Harper government’s strict communications protocols.

Ninety per cent of federal scientists said they were prevented from speaking freely to the media about their work. Eighty-six per cent said they feared reprimand if they were to speak out against a department decision they found to go against public interest.

In addition, 50 per cent of respondents said they were aware of political interference in the communication of scientific research to the public.

“Canadians deserve to know the damage this government is inflicting – unnecessarily and often underhandedly – to their services, programs and even to their democracy,” concluded Daviau.

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper 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.

In an open letter published Monday more than 800 scientists are asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end “burdensome restriction on scientific communication and collaboration faced by Canadian government scientists.”

The Harper government has recently attracted international attention after a report published by a leading research union identified Canadian scientists as particularly hard hit by budget cuts and communications protocols that prevent their freedom of expression.

More than 800 scientists from over 32 countries signed Monday’s letter, drafted by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The letter states “a rapid decline in freedoms and funding” is restricting scientific freedoms in Canada by preventing open communication and collaboration with other international scientists.

“Canada’s leadership in basic research, environmental, health and other public science is in jeopardy,” the letter states. “We urge you to restore government science funding and the freedom and opportunities to communicate these finding internationally.”

Harper government downplays concerns

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) is promoting the signed letter in news outlets across Canada to raise awareness during the Government of Canada’s Science and Technology week.

In 2013 PIPSC released a survey that found 90 per cent of federal government scientists felt they were not able to speak freely with the media about their work. The survey also found 86 per cent feared censure or retaliation were they to speak critically about a departmental decision that might harm public health, safety or the environment.

Recently the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy released a report that gave the majority of federal departments studied a low or failing grade when it comes to open communication, protection against political interference, freedom of speech and whistleblower protection.

In a statement Scott French, spokesman for science and technology minister Ed Holder, said the government has made “record investments in science, technology and innovation,” adding the country is first among G7 countries for its support of academic research and “other research institutes.”

PIPSC told the Canadian Press that $2.6 billion in budget cuts are planned or underway for Canada’s 10 science-based federal departments between 2013 and 2016.

French said “while ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments; scientists have, and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

World is watching Canada

Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned Scientists manager of strategy of innovation, said the open letter is meant to emphasize international scientific concern over Canada’s treatment of science.

Severe restrictions on research, communication and collaboration impedes the advancement of scientific knowledge and in some cases, Halpern said, U.S. researchers are hesitant to work with Canadian government scientists because of strict partnership agreements that prevent the free flow of information.

In early 2013 University of Deleware researcher Andreas Muenchow made waves when he refused to sign a revised Canadian information sharing agreement that he felt threatened his “freedom to speak, publish, educate, learn and share.” Muenchow had been collaborating with federal government scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a decade at the time of the revisions.

Halpern said the Harper government’s cuts to air pollution and climate monitoring are negatively affecting understanding of these issues. He added that scientists are also prevented from traveling to international conferences to share their work, undermining the scientific process.

U.S. scientists faced similar problems

Halpern said the Union of Concerned Scientists reached out to PIPSC because it faced similar threats to scientific freedom in the U.S.

“Science thrives in an environment that is open and free and where researchers can collaborate across borders,” he said. “Canadian government scientists have made many critical contributions to our understanding of environmental and public health challenges, and we need to best and the brightest throughout the world to be able to work together.”

Peter Bleyer, policy advisor for PIPSC, told the Canadian Press the group is publicizing the letter because “we thought it was important to draw attention to what the world thinks – what the science world thinks.”

He said currently federal scientists are unable to speak freely.

“There’s so much evidence pointing to how government science has been undermined and how Canadian government scientists have been muzzled,” Bleyer said. “What is more important now is what’s the impact of that? What’s the impact in terms of our reputation around the world…and what’s the impact on Canadians in their day to day life?”

“We really hope that this appeal to what the world thinks of Canada is something that will strike a chord.”

Image Credit: Stand up for Science rally 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.

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.

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com.

On the eve of an international climate change summit of government leaders in New York, Canada is being challenged about its own domestic record in addressing the heat-trapping pollution that contributes to global warming.

Here’s a historical timeline of some of the major climate change policies, statements and related decisions made by Canada since 2006 when Prime Minister Stephen Harper was first elected to form a government.

From a pledge to introduce a carbon tax in 2007 to internal debates about climate change science, this timeline covers the promises and the action by the Canadian government in recent years.

February 2006:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is sworn in after his Conservative Party wins a general election with a minority of seats in the Canadian House of Commons. The election ends a 13-year-old government led by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Harper’s Conservatives mainly focused on accountability and tax cuts during the campaign. They also criticized Canada’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, pledging to introduce a “made-in-Canada” solution to promote a healthy environment.

The newly-elected government cancels billions of dollars in federal spending to address climate change and promote energy efficiency. They also cancel work underway within Environment Canada to regulate greenhouse gases from large industrial facilities, describing the country’s legally-binding Kyoto target as unrealistic.

Harper and members of his cabinet note that the previous Liberal administration had promised to take action on climate change, but didn’t do anything to stop the rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions that put Canada’s Kyoto target out of reach.

May 2006:

The Globe and Mail reports on leaked documents from international climate talks in Bonn, Germany, that reveal the Harper government has instructed its negotiators to oppose “stringent targets” for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The newspaper reports that the instructions tell negotiators to instead favour a voluntary approach to addressing climate-warming pollution.

Environmental groups accuse the government of sabotaging the talks. It’s the first of many conferences over the next decade in which critics describe Canada as the worst and least helpful party at the negotiating table on climate change issues.

September 2006:

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose pledges to introduce a new law that would use the federal government’s constitutional authority to require all industrial sectors to reduce pollution. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers president Pierre Alvarez says that his industry is prepared to accept targets as long as other sectors faced the same regulations.

The opposition, which forms a majority in the House of Commons, would later reject her proposed legislation as inadequate. The opposition parties would then attempt to rewrite the bill, but the new version was abandoned by the Conservative government that claimed it would harm the Canadian economy.

March 2007:

Preserving the environment is one of the top themes of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s federal budget. The plan includes $4.5 billion in spending “to clean our air and water, reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change, as well as protect our natural environment.” The budget also restores funding to some measures that were scrapped, one year earlier, by the government, reintroducing them with new names.

April 2007:

Environment Minister John Baird unveils new targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution across the Canadian economy. The targets set new goals that are aggressive, but weaker than Canada’s existing commitments, under the Kyoto Protocol. Baird says that the new targets will come into force as early as 2010 for some sectors at an estimated cost of about $8 billion to the Canadian economy.

The Conservative plan proposes to give companies the possibility of meeting their targets by paying a $15 carbon tax per tonne of emissions that would go into a fund supporting the development of new technologies.

Baird’s new “Turning the Corner” plan also estimates the targets will also result in health benefits worth about $6 billion due to a reduction in air pollution and related respiratory illnesses.

“This is a mammoth undertaking,” Baird tells a news conference in Toronto. “It doesn’t end today. Global warming, climate change is one of the biggest ecological threats the environment has ever faced, and it’s going to require work every day, every week, every month and every year.”

Despite extensive consultations with all major industrial sectors over the previous year, Baird explains that more negotiations with industry would likely follow before introducing any draft regulations.

June 2007:

Speaking to an audience in Germany, Prime Minister Stephen Harper describes climate change as “perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.” He also notes that Canada was a small contributor to global warming since it was responsible for two per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

“But we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem,” Harper says. “And Canadians, blessed as we are, should make a substantial contribution to confronting this challenge.”

He also says in his speech that his government has already introduced mandatory emissions reductions targets for large emitters that would result in “absolute reductions in emissions levels by at least 2012 and as early as 2010.”

October 2008:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative party is re-elected as a minority government in a general election, following a campaign in which the party pledged to introduce a cap and trade system as part of its climate change policies. The system would set targets to cap pollution from industry and then allow facilities to meet targets either by reducing emissions or by purchasing credits. The credits could be sold provided that they have certified a reduction in emissions beyond business as usual.

Harper names Jim Prentice as his third environment minister after winning the election.

The global financial crisis and lobbying from industry warning about economic impacts would later derail legislation in the U.S. to introduce a cap and trade system.

December 2009:

An international climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark collapses without a binding agreement.

Stephen Harper signs a new voluntary climate change accord spear-headed by U.S. President Barack Obama. Harper weakens Canada’s previous target set under Baird’s Turning the Corner proposal, but matches a target set by the Obama administration.

February 2010:

Jim Prentice criticizes the Quebec government for planning its own aggressive fuel economy tailpipe standards for cars, describing the province’s approach as a “folly.”

October 2010:

The Harper government adopts new fuel economy rules, based largely on the Quebec and California model, matching regulations introduced by the Obama administration to reduce tailpipe pollution from new cars. Environment Canada estimates the new regulations will save the equivalent of 28 billion litres of fuel between 2011 and 2016. Jim Prentice sayshigher costs of purchasing cars would be offset by savings in fuel consumption and that the regulations would also encourage more electric cars on Canadian roads.

November 2010:

Prentice resigns from federal politics to accept a job as a vice-president of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and is temporarily replaced as environment minister by John Baird.

December 2010:

John Baird hails a series of agreements reached at an international climate change summit in Cancun, Mexico as the “first step” toward a binding global deal to ensure greenhouse gases peak within a decade and then start to decline. But he also warns that it would be mathematically impossible to stabilize emissions in the atmosphere without getting the biggest polluters, China, India and the United States, to take on firm commitments.

“I hope that coming out of Cancun that people, other countries will reflect,” Baird says. “Whatever we’ve been trying for the last 13 years hasn’t worked. Emissions are way up since 1997. If we want to stabilize them by 2015 or 2020, we’re going to have to get the big players involved.”

January 2011:

Peter Kent becomes Stephen Harper’s fourth environment minister and begins his new role by praising Canadian oil as an “ethical” fuel.

February 2011:

The Harper government confirms that it is no longer pursuing a cap and trade regime, but aiming to introduce new mandatory rules and standards for industrial pollution.

Peter Kent says in an interview that the government had a “target” of introducing all of its proposed greenhouse gas regulations by the end of 2011.

May 2011:

Following a general election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are re-elected, this time forming a majority in the House of Commons.

September 2011:

Peter Kent says the spring federal election has delayed work on the oil and gas regulations and that they wouldn’t be introduced in 2011.

Fall 2011:

Environment Canada creates a new group to work on the oil and gas regulations. It includes representatives from the Alberta government, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and three oil companies – Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Cenovus and Suncor. The group meets roughly once every four weeks.

December 2011:

Peter Kent announces that Canada is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol.

Across the government, officials are working on plans behind the scenes to reduce federal oversight of industrial activities and accelerate energy and resource development.

These plans follow a decision by President Obama to delay approval of the Keystone XL pipeline expansion project, that would allow for more oilsands exports from Alberta to the United States.

The new federal policies and laws would also respond to many detailed requests from oil, gas and pipeline lobbyists.

In response to questions about the Kyoto withdrawal in the House of Commons, Stephen Harper says: “I have said many times that climate change is a great problem for the world.”

March 2012:

The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Research is forced to shut its doors after repeated requests for renewed funding fall on deaf ears. The foundation had offered about $120 million in university grants for climate and weather-related research over about 10 years. The total is above the $110 million multi-year grant it received from the government.

The foundation would later rebrand itself as the Canadian Climate Forum, relying on private donors to fund its work.

A labour union representing federal scientists, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, would also estimate that the Canadian government was in the middle of a three-year purge, cutting nearly $3 billion in spending and up to 5,000 jobs from its science-based departments, including many scientific research positions and programs in charge of monitoring air, water, and wildlife.

One of the victims of the cuts is the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Lab – also known as PEARL – a scientific observatory station near Eureka in the high Arctic that loses about a third of its federal funding and is no longer able to remain fully operational throughout the entire year.

The government instead opts to spend millions of dollars to build a new research station that is more than 1,000 kilometres to the southwest.

April 2012:

The Harper government introduces a 400-page document in Parliament that proposes to scrap major Canadian environmental laws and replace them with new legislation.

May 2012:

At international negotiations, Guy Saint-Jacques, then the former chief federal climate change negotiator and ambassador, says that the Canadian government is working towards draft regulations for 2013” in the oil and gas sector.

“Once we have finalized the oil and gas regulations, we will have covered some 60 per cent of our emissions,” Saint-Jacques told his international counterparts.

June 2012:

A series of newly-released letters reveals that Peter Kent has been challenged by many of his caucus colleagues, including the prime minister, to answer questions about whether scientific evidence is real about climate change and whether the phenomenon requires a government response. When asked about the letters, Kent says that having debates and being challenged demonstrates the “vitality of any government.”

July 2012:

New environmental laws adopted by Parliament eliminate nearly 3,000 federal environmental reviews of industrial projects, including hundreds of projects related to oil, gas and pipeline development.

September 2012:

Peter Kent announces the government has finalized its regulations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, predicting that the new rules will result in the equivalent of taking about 2.6 million vehicles off Canadian roads over 21 years. The new rules are slated to come into force on July 1, 2015.

His department, meantime, confirms it has handed over the monitoring of data for ozone and radiation in the atmosphere, previously done by atmospheric scientists, to an information technology computer expert.

November 2012:

Following damage caused to the U.S. northeast by Hurricane Sandy, Peter Kent says climate change is a “very real and present danger” that governments need to address.

December 2012:

Canada confirms its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.

February 2013:

Peter Kent says the federal government is “very close” to finalizing new carbon pollution regulations for oil and gas companies.

April 2013:

Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who would later become finance minister in 2014,says in an interview with La Presse that scientists are exaggerating the climate crisis. He follows others in Harper’s cabinet and caucus who had cast doubts on occasion about whether humans are significantly contributing to climate change. Those include the prime minister, junior industry minister Maxime Bernier, former public safety minister Stockwell Day and Senator Nancy Greene Raine, a former Winter Olympic champion skier.

March 2013:

The special group created by Environment Canada to develop greenhouse gas regulations for oil and gas companies has its final meeting.

Environment Canada later explains that its engagement with stakeholders on regulations was continuing on many fronts, but that it was moving toward more targeted discussions.

April 2013:

In internal correspondence with the provincial government in Alberta, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers expresses concerns about stringent climate change policies, suggesting that the government should spend more time studying the issue. The industry lobby group also tells the government that tough regulations won’t satisfy its biggest critics.

June 2013:

Peter Kent says industry groups are cooperating with the government’s efforts to introduce regulations, also noting that companies are concerned about “maximiz(ing) profits for their shareholders.”

July 2013:

After being replaced in a cabinet shuffle by Harper’s fifth environment minister, Leona Aglukkaq, Peter Kent says he was “profoundly disappointed” that the government didn’t complete the oil and gas regulations under his watch. He reiterates that the government was close but had to navigate through many lobby interests as well as concerns of putting jobs or investments at risk.

September 2013:

Leona Aglukkaq’s office prevents her department from publicly stating that the government accepts scientific evidence that humans are causing climate change and takes the matter seriously.

Aglukkaq later gives a television interview in which she casts doubts about whether ice is melting in the Arctic.

October 2013:

The Harper government opens a new session of Parliament with a throne speech saying that it will work with provinces to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas companies.

November 2013:

Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq says she’s “not ready” to introduce new regulations for oil and gas companies.

June 2014:

Stephen Harper, at a joint news conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, suggests other countries aren’t being frank about scaling back climate change policies to protect their economies. He suggests aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including a carbon tax, would harm the economy.

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper on his 9th annual Arctic visit. Image courtesy of the Prime Minister of Canada's photo gallery.

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

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.

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.

This is a guest post by Mike De Souza. It originally appeared on mikedesouza.com and is republished here with permission. 

Ten days ago, I asked Environment Canada whether any of its scientists would be available for interviews about their research.

The department hasn’t yet answered this question along with others.

The questions arose following the publication of a new study concluding that deposits of toxic mercury were forming a bull’s eye around oilsands operations in Alberta.

The scientists who did the research from Environment Canada were previously discouraged from talking about their work at a science conference in 2011, according to documents released through access to information legislation.

Those documents included a script that suggested they downplay human health impacts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a toxin that can originate from smokestacks in oilsands facilities or other industrial development, by comparing it to food fit for consumption.

“If pressed on human health (say that) these (oilsands) substances are also found in BBQ’ed steak,” said the script, which was shared with the offices of former natural resources minister Joe Oliver – now the finance minister – and former environment minister Peter Kent, who is still sitting as a Conservative MP.

While the department appears to be struggling to answer basic questions about this script and other science-related questions, its minister, Leona Aglukkaq, has declined to answer some questions about her own opinions and approach.

As part of this recently published story in InsideClimate News about Quebec and California’s innovative cap and trade system to tackle industrial greenhouse gases and fight climate change, we asked the minister’s office if it could share her opinion about these cross-border efforts to make polluters pay. But her spokeswoman declined to comment and forwarded questions (about the minister’s opinions) to non-partisan public servants at Environment Canada.

The federal department has recently released a new “science guide” with five key principles designed to help it fulfill its mandate: Relevance, transparency, responsiveness, excellence and collaboration.

But it’s not clear what the department means by “transparency” or “responsiveness” along with the other guiding principles.

Aglukkaq was recently pressed in the House of Commons by NDP MPs François Choquette and Kennedy Stewart to address allegations that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is censoring information about scientific research.

Stewart alleged that Aglukkaq was “forcing staff her staff to parrot” the grilled steak comparison.

“But the question still remains,” Stewart said on June 5 in the Commons. “A government study confirms raised mercury levels surrounding the oil sands. It actually calls it a bull’s eye around the oil sands. The scientist who wrote the report is mysteriously unavailable for comment. Will the minister spare us the rhetoric and instead unmuzzle our scientists so Canadians can hear the truth?”

Aglukkaq responded by suggesting that the Harper government was showing transparency by allowing the scientific research to be published.

“We worked with the province of Alberta to launch a world-class scientific monitoring system of the oil sands,” Aglukkaq told the Commons in response to Stewart. “It is a transparent and public process. Some of Canada’s top scientists are involved. The report shows our plan is working. We will continue to be transparent and promote independent scientific assessment and evaluation…”

But the minister, her department and the government have still not answered more than a dozen questions. Here is a partial list of what was asked and the “response” from the government:

1) Will any of the scientists from Environment Canada be available for interviews about their research in the future? No response.

2) When will these scientists be allowed to give interviews? No response.

3) If none of these scientists will be allowed to speak publicly about their research, would you be able to provide an explanation? No response.

4) What efforts has Environment Canada taken to measure levels of mercury, VOCs, PAHs or other pollutants coming from oilsands facilities at their source? No response.

5) How does Environment Canada know that pollution levels reported by oilsands companies in their inventory reports are accurate? No response.

6) Does Environment Canada believe the concentrations of PAHs in barbecued steaks are comparable to the concentrations of PAHs produced as a result of industrial development in the oilsands? No response.

7) Can you provide some background scientific details about how a comparison with barbecued steak realistically represents the nature of harmful substances found in waters or ecosystems near oilsands production? No response.

Questions to Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq:

1) How many times has the minister met in boardrooms of oil and gas companies or with CAPP since she was named minister?

2) How does she approach these meetings and how does she prepare for them?

3) Has she ever personally felt intimidated by having to deal directly with executives from the oil and gas industry?

4) Does she approach the meetings in the same way she approaches meetings with other stakeholders?

5) What differences has she observed in the approach of oil and gas industry stakeholders versus the approach of other stakeholders?

Response from minister’s spokeswoman Amanda Gordon to all five questions:

Minister Aglukkaq meets with a range of stakeholders relevant to her portfolios to hear their views and perspectives. The interests of Canadians are Minister Aglukkaq’s top priority in all of her meetings.

Follow up questions:

1) What does making the interests of Canadians a top priority mean to the minister?

2) How does she do this or what evidence or examples can she give to demonstrate how she has done this?

Response prepared by non-partisan public servants at Environment Canada:

The department will be responding to you on this issue.

The Government of Canada is committed to protecting the environment while keeping the Canadian economy strong.

The Government has created three national wildlife areas, three marine protected areas, two national parks, two national marine conservation areas, and one national historic site since 2006 – for a total an area nearly twice the size of Vancouver Island. More than 90 000 hectares of wildlife habitat have also been protected and, thanks to federal investments, the Nature Conservancy of Canada has secured an additional 369 000 hectares. Moving forward, and as announced in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, the Canadian Government will unveil a new National Conservation Plan to further increase protected areas, focusing on stronger marine and coastal conservation. The Plan, which will be announced in 2014, will build upon conservation-related measures in Budget 2014, including encouraging donations under the Ecological Gifts Program, investing in national parks, conserving recreational fisheries, and supporting family-oriented conservation activities.

Considerable efforts are also dedicated to the conservation and protection of species at risk. An important milestone was the December 2013 publication of an Emergency Protection Order for the Greater Sage-Grouse under the Species at Risk Act, which came into force on February 18, 2014. This marked the first time that the federal government has issued such an order to protect a species facing imminent threats to its survival.

The Government of Canada believes that economic prosperity and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive goals. Through its Responsible Resource Development approach, Canada achieves the right balance to unleash the potential of its resource sectors to create high-value jobs while strengthening safety and environmental protection. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) is an important part of this approach. CEAA 2012 established legal timelines for environmental assessments and reduced duplication with provincial reviews. However, faster reviews do not mean substandard reviews. The government continues to have a rigorous environmental review process.

Environment Canada provides Canadians with high quality weather services and is currently working to strengthen its activities. This includes new investments in federal infrastructure such as radars, and surface weather and climate monitoring stations. Canadians will benefit from more timely, accurate weather warnings and forecasts in all parts of the country as a result of these important investments.

The Government has a strong, comprehensive approach to safeguard this country’s water resources. Canada’s collaboration with the United States led to an enhanced and renewed Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Government is investing in the Great Lakes Nutrient Initiative to address the re-emergence of algae caused by excessive phosphorous discharges, in the clean-up of Hamilton Harbour, and in the restoration of the ecological health of the Lake Simcoe area. The second phase of the Lake Winnipeg Basin Initiative has commenced and the St. Lawrence Action Plan has been renewed.

Environment Canada’s enforcement initiatives continue to help provide Canadians with a clean, safe and sustainable environment. In 2013 our enforcement team worked on a number of major prosecutions, including a $500,000 fine for the illegal use of pesticide in the waters of southwestern New Brunswick. This was one of the largest fines ever administered under the Fisheries Act.

With respect to greenhouse gases, the Government of Canada has taken action on two of the largest sources of emissions in this country-the transportation and electricity sectors. Canada was the first country to phase out traditional coal-fired electricity generation units. Thanks to our actions, this country’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions are projected to be 128 megatonnes lower relative to where emissions had originally been projected to be in 2020 without action.

Internationally, Canada is actively participating in negotiations towards a single, new international climate change agreement that includes meaningful commitments by all major emitters. Canada has fully delivered on its fast-start financing commitment by providing $1.2 billion over 2010-2013, our largest ever contribution to international climate change finance. This funding is now supporting a range of climate change projects in over 60 developing countries. In addition, Canada is proud to be a lead partner in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) to reduce short-lived climate pollutants, which are potent global warmers and dangerous air pollutants.

Email response from Environment Canada to request for interview with scientists who published research on mercury pollution in oilsands region:

While we are unable to arrange for an interview, I can provide you with a response on this issue.

To date, the results of environmental monitoring in the oil sands region show that low levels of oil sands development-related substances are present in both air and water.

Mercury levels found in the oil sands region snowpack near the development are above the background levels but below guidelines. Levels decrease with increasing distance from oil sands development.

Mercury levels are low compared with many industrial developments, and are only slightly higher than those found in relatively undeveloped areas such as northwestern Ontario.

Considering methylmercury is a neurotoxin that bioaccumulates in the food web, it is important to continue tracking mercury levels in the oil sands development area to ensure they remain below acceptable levels.

Summary of Major Findings:

Atmospheric deposition of mercury and methylmercury is elevated near major oil sands developments (i.e. loads reach over 1,000 and 19 ng/m2 for total mercury and methylmercury, respectively, at several sites in the vicinity of the oil sands development).

Maximum mercury loads in the oil sands region are low compared to those observed in contaminated region of the Northern hemisphere that are directly influenced by anthropogenic sources.

What is somewhat unique about our findings is that although mercury deposition is often elevated in industrial areas, methylmercury (the toxic form that bioaccumulates through food webs) is not often measured and is generally not thought to be deposited in atmospheric deposition in large quantities.

The raw data that went into generating the deposition maps will be made available on the Canada-Alberta Oil Sands Environmental Monitoring Information Portal in the coming months.

Concentrations of mercury in melted snow are under water quality guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life established by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).

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.