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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 11, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Harper years were characterized by a sustained war on science, as documented by science librarian John Dupuis and Calgary writer Chris Turner, among others.

So when Justin Trudeau’s Liberals won a majority government in last fall’s federal election, some commentators suggested that Canadians weren’t necessarily drawn to the Liberal platform, but were so fed up with the Conservative government that they voted for “anyone but Harper.”

The Harper legacy that Trudeau inherited was a troubling one.

It included muzzling of government scientists and cuts to key government-based science-related positions and programs such as the National Science Advisor and the Advisory Council on Science and Technology — to name just a few.

Budget cuts to science-focused government departments (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, Parks Canada, etc.) led to scientists being laid off from the public service. Federal libraries were shuttered and irreplaceable historical data was tossed into dumpsters.

This affected the scientific capacity of federal agencies, particularly when it came to policy-making. Key legislation was then changed and watered down (e.g., Federal Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Environmental Assessment Act).

The final insult was the cancellation of the mandatory long-form census, which hamstrung policy-making at all levels of government.

University research funding through the tri-council agencies (NSERC, SSHRC, CIHR) was decreased, with the remaining funds strongly tied to key government priorities, essentially replacing basic research with applied research.

Funding for long term research programs was either severely cut or removed entirely: for example, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), the Polar Environment and Atmospheric Lab (PEARL), the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), and more.  

Trudeau used the election campaign to tap into the frustrations of the public and scientists with Harper’s anti-science agenda.

He included goodies for scientists in his platform, regularly mentioning the importance of science and science-based decision-making.

Upon taking office, therefore, he not only had to deliver on his promises (some of which are laid out in the Minister of Science’s Mandate Letter), but also deal with the broken system left behind by the previous government.

How has Trudeau fared on these two fronts? It seems he’s made some positive steps thus far.

Trudeau immediately created a Minister of Science position under the portfolio of the Minister of Innovation, Science, and Economic Development, and appointed a former scientist — Kirsty Duncan — to that position. In June, Duncan initiated a federal science funding review. All Canadians were invited to contribute, with a final report expected in January of 2017.

At the same time, the Minister of Innovation initiated a public consultation process on Canadian innovation, which included “supporting global science excellence.”

In October of this year, Evidence for Democracy (E4D) celebrated several of Trudeau’s science-related promises. These included officially unmuzzling government scientists, earmarking funds for freshwater research at the ELA, hiring more scientists at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and restoring the long-form census.

Two additional success, however, come with some caveats. While E4D supported Trudeau’s move to make government data more openly accessible, it’s important to note that Harper also introduced an open data and open publication policy — focused on the tri-council agencies rather than government as a whole — as part of his Action Plan on Open Government.

And while E4D approved of Trudeau’s announcement of funding for a new ocean research institute at Dalhousie University, this project was funded by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, which was actually initiated by Harper in 2014.

Regardless, there has been additional good news since October. In that time, the Minister of Science has pushed to increase the diversity of researchers appointed to Canada Research Chair and Canada Excellence Research Chair positions. She has also announced an open competition to fill the long-awaited position of Chief Science Advisor for Canada.

Most recently, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) was able to enshrine in their collective agreement with the government the right for federal scientists the right to share their research with the media.

It’s not all “sunny ways,” however.

.@JustinTrudeau Promised To Bring Us Out of Canada’s Anti-#Science Era, But We’re Not There Yet https://t.co/S6jflPRdGx #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 28, 2016

E4D and others have reported that some federal departments haven’t fully incorporated the unmuzzling directive. Some bureaucrats were quoted as saying that “unmuzzled scientists should be kept on a tight leash,” though they may have changed their minds since then.

E4D noted that promised policies from Trudeau to promote open science were lacking. There’s also the question of federal libraries: we don’t really know what state they’re in, or whether the damage done during the Harper years can or will be reversed.

While funding for new Fisheries and Oceans scientific staff is an excellent step forward, what about other science-related departments: Environment Canada, the Canadian Space Agency, Health Canada, and more?

Additionally, while the fundamental science review is a good idea, the success of the outcome depends on how the committee weighs and incorporates input from all stakeholders. And at the university level, the government continues to deal with grant review and funding problems at the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), problems precipitated by a restructuring of the agency completed under the Harper government.

Though the Liberals announced new funding to the tri-agencies to support basic research across Canada, overall funding for these agencies remains tight.

While Trudeau’s report card on Canadian science issues looks good so far, there’s still a lot of heavy lifting ahead.

This includes evaluating and implementing the recommendations of the fundamental science review, determining the role of science in Canada’s innovation economy, incorporating science into evidence-based decision making (as requested by 1800 early career researchers), and fully incorporating the principles of open science into government research.

We’ll see how things are going by the end of 2017.

Image: Justin Trudeau at the Perimeter Institute. Photo: Facebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 13, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I’m cautiously hopeful,” Walsh said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image: PMO photo gallery

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

    Decision makers need information to help them make decisions. And those decisions can be best evaluated when all the facts are in. But who supplies “the facts,” and how can we trust that they are unbiased?

The traditional role of government scientists has been to provide those “facts”; as a former government scientist, it was part of my job to provide unbiased advice to decision makers in forming policy. This has become more difficult given recent legislative changes and budget cuts, as well as a shift in emphasis away from basic science and towards advancing the intellectual property interests of private industry.

These changes have made both the “doing” of government science and the communication of scientific findings from government scientists to the public far more challenging than they need to be.

Objectivity is the cornerstone of scientific investigation. Scientists seek answers to how the world works by co

nducting experiments, making observations and careful measurements without any “agenda.”

When we publish our research, it is vetted by our peers, who review it critically to determine if they could reach the same conclusions based on our approach and analysis. It’s even becoming more and more common for scientists to make their data and analysis freely available allowing anyone to examine it and see if they can draw the same conclusions.

It would seem that this objectivity matters to Canadians when it comes to making decisions. In a recent “National Survey on Energy Literacy,” Alberta Oil magazine reported that more than 50 per cent of those surveyed trusted the academic community to provide “credible and trustworthy information” about topics on oil sands development, clean energy in Canada and carbon emissions.

Less than 20 per cent of respondents said they would trust either the federal or provincial government to provide “credible and trustworthy information” on these same issues.

While the academic community is larger than just scientists, all academics are subject to the scrutiny of their peers. It’s that scrutiny that helps advance our knowledge; through debate, we can see the flaws in our understanding, and the research questions change direction as required. The goal is truth, not pushing forward an ideology.

Even though there’s a lack of trust in government, there are still credible and trustworthy people in government departments—the scientists. The scientists who work in government are subject to the same scrutiny as those in academia; they publish in academic journals, sit on graduate committees and supervise graduate students in academic departments across the country. They are objective scientists, just like their peers working at universities. They possess the same level of credibility.

So why are government scientists trusted to provide “credible and trustworthy information” to their peers, but not to the general public? Too often we hear about government scientists being denied permission to speak to media about their research—Kristi Miller and Max Bothwell are two prominent examples.

Miller, a researcher at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, was barred from speaking to the press about her findings that a virus may have contributed to the decline of B.C. salmon in 2009. The prominent journal Science published her groundbreaking study in January 2011.

Despite media interest in her work, the Privy Council Office (PCO) turned down interview requests. According to documents obtained by Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act, the PCO also vetoed a press release about the study, stating that it “was not very good, focused on salmon dying and not on the new science aspect.”

Bothwell, also a scientist at Environment Canada, is an expert on the pervasive algae didymo. In May 2014, after the journal BioScience published an article that Bothwell co-authored, a Canadian Press reporter asked for an interview with him — and that’s when 16 public affairs people from different government agencies got involved, sending more than 110 pages of emails about getting approved responses for the questions. In the end, the interview did not happen.

According to media reports, Bothwell’s study may have been considered politically sensitive because it links didymo growth to global climate change factors.

These issues around limiting communication are systemic and well ingrained in the public service. In October 2014, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada reported that 90 per cent of federal scientists feel they cannot speak freely about their work, and nearly as many (86 per cent) fear reprimand for doing so.

This fear further serves the suppression of communication to the public through self-censorship; why try to promote your work when you think doing so will hinder your career?

Trust in academics comes from the perception of providing information without bias. But even more so than academics, government scientists are keenly aware of ensuring their work is presented in a bias-free fashion. While academics may emphasize the perceived importance of their scientific work to some particular policy issue, as public servants, government scientists cannot because the science they do is only part of the formation of policy.

Whether the science supports a given policy or doesn’t, neither the work nor the scientist who conducted it can be seen as having a particular “angle.” This would call into question how that science is evaluated by the decision makers.

Given this keen need for careful consideration, you would think that government departments would be quick to promote government science and the work of its scientists.

You’d also think that they would provide the funding necessary to investigate pressing issues, and help ensure that work is conducted in a timely fashion to provide the information as it’s needed, rather than cut internationally renowned programs. It seems obvious that promoting the work of government scientists, and allowing them to become part of the public conversation, would promote the role of objective government-led science in providing Canadians with “credible and trustworthy information.”

Instead, the opposite seems very much the case, in my experience. Simple tasks like hiring summer students or travelling to a conference require form after form. These, in turn, must be approved by managers, then directors, then deputy ministers, far up the bureaucratic chain of command. It’s unreasonable and illogical. Internal research funds are limited and/or highly directed, and seeking external funding becomes more challenging with every additional level of internal approval required.

Perhaps most important, and in spite of the growing mountain of paperwork and approvals that seems to directly counteract one’s ability to dedicate time to actually conducting science, excellent, top-calibre work is published by Canadian government scientists every day.

However, this work goes largely unpromoted by the very departments that employ them, it is frequently left without comment by the scientists who conducted the studies, and all too often, it remains unnoticed by Canadians.

The Canadian public values credible and trustworthy information, and it doesn’t currently believe that our governments are in a position to provide it. A critical means of restoring the public’s trust in government is to provide more transparency into how decisions are made and how various pieces of information are weighed in the decision-making process. Some departments have mechanisms to do exactly this (e.g., the Canadian Science Advice Secretariat within Fisheries and Oceans Canada).

But transparency and accessibility in the eyes of the public are just as important in helping to restore that trust. Denying government scientists the ability to comment on their own work only makes it look like there’s something to hide, and it suggests that there is neither trust in the scientists who conducted the study to speak objectively, nor in the public to hear what the study has to say from the person most qualified to discuss it.

Having a well-informed public is a critical component to a functioning democracy, as a society of decision makers. To consider that the public does not trust its own government as a credible source of information should be of great concern to everyone. Any relationship counsellor will tell you that trust is a two-way street.

Maybe if the Canadian government showed some trust in its scientists, that might help restore the public’s trust in the government.

Michael Rennie (@not_klaatu) is an assistant professor at Lakehead University. He was a research scientist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the Central and Arctic Region from 2010 to 2014.

This piece originally appeared in Canadian Journalists for Free Expression's 2014-15 Review of Free Expression in 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.

Lis Stannus remembers how serious the problem of acid rain was in Ontario when she lived on a farm near Lake Huron as a child. So when Rio Tinto Alcan informed Kitimat residents of its plans to increase sulphur dioxide pollution — a key contributor to acid rain —she couldn’t understand why no one fought back.

“Nobody was speaking out,” Stannus said, “and I found it amazing that those people who should have been speaking out weren’t.”

Rio Tinto Alcan received a permit from the B.C. government in 2013 that allowed the company to increase production of aluminum at its smelter in Kitimat, leading to a 56 per cent increase in sulphur dioxide emissions. Currently, both the government and Rio Tinto Alcan are defending that permit in front of a tribunal acting for the B.C. Environmental Appeals Board in Kitimat.

Rio Tinto Alcan says its ‘modernization’ of the smelter is now 94 per cent complete although the tribunal has the power to rescind the province’s permit, putting the immediate future of the plant in question.

The Muzzle Effect: Small Town, Big Company

Stannus said when she first heard about the emissions increase she contacted the city, the Kitimat health authority and local environmental groups to push back against the company’s plans, to no avail.

But it didn’t take long for Stannus to realize “there was a lot of muzzling” going on, she said. “We are all muzzled here.”

Part of the problem, Stannus said, is that the aluminum plant is a major job provider for Kitimat.

“Without Alcan, Kitimat would be nothing,” she said. “Kitimat literally wouldn’t be here.”

Alcan, now owned by multi-national mining magnate Rio Tinto, used to be fondly referred to as “Uncle Al” by Kitimat residents.

The company created Kitimat as an artificial township in the 1950s to support a growing workforce. Although the planned city was originally created with 150,000 residents in mind, its current population is between 8,000 and 9,000 — about 1,400 of which rely on the smelter for employment.

“It’s like nobody would speak out if they worked for Rio Tinto Alcan,” she said. “You just wouldn’t speak up.”

Stannus said she recently spoke to an employee of Rio Tinto Alcan who said he was reprimanded by company officials for posting about sulphur dioxide emissions on his Facebook page.

Morris Amos from the Haisla First Nation said his band council and Rio Tinto Alcan entered into a $22 million “Legacy Agreement” that acts as a gag order on Haisla officials.

“Part of the language of the agreement, which is really more of a contract, includes a clause that talks about the Haisla Nation never coming forward to question anything that Alcan does as long as the agreement is in effect,” he said.

The Legacy Agreement, signed in 2010, guarantees employment, business opportunities and a trust fund for the Haisla Nation as an outcome of Rio Tinto Alcan’s modernization project.

Amos, brother of former elected Haisla chief Gerald Amos, said the agreement means his nation can’t officially question the increase of Rio Tinto Alcan’s sulphur dioxide emissions.

“I take that as a muzzling clause,” he said. “It remains to be seen if that has any force or effect legally — it hasn’t been challenged yet.”

Amos says the Legacy Agreement explains why the Haisla Nation hasn’t played a role in fighting for pollution reductions.

The Legacy Agreement, “is part of the reason why there’s no band council presence in this Environmental Appeals Board hearing,” he said.

Amos said he can speak out about the Legacy Agreement and Rio Tinto Alcan’s sulphur dioxide emissions because he’s not a part of the band council.

“I work for a heredity chief, so that’s another thing altogether.”

Rio Tinto Alcan’s Permit to Pollute

B.C. approved a permit in April 2013 that granted Rio Tinto Alcan the right to increase its sulphur dioxide emissions by 56 per cent.

Stannus, along with fellow Kitimat resident Emily Toews, is appealing that permit approval in the Environmental Appeals Board hearing, arguing the increase in sulphur dioxide emissions unnecessarily threatens human health.

“I was really mad,” Stannus said. “Because it seemed like an infringement of our rights and it went against everything the government told us we were working towards: reducing emissions, keeping the air clean.”

Stannus realized she needed to speak out. “ I thought, ‘I can do it. I don’t have anything to lose.’”

Pollution Reduction Measures Not Required by Province

Rio Tinto Alcan’s ability to reduce its sulphur dioxide emissions is central to the appeal hearings.

Giving testimony before the appeal panel, Ian Sharpe, director of environmental protection with the B.C. Ministry of Environment, said before granting the permit he required evidence Rio Tinto Alcan “could and would” install pollution reduction technology called scrubbers “should there be a need to have emissions lower than what they applied for.”

But rather than require the company to install scrubbers, which would prevent the increase of sulphur dioxide emissions, the province granted Rio Tinto Alcan a permit to increase its emissions for an indefinite amount of time.

Sharpe told the panel he decided not to impose sulphur dioxide limits on Rio Tinto Alcan because both B.C. and the federal government are considering updating their own standards in coming years.

Stannus said she doesn’t understand why the province will allow emissions to go up if the company has already prepared for the installation of scrubbers.

“I learned there was a place put at the plant for wet scrubbers. That was a backup plan,” she said. “I thought, ‘if scrubbers aren’t feasible, why would they do that?’”

Stannus thinks it comes down to penny pinching. Rio Tinto Alcan initially announced its modernization project would cost just over $2 billion but that number has recently skyrocketed to nearly $5 billion.

The Environmental Appeal Board hearings are currently taking place in Kitimat and are now in their third week. The panel could rescind Rio Tinto Alcan’s permit or order the company to install scrubbers.

Image Credit: Lis Stannus courtesy of Doug Keech.

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.

They say the truth will set you free. But sometimes all it takes is retirement.

That’s the case for Steve Campana, a former federal scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who is using his retirement as an opportunity to speak openly about the federal government’s policies and the damage Prime Minister Stephen Harper has caused to public interest science.

“I am concerned about the bigger policy issues that are essentially leading to a death spiral for government science,” Campana told the CBC.

He said federal scientists work in a climate a fear.

“I see that is going to be a huge problem in coming years,” he said. “We are at the point where the vast majority of our senior scientists are in the process of leaving now disgusted as I am with the way things have gone, and I don’t think there is any way for it to be recovered.”

This week, three of Canada’s largest unions rallied in Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec City and Vancouver to protest the muzzling of scientists.

Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), which represents 55,000 public sector employees including 15,000 scientists, said the federal government “has no respect whatsoever for Canada’s public scientists.”

“Right now our scientists are constrained in their ability to share their research and collaborate with their peers. They’re frequently ‘missing in action’ at international conferences. They can’t speak freely to the media and the public about their work,” she said.

“These are all essential elements of performing science in the public interest and that’s how you protect our country’s environment and the health and safety of Canadians.”

According to PIPSC, by 2017 the federal government will cut over $2.6 billion from science programs and eliminate an estimated 7,500 positions from 10 major science-based departments. These cuts are expected to run deep in departments already dealing with several years of funding drawbacks.

A traditionally nonpartisan and apolitical union, PIPSC has publicly vowed to make the crisis of science in Canada a federal election issue.

PIPSC recently proposed revisions to its collective agreement, which would guarantee the right for scientists to speak about their work, as long as they clarify “they are speaking in their personal capacity and not on behalf of the Government of Canada.”

“Our members, more than anyone, acknowledge that there are issues and areas where there should be limitations,” Peter Bleyer, union consultant for PIPSC, told Global News.

“But other countries, like the U.S., have established policies to distinguish between when you’re talking on behalf of the government and when you’re talking for yourself and they do just fine.”

Bleyer said more independence is needed for Canada’s scientists and their right to that independence should be enshrined in employment agreements.

He told the CBC there are many stories of frustrated federal scientists.

"It has clearly gotten worse. There is very clear evidence of that. The problem is that it has created an atmosphere that affects not only those who are directly affected, but all of those who hear about it understand what is going on around them. That's what we call, very clearly, a chilling effect."

Campana said he thinks the chill effect is the result of the federal government’s desire for communications control.

"It's hard to fathom. It seems to be simply a control issue. You could sort of understand the rationale if you were potentially talking about a controversial subject and whoever is in government quite rightly has the right to make sure there are no critical statements about policy. But when you go to the extent of silencing just talking about facts, that just doesn't make any sense."

He added this could have serious implications for the public.

"If we don't have the system in place to deal with it, there is going to be some problem that happens in the next few years. I don't know, rising tide levels or tsunami coming in or an invasion of great white sharks, where people are concerned about what's going to happen, and we won't have the qualified people in place to answer those questions at all.

"You can't have those people in place overnight. It takes years, almost decades, to develop that capacity."

Image Credit: Tanya Stemberger

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.

Documents obtained by DeSmog Canada reveal that Canada’s Ministry of Environment vetoed an interview request on toxins in fur-bearing animals in the oilsands, even though the federal scientist was “media trained and interested in doing the interview.”

The Environment Canada scientist in question, Philippe Thomas, had asked members of the Alberta Trappers Association to send him samples of fur-bearing animals caught across Alberta in 2012. Thomas needed a broad range of samples to gain deeper insight into the contaminant load in animals living near the oilsands.

In late 2012, DeSmog Canada submitted a request to interview Thomas, and provided several written questions to Environment Canada to review.

Documents obtained via Access to Information legislation show that pre-scripted responses were prepared for Thomas should the interview be approved at the upper levels. The request was approved at the deputy general level, but denied in the office of former Environment Minister Peter Kent.

The request was also sent to the Privy Council Office for review, but was denied by the minister before requiring a decision by the prime minister’s top-level advisors.

Media requests involving controversial subjects such as the Alberta oilsands, climate change or species at risk are often subject to upper level political review and are routinely approved or denied at the ministerial level or in the Privy Council Office.

Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault is currently investigating the 'muzzling of scientists' after a formal request was made by the Environmental Law Centre at the University of Victoria and citizen advocacy group Democracy Watch. The groups asked the commissioner to investigate “the systematic efforts by the Government of Canada to obstruct the right of the media — and through them, the Canadian public — to timely access to government scientists.” That investigation is ongoing. 

Sean Holman, founder of Public Eye and professor of journalism at Mount Royal University in Calgary, said denied requests of this kind remind Canadians just how frustrated and undemocratic our access to information process really is.

“We have a Father Knows Best approach to government in Canada,” Holman told DeSmog Canada.

“Our elected and unelected officials have vast powers to withhold information from the citizenry — whether it’s because they feel that’s in the public interest or their partisan interest.”

“That’s undemocratic,” he said, adding, “but that’s why they feel they have the right to violate our right to know – frustrating access to information we have paid for.”

The internal documents from Environment Canada also show personnel were asked to keep DeSmog Canada’s previous reporting on oilsands’ science “in mind when preparing” responses to questions.

According to Holman, “it’s understandable communications staff would want to know who is asking for information from the government…from a public relations standpoint.”

“But,” he added, “from a democratic standpoint, do we want communications staff to be providing different or better access to that information depending on the requester?”

In doing so, what Environment Canada staff appear to be saying, Holman said, “is that not everyone has the same right to hold government to account since knowledge is a necessary precursor to that process.”

The research, carried out as part of the Joint Canada-Alberta Plan for Oil Sands Monitoring, is the first of its kind, and brings to light the lack of data to date regarding contaminants in fur-bearing animals — some of which are a source of food for communities and First Nations — in the oilsands area.

Environment Canada told DeSmog Canada the request to speak with Thomas “could not be accommodated.”

When pressed for a reason why, Environment Canada staff responded, “due to the nature of your request, a written response was more appropriate.”

The written responses provided to DeSmog Canada were not attributed to Thomas, however. In response to questions regarding the authorship of the answers, Environment Canada said “a number of Environment Canada staff contributed.”

Environment Canada confirmed beavers, fishers, martens, lynx and river otters have been tested for naphthenic acid, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and a suite of approximately 28 metals and inorganic compounds, pollutants that “have been identified as contaminants produced as a result of industrial activity in the Oil Sands region.”

Data collected in the samples will be “compared to existing guidelines for human consumption.”

DeSmog Canada is partnering with the Politics of Evidence Working Group to promote Write2Know Week from March 23-27. If you would like to write a letter to Environment Canada regarding the monitoring of contaminants in the oilsands area, and to let scientists know you value their work, visit Write2Know for an easy guide. 

Image Credit: Brandon T. Brown Nature Photography

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.

A group of 421 academics are requesting the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) end its audit of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), a group that describes itself as “an independent, non-partisan research institute concerned with issues of social, economic and environmental justice.”

As the Canadian Press recently reported, an internal CRA document stated the audit was the result of the CCPA being “biased” and “one-sided.”

In a letter to revenue minister Kerry-Lynne Findlay the group states it is “perplexed at CRA’s decision to perform the audit…on the groups that [the CCPA] allegedly engages in politically partisan, biased and one-sided research activity.”

“The CCPA is an internationally-recognized and respected research centre, built on a solid tradition of critical analysis,” the letter states. “Indeed, the CCPA plays a vital role by supplying much needed reflection on a number of policies, which it has always done in a fair and unbiased way, and which respects the fundamental tools of sound research.”

The group also criticizes the CRA, suggesting that by undertaking the audit, the CRA “fails to understand the nature of what academic research is all about.”

Read the full text of the letter below.

The request comes at a time when public criticism of what is being called the “politically-motivated” audit of Canada’s environmental charities and groups critical of the Harper government is reaching a new level.

At least 52 charities are undergoing or will undergo audit from the CRA. The federal government committed $13.4 million to the investigation and audit of charities engaged in political activities or who receive funding from foreign sources.

Mario Seccareccia from the University of Ottawa told the National Post the academic community is frustrated with the current government’s hostility towards academic research.

“It’s an environment that has been rather stifling when it comes to intellectual work,” he said. “There’s a real malaise…They’ve been irritating a lot of people.”

The group of academics is requesting the government halt all political activity audits of think-tanks until a neutral and transparent process for selection is put in place.

Minister Findlay maintains the audits are conducted in a manner independent from political interference or ministerial oversight.

Louis-Philippe Rochon, economist at Laurentian University in Sudbury and organizer of the open letter told the National Post there was ample support for the letter.

“This was a powder keg waiting to happen,” he said, adding signees were eager to add their name to the letter.

“Mostly from the social sciences and humanities, but some from the sciences. We have Canada Research Chairs, heads of departments, younger faculty, more established faculty, and from almost every university in Canada,” he said.

“It hit a raw nerve amongst academics,” he said. “The idea that if we reach a conclusion other than the official doctrine of the government, our research is somehow biased and political.”

Recently researcher Gareth Kirkby, a former journalist and graduate student in the public communications program at Royal Roads University, found the CRA’s audits appear to target charities that lean in a different direction than the current federal government, especially those that work on issues related to the petroleum industry.

Kirkby told DeSmog Canada the CRA document listing the CCPA as “biased” and “one-sided” fits in line with his graduate research. “The government has created a 'funnel' that pushes CRA to audit certain kinds of charities,” he said.

“And those charities are overwhelmingly on the ‘progressive’ side of the political divide, with policy preferences that differ from those of the cabinet: environmental organizations working on energy issues, international development and human rights groups, and charities receiving significant funding from labour unions.” 

Kirkby noted it was “strange” that some charities have passed multiple audits in the past, but are now being told they are “breaking the political activity rules or that their official ‘purposes’ are suddenly unacceptable.”

“The Fraser Institute, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and the C.D. Howe Institute are the right-leaning equivalent of the CCPA, with policy preferences pretty much lined up with the current government,” Kirkby added, “and they are not being audited for their political activities.”

“Any fair observer can see that all four of these think-tanks have world-views that influence their research choices without meaning that the result is partisan and biased,” he said.

Text of the open letter:

Dear Minister Findlay,

Recently, we were informed through reports in a number of newspapers that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has undertaken an audit of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) on the grounds that it allegedly engages in politically partisan, biased and one-sided research activity.

While we understand the need to prevent abuses of the charitable status, we are rather perplexed at CRA’s decision to perform the audit on this basis. The CCPA is an internationally-recognized and respected research centre, built on a solid tradition of critical analysis. Indeed, the CCPA plays a vital role by supplying much needed reflection on a number of policies, which it has always done in a fair and unbiased way, and which respects the fundamental tools of sound research. They have produced much-needed research on many disparate topics, such as on income and wealth distribution, the hidden government support of the Canadian banking sector during the financial crisis, and an analysis of alternative federal fiscal policy implementation annually. Since these various research studies are academically all of very high quality, you can therefore imagine how this news took us by surprise.

By undertaking this audit, we feel that CRA fails to understand the nature of what academic research is all about. Research begins from a series of questions and observations, and, from there, it proceeds, following a set of guidelines, to infer possible answers. In this sense, it contests. All research in fact is critical, by its very definition: it tests hypotheses, seeks answers, and must be allowed to find these answers wherever it can.

But critical policy analysis does not equate with political activism, nor is it “biased” or “one-sided”, as CRA has claimed. Researchers explore specific questions of interest, and then present the results of their research. Reaching a conclusion is not the same as bias. To illustrate, a CCPA researcher explored the issue of what would be the appropriate exchange rate regime for Canada and then concluded that a floating exchange rate was desirable to alternative types of exchange rate mechanisms because the former allowed the public authorities to conduct independent macroeconomic policies. The fact that this conclusion turned out to be similar to the policy view of the Bank of Canada does not make the CCPA researcher any more political than if the researcher would have produced that same research independently within his/her respective university.

The CCPA is not a political organization, nor does it engage in political or partisan activities. The fact that it has criticized government policy on a number of issues does not make it a partisan organization promoting a narrow agenda. Rather, it is engaging in serious, unbiased academic research. It may reach a different set of conclusions from those of the government, but then, this is allowed in a free-thinking, democratic country. On the contrary, we would argue, that such dissent should be encouraged and not stifled by such actions of the CRA.

Indeed, if there is bias, the bias seems to be mostly in the CRA’s decision to audit the CCPA and apparently no other think tanks, whose policy conclusions are friendlier toward current government policies. We are not aware of any audits being launched regarding “bias” at conservative think tanks like the Fraser Institute; some have publicly confirmed that they are not being audited (including the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and the C.D. Howe Institute). We are therefore left with the conclusion that the decision to audit the CCPA is politically motivated to intimidate and silence its criticism of your government’s policies.

We therefore strongly urge the CRA to put a moratorium on its audits of think tanks, until such time as a truly neutral criteria and auditing process are implemented to ensure neutrality and fairness, and to ensure that the audit process does not silence dissenting voices. Periodic audit should be conducted in a fair, transparent, and even-handed fashion across all the various think-tanks that claim charitable status in Canada, with a focus on financial management and integrity (not on the content of the research being conducted). Why single out only one such research centre that happens to be more critical of government policy? Instead of trying to muzzle and impede sound and legitimate research, it is now time for you to try to promote more effectively the public good in the form of sound critical research for which Canadian researchers are respected internationally.

Image Credit: UK in Italy via Flickr

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