We’re all taught in life that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The sentiment has been applied to Germany’s renewable energy transition, or Energiewende, with critics questioning emission reduction reporting or arguing costs of new systems are too high. But even if the Energiewende isn’t quite as shiny as it first appears, there are still a few important lessons from Germany's energy transition that Canada can take to heart.

Localized and democratized energy production

Germany's next steps

Political obstacles to Canada's energy transition

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.

More than 100 scientists and economists "concerned about climate change and its impacts" signed an open letter Monday calling on U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, which would transport oilsands crude from Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast, mainly for export.

The signers "urge [President Obama and Secretary Kerry] to reject the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline as a project that will contribute to climate change at a time when we should be doing all we can to put clean energy alternatives in place."

The letter, signed by prominent leaders in science and economics, is the latest addition to an already strong and growing opposition to the Keystone XL project in the U.S., including 2 million public comments sent to President Obama and a previous open letter signed last month by over 200 business leaders and entrepreneurs asking for the rejection of the pipeline.

The signers write:

"As you both have made clear, climate change is a very serious problem. We must address climate change by decarbonizing our energy supply. A critical first step is to stop making climate change worse by tapping into disproportionately carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands bitumen. The Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the energy-intensive strip-mining and drilling of tar sands from under Canada's Boreal forest, increasing global carbon emissions. Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction."

The signers remind President Obama and Secretary Kerry of their previous commitments to combating climate change, and reiterate that "evidence shows that Keystone XL will significantly contribute to climate change."

The letter emphasizes that fuels from oilsands crude result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than fuel from conventional oil. The Keystone XL pipeline would open up overseas markets for higher-polluting oilsands fuels, causing "a sizeable expansion of tar sands production and also an increase in the related greenhouse gas pollution."

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have yet to make a final decision on Keystone XL. The U.S. State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on the pipeline, released in January, has been criticized by environmental groups as flawed and narrow in scope.

As the open letter observes, "the State Department environmental review chose an inconsistent model for its 'most likely' scenarios, using business-as-usual energy scenarios that would lead to a catastrophic six degrees Celsius rise in global warming," a potential rise that, the signers note, "has no place in a sound climate plan."  

A decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, write the signers, would be one "based on sound science," given the 8.4 billion metric tons of CO2e emissions the pipeline could produce over its expected 50-year lifespan.

"These are emissions that can and should be avoided with a transition to clean energy," states the letter.

The signers in the letter include Nobel Prize winners Dr. Philip W. Anderson and Dr. Kenneth J. Arrow, environmental activist and broadcaster Dr. David Suzuki, several authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports, Fellows of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) including Dr. James McCarthy and Dr. Richard Norgaard, and Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC) including Dr. Mark Jaccard, Dr. Lawrence Dill, among numerous other lauded scientists and economists.

The public can add their voice against the Keystone XL pipeline to an online petition hosted by the National Resource Defence Council (NRDC).

Image Credit: maisa_nyc / 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 changes to Canada’s federal elections proposed in the Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23), threaten to “seriously damage the fairness and transparency of federal elections and diminish Canadians’ political participation,” according to a collective of 160 Canadian professors. The group, comprised of academics specializing in “the principles and institutions of constitutional democracy,” released an open letter Tuesday requesting the federal government “heed calls for wider consultation in vetting this Bill.”

“Beyond our specific concerns about the Bill’s provisions (see below), we are alarmed at the lack of due process in drafting the Bill and in rushing it through Parliament. We see no justification for introducing legislation of such pivotal importance to our democracy without significant consultation with Elections Canada, opposition parties, and the public at large.”

The group of signatories highlight four significant concerns associated with the proposed Fair Elections Act:

1. Voter ID

The group of professors worry the potential dismissal of Voter Information Cards (VICs) and identity 'vouching' will affect the ability of Canadians without government-issued identification proving their current address to vote. “We believe that the elimination of VICs as a valid form of ID in federal elections would reduce the likelihood of voting by some citizens.”

“Currently, Elections Canada protects the right to vote of citizens who lack standard forms of identification by allowing them to take an oath affirming their identity, citizenship, and residence in the polling division, and having a qualified voter from the same polling division vouch for their eligibility. In 2011, approximately 120,000 citizens relied on the vouching provision in order to vote. By eliminating vouching, the Fair Elections Act would disenfranchise many of these citizens.”

The Harper government currently points to the Neufeld Report on Compliance Review, which suggests ‘irregularities’ can occur in vouching cases, as justification for ridding the system of VICs. But, the professors point out, the Neufeld Report “did not cite a single case of fraudulent or ineligible voting arising from the vouching system. To the contrary, the Report recommended keeping the vouching system in place as a protection for citizens’ right to vote, while working to reduce the need for vouching through enhanced use of the very VICs that Bill C-23 would disqualify.”

2. Fair elections

In addition the group expressed concern the Bill would limit Elections Canada in its capacity to protect fair elections by eliminating the enforcement arm of the agency. Rather than leave oversight to the Commissioner of Elections, the Bill would transfer the duty to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, a move that would sever the link between the Commissioner and Parliament.

The proposed Bill would also significantly weaken the powers of the Commissioner to, for example, compel witness testimony, or demand receipts and other documentation from political parties. The Commissioner’s authority in these matters is crucial to investigations, like the one conducted following the robocall voter suppression scandal.

“Bizarrely, the Bill forbids Elections Canada from promoting democratic participation and voting through 'get out the vote' campaigns. Elections Canada would even be prevented from publishing its research reports on the electoral process. This gag on Elections Canada would make Canada an outlier among liberal democracies, instead of the global leader it now is.”

3. Campaign finance

The changes proposed in the Fair Elections Act will have negative implications for the role of money in politics, the group says. By increasing caps on private donations, the bill creates “a bias in favour of those with more personal wealth.”

The Bill will also discount fundraising when considering campaign costs, but only for funds raised from previous donors who gave more than $20. This is to the detriment of small donors, says the group, and advantages those parties with larger donor lists.

“Allowing money to influence electoral outcomes stands at stark odds with principles of political equality and democratic fairness. In contrast to our neighbour to the south, Canada has consistently recognized that allowing money into the political arena prevents those without financial backing from being heard and discourages participation when citizens perceive that the playing field of politics tilts toward wealth. This feature of Canadian democracy deserves strong protection, not erosion of the sort introduced by Bill C-23.”

4. Partisan activity at polling stations

Elections Canada is responsible for overseeing election activities at polling stations across the country. Bill C-23 would require Elections Canada to admit poll supervisors appointed by political parties, rather than officers appointed on merit.

As the Neufeld Report states “appointing elections officers on any basis other than merit is inconsistent with the principle of administrative neutrality, and contrary to predominant Canadian values [and] established international electoral practices.”

Although there is some allowance for party or candidate-appointed polling officers, the group of professors argues we should be reducing, rather than expanding, their numbers.

In conclusion, the group writes:

“Elections Canada reports to Parliament, not the government of the day. This is important because the rules governing elections have special significance in a democracy. The legitimacy of the entire political system depends on the fair and impartial administration of electoral procedures. It is vital that the rules of democracy be debated in an open and transparent way, shielded from partisan calculations.

Canadian citizens’ trust in the democratic process relies heavily on Elections Canada as the institution that ensures the fair and impartial administration and enforcement of our electoral laws. Full consideration of its advice and experience is vital to the legitimacy of any major changes to those laws. Especially in view of the sensitive political climate in which allegations of electoral fraud remain unresolved, both prudence and fair play demand that the Bill’s proposed changes to the laws of our democracy receive full parliamentary and public debate.”

Signatories:

Monique Deveaux, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph

Melissa Williams, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Maxwell Cameron, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Yasmin Dawood, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Patti Tamara Lenard, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Arash Abizadeh, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Yasmeen Abu-Laban, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Cameron Anderson, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario

Christopher G. Anderson, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Lesley Andres, Professor of Education, University of British Columbia

Caroline Andrew, Professor, Centre on Governance, University of Ottawa, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Barbara Arneil, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Yildiz Atasoy, Professor of Sociology, Simon Fraser University

Chloë G. K. Atkins, Associate Professor of Communication and Culture, University of Calgary

Michael Atkinson, Professor, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Gerald Baier, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Ryan Balot, Professor of Political Science and Classics, University of Toronto

Keith Banting, Professor of Political Studies, Queen’s University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Sylvia Bashevkin, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Ronald Beiner, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Davina Bhandar, Associate Professor of Canadian Studies, Trent University

Laurence Bheher, Associate Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Antoine Bilodeau, Associate Professor of Political Science, Concordia University

André Blais, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Charles Blattberg, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Pierre Bosset, Professor of Public Law, Université du Québec à Montréal

Sophie Bourgault, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Leah Bradshaw, Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Penny Bryden, Professor of History, University of Victoria

Gillian Calder, Associate Professor of Law, University of Victoria

David Cameron, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Joseph Carens, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Don Carmichael, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Paul R. Carr, Associate Professor of Sociology and Interdisciplinary Studies, Lakehead University

R. Kenneth Carty, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Julián Castro-Rea, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Simone Chambers, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Mary Chapman, Associate Professor of English, University of British Columbia

Ryoa Chung, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal

Colin Coates, Professor of Canadian Studies, York University

Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

John Courtney, Professor of Political Science, University of Saskatchewan, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Hugo Cyr, Professor of Political Science and Law, Université du Québec à Montréal

Rita Dhamoon, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Alexandra Dobrowolsky, Professor of Political Science, Saint Mary’s University

Stefan Dolgert, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Mathieu Doucet, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo

Janique Dubois, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Pascale Dufour, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Avigail Eisenberg, Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Lynda Erickson, Professor Emerita of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Patrick Fafard, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Katherine Fierlbeck, Professor of Political Science, Dalhousie University

Craig Forcese, Associate Professor of Law, University of Ottawa

Cristie Ford, Associate Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Andrea Geiger, Associate Professor of History, Simon Fraser University

Elisabeth Gidengil, Professor of Political Science, McGill University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Pablo Gilabert, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Concordia University

Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, Associate Professor Political Studies, Queen’s University

Joyce Green, Professor of Political Science, University of Regina

Rodney Haddow, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Blayne Haggart, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brock University

Marc Hanvelt, Adjunct Research Professor of Political Science, Carleton University

Lois Harder, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Kathryn Harrison, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Matthew Hayday, Associate Professor of History, University of Guelph

Andrew Heard, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Joseph Heath, Professor of Philosophy and School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto

Matthew James, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria

Laura Janara, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Nancy Janovicek, Associate Professor of History, University of Calgary

Leslie Jeffrey, Professor of History and Politics, University of New Brunswick, Saint John

Candace Johnson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Guelph University

Rebecca Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Victoria

Richard Johnston, Professor of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Luc Juillet, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Darlene Juschka, Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Women’s Studies, University of Regina

David Kahane, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Willeen Keough, Associate Professor of History, Simon Fraser University

Loren King, Associate Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Rebecca Kingston, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

David Laycock, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Patrick Leblond, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Jean Leclair, Professor of Law, Université de Montréal

Lawrence Leduc, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto

Theresa Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Guelph

Rémi Léger, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Hester Lessard, Professor of Law, University of Victoria

Dominique Leydet, Professor of Philosophy, Université du Québec à Montréal

James Lightbody, Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Mary Liston, Assistant Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Catherine Lu, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Audrey Macklin, Professor and Chair in Human Rights Law, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Colin Macleod, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law, University of Victoria

Jocelyn Maclure, Professor of Philosophy, Université Laval

Patricia Marino, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Waterloo

John McGarry, Professor of Political Science, Queen’s University

Michael McGregor, Assistant Professor of Politics and International Studies, Bishop’s University

Loralea Michaelis, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, Mount Allison University

Éric Montpetit, Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Margaret Moore, Professor of Political Studies, Queen’s University

Suzanne Morton, Professor of History and Classical Studies, McGill University

Catherine Murray, Professor of Communication, Simon Fraser University

Christian Nadeau, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal

James Naylor, Associate Professor of History, Brandon University

Jennifer Nedelsky, Professor of Law and Political Science, University of Toronto

Carmen J. Nielson, Associate Professor of History, Mount Royal University

Geneviève Nootens, Professor of Social Sciences, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi

Nancy Olewiler, Professor of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University

Brenda O’Neill, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Michael Orsini, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Martin Papillon, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Steve Patten, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Omid Payrow Shabani, Professor of Philosophy, University of Guelph

Dennis Pilon, Associate Professor of Political Science, York University

Florence Piron, Professor of Information and Communication, Université Laval

Pablo Policzer, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Philip Resnick, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Kent Roach, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Douglas A. Ross, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Jason Roy, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Wilfrid Laurier University

Claudia Ruitenberg, Associate Professor of Educational Studies, University of British Columbia

Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Paul Saurette, Associate Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Carol Schick, Associate Professor of Education, University of Regina

David Schneiderman, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Christa Scholtz, Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Richard Schultz, Professor of Political Science, McGill University

Leslie Seidle, research director, Institute for Research on Public Policy

Ozlem Sensoy, Associate Professor of Education, Simon Fraser University

Grace Skogstad, Professor of Political Science, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Harry Smalier, Associate Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Education, York University

David E. Smith, Distinguished Visiting Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Jennifer Smith, Professor Emerita of Political Science, Dalhousie University

Miriam Smith, Professor of Law and Society, York University, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Patrick Smith, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Robert Sparling, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Mark Spooner, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Regina

Maxime St-Hilaire, Assistant Professor of Law, Université de Sherbrooke

Christine Straehle, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Veronica Strong-Boag, Professor Emerita, Institute for Gender, Race, Sexuality and Social Justice/Educational Studies, University of British Columbia, and Past President, Canadian Historical Association

Lisa Taylor, Professor of Education, Bishop’s University

Melanee Thomas, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Reeta Tremblay, Professor of Political Science, University of Victoria, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

James Tully, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, Law, Indigenous Governance and Philosophy, University of Victoria

Luc Turgeon, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Patrick Turmel, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Université Laval

Ian Urquhart, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Alberta

Robert Vipond, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto

Jennifer Wallner, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, University of Ottawa

Jeremy Webber, Dean of Law, University of Victoria

Mark Warren, Professor of Political Science, University of British Columbia

Lorraine E. Weinrib, Professor of Law, University of Toronto

Daniel Weinstock, Professor of Law, McGill University

Steven Weldon, Associate Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

Graham White, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto at Mississauga, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Lisa Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Calgary

Margot Young, Professor of Law, University of British Columbia

Robert Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, and Past President, Canadian Political Science Association

Full text of the letter available on the National Post.

Image Credit: ItzaFineDay 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.

Lawyers for West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL) sent an open letter to the NAFTA-affiliated Commission for Environmental Protection (CEC) Wednesday, claiming Canada is "in violation of its obligations under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation."

WCEL is urging also Canadians to write to the CEC and "tell them loud and clear that the Canadian government's recent attacks on environmental laws are a subsidy to the oil and gas and other industries and, as a result, we have failed to live up to our international commitments."

The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) is the environmental accord made parallel to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

The NAAEC established the CEC "to support cooperation among the NAFTA partners to address environmental issues of continental concern, including the environmental challenges and opportunities presented by continent-wide free trade."

The open letter comes in response to an invitation for comment from the CEC, which is marking its 20th anniversary by conducting a public review of NAFTA and NAAEC to "determine their effectiveness in fostering environmental protection and improvement in North America," according to a release from West Coast Environmental Law. A Joint Public Advisory Committee is currently accepting comments from the public.

"The environmental side-agreement was meant to ensure that NAFTA did not result in an incentive to weaken environmental laws at the request of industry, and an environmental race to the bottom," says Andrew Gage, Staff Counsel, West Coast Environmental Law. Gage thinks the CEC's public review is an opportunity for "Canadians to tell the Commission that that's just what has happened in Canada in recent years."

West Coast Environmental Law is positing that amendments made to Canada's environmental laws by the Harper government in the 2012 omnibus budget bills C-38 and C-45 have led to a "weakening of environmental protections contrary to the NAFTA side-agreement."

"Bills C-38 and C-45 gutted environmental protection in Canada," says Gage. "Canada's only law for reducing greenhouse gases was repealed, thousands of environmental assessments were eliminated, and our legal protection of fish, lakes and rivers were significantly weakened. That's not improvement, it's a backward slide."

West Coast Environmental Law is asking Canadians to join them in writing to the CEC, to ensure that Canada does not become a "NAFTA pollution haven."

Image: West Coast Environmental Law

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.