A grim story of serial depletion of fish stocks, lack of accurate information about fisheries, overfishing and poor management is documented in a new study on the state of Canada’s fisheries.

Less than one quarter of Canadian fish stocks are considered healthy and the status of 45 per cent of stocks couldn’t be determined due to an absence of basic, current information, says the report commissioned by Oceana Canada and conducted by marine biologists.

“As Canadians we perceive ourselves to be good stewards of the environment, but when it comes to our oceans, we have failed to live up to that ideal,” said University of Victoria biologist Julia Baum, lead author of the scientific report.

“We need to get serious about ocean conservation in Canada. Sound management and recovery of our fisheries must become a political priority.”

Too Many Boats, Too Few Fish

Since 1970, the biomass of Canadian marine stocks has declined by 55 per cent and, although more money is being made from the seafood industry than ever before (with $6 billion in exports in 2015), the value is concentrated in a few species — such as Atlantic shellfish, which account for 77 per cent of the country’s seafood value.

That lack of diversification is not sustainable, says the report, predicting that, with the lack of recovery strategies for failing stocks and inadequate legislation (made worse by the weakening of the Fisheries Act under the former Conservative government) stock collapses are likely unless action is taken quickly.

“Canada has fallen well short of the progress made by most developed nations in fulfilling national and international commitments to sustain marine biodiversity,” wrote Jeffrey Hutchings, chair of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on Sustaining Canada’s Marine Biodiversity.

Most of the depletion has happened within the span of a single lifetime beginning with the post-Second World War increase in the number of fishing vessels combined with advances in technological killing power, said Josh Laughren, executive director of Oceana Canada.

“It’s a story of too many boats chasing too few fish, of destructive gear and enormous waste, with science too often falling by the wayside. It’s not just cod numbers that have plummeted, we’ve seen a drop in abundance of all kind of species,” he wrote in the introduction to the report.

Making matters worse is the difficulty in obtaining accurate data, researchers found.

“Partly because of a lack of transparency and partly because of the failure of government to conduct regular assessments, we don’t have a clear picture of the health of Canada’s fish populations,” says the report.

“This stands in stark contrast to the situation in the United Sates and the European Union where stock data and management plans are centrally compiled, publicly available and reported on annually.”

Baum and fellow author Susanna Fuller of Ecology Action Centre looked at 125 stocks, representing the most important commercial harvests and those of greatest conservation concern. They included 28 Atlantic and Arctic species and 18 Pacific species. Salmon were not included as their lives are not spent entirely in the ocean.

Lack of Fisheries Data Hampers Progress

Fuller wrote that fisheries data is often unavailable and there is no central location where Canadians can easily understand the state of fisheries and the reasons behind management decisions.

That lack of transparency was exacerbated by the previous federal government’s cuts to Canada’s science capacity and the policy of discouraging scientists from speaking about their work, according to the report.

For example, Environment and Climate Change Canada published a report this year that rated 48 per cent of Canada’s fish stocks as healthy, but there is no explanation of how those ratings were reached

“This lack of transparency, and therefore public scrutiny, and absence of up-to-date information, creates an environment in which it is all too easy for officials to ignore scientific advice and avoid the tough decisions required to rebuild vulnerable stocks,” says the report.

Canada has a good policy framework in place for fisheries management, but the provisions are not being used, says the report, which points out that, to date, no recovery strategies have been developed for marine fish.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) has assessed 28 marine species as being endangered, threatened or of special concern, but they have either been denied listing under the Species At Risk Act or have been waiting for up to 14 years for a decision.

If the species were listed under the Species At Risk Act, the government would be legally required to develop a recovery strategy and an action plan.

Also, the Fisheries Act does not require action when overfishing occurs, there is no requirement to come up with rebuilding plans once stocks are depleted and it does not require quotas to be based on scientific advice, says the report.

A glimmer of hope is offered by the federal government’s announcement that it will be reviewing the Fisheries Act with a view to restoring lost protections and looking at decisions based on science, fact and social responsibility.

The report recommends that the Act should be updated to make it compatible with UN agreements and guidelines and that all integrated fisheries management plans should be made publicly available and updated annually.

The researchers also want the rationale for DFO management decisions to be made public, a single source of information for each of Canada’s fish stocks and a promotion of a department-wide culture of transparency.

Although the report paints a dismal picture of the way Canada has managed its fish populations, there is hope for the future, provided changes are made, it says.

“The good news is the report shows that, with proper management, our oceans can recover and fisheries can be rebuilt, allowing Canadians and the world to benefit from a truly diverse ecosystem,” said Jeff Hutchings of Dalhousie University, one of the leading scientists who peer-reviewed the report.

Among the actions needed are enforcement of science-based catch limits, protection of essential fish habitat, incentives for using lower-impact fishing gear and identification of places where bottom trawling cannot occur, the report recommends.

Oceana Canada, an independent charity that works with international groups focused on ocean conservation, is calling on the federal government to be accountable to the Canadian public about the state of the fisheries and to require overfished stocks to be rebuilt.

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.

BC Hydro has come out swinging against the Royal Society of Canada and 250 of Canada’s top scientists and academics that recently called for a stop to construction of the Site C dam, saying the group is being one-sided.

Royal Society representatives and academics did not take part in the environmental assessment process and did not seek a balanced assessment of the hydroelectric mega-project, says an unusually critical statement released by BC Hydro.

The dam, which will cost taxpayers almost $9-billion, will flood farmland and First Nations traditional territory in the Peace Valley to create an 83-kilometre reservoir.

A Statement of Concern, released by the academics earlier this week, asks the federal government to live up to election promises to respect legal obligations to First Nations and to make decisions based on scientific integrity.

Repeated requests by DeSmog Canada for comments from Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett have been ignored but, speaking to other media, Bennett criticized the Royal Society for being political and suggested members should have taken part in the environmental assessment process.

Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, whose historic farmhouse overlooking the Peace River will be flooded by the dam, dismissed that idea.

“That’s silly,” he said pointing to the many recommendations made by the Joint Review Panel that were then ignored by the provincial government in its rush to get construction of the dam underway.

“There were steps that should have shut it down and it didn’t make any difference,” said Boon, who is happy to see the academic support. Boon, along with several other Site C opponents, is currently being sued by BC Hydro for his participation in a protest camp. Legal experts have criticized the lawsuit as a threat to freedom of expression.

“This has had incredible media coverage and rightly so when you have such a large and distinguished group speaking out on the project,” he said.

Boon does not believe the provincial government is showing any sign of listening to the criticism, but his hopes are pinned on the federal government.

“In a lot of ways the ball is in the federal government’s court right now. It’s the government’s obligation to review those permits properly and then refuse to issue them if that’s what they deem is the right thing to do,” he said.

The Royal Society and fellow academics say the federal government should not issue any more permits for the project until there have been additional reviews and the courts have ruled on four legal challenges that have not yet been heard.

In its statement BC Hydro argued it cannot stop construction to wait for court rulings as its mandate is to meet the long-term electricity needs of customers and to build Site C on time and on budget.

“Court challenges of major infrastructure projects are not uncommon in Canada and they do not stop construction from proceeding,” says the statement, which points out that, so far, four judicial reviews of the environmental appeals have been dismissed.

Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation is hoping the appeal by scientists and academics will influence the federal government.

“It is frustrating when you have the premier of B.C. saying they are just going to ride roughshod over the rights of First Nations…But we have some ability to get the federal government to pay attention because the treaty lies with them, so they are on the hook,” Willson said. The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations are currently fighting against the Site C dam in the courts, saying the project violates treaty rights.

“If they issue permits, then we may have to file another court case for treaty infringement.”

The Wilderness Committee is among groups calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to consider the human rights and environmental impacts of the dam detailed by the academics.

“The federal government’s position is that projects like the Site C dam that were approved by the previous Conservative government will not be revisited,” said Joe Foy, Wilderness Committee national campaign director.

“This is an outrageous position and a slap in the face to those who have been demanding justice. B.C. taxpayers are being fleeced and First Nations’ and farmers’ lands are being flooded for this dam project — the government must do the right thing."

Image: Premier Christy Clark and Minister Bill Bennett/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.

Top-level scientists and academics from across Canada are calling on the federal government to put the brakes on construction of the Site C dam and, in an unusual move, the call is being supported by the Royal Society of Canada.

A stinging criticism of the assessment process, lack of consideration for First Nations concerns and the B.C. government’s decision to start construction despite ongoing court cases, was released at an Ottawa news conference Tuesday with a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a statement asking that the federal government not issue any more permits for the hydroelectric mega-project until there have been additional reviews and the courts have decided on First Nations court cases.

A “Statement of Concern” signed by 250 scientists and academics, amounting to a Who’s-Who of Canadian academia, asks that the B.C. government submit the project for review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, something suggested by Joint Review Panel, but rejected by the provincial government.

There should also be a review by the Department of Justice to analyze whether the project infringes on aboriginal and treaty rights, the statement says.

“Based on evidence raised across our many disciplines, the undersigned scholars have concluded that there were significant gaps and inadequacies in the regulatory review and environmental assessment process for the Site C Project,” says the statement.

Royal Society of Canada to @JustinTrudeau: #SiteC not subject to rigorous scrutiny & fails First Nations #cdnpoli https://t.co/ty9sZ0a1ZJ

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 25, 2016

“Our assessment is that this process did not accord with the commitments of both the federal and provincial government to reconciliation with, and legal obligations to First Nations, protection of the environment and evidence-based decision making with scientific integrity.”

Work — including clearing of old-growth forest in the surrounding area, construction of a work camp and letting of contracts, which the B.C. government says are worth billions of dollars — has already started on the dam that will flood the Peace River valley to create an 83-kilometre reservoir at a cost of almost $9-billion.

Karen Bakker, Canada research chair in water governance at the University of British Columbia, said Site C is a test of the federal government’s commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and science-based decision making.

“We truly believe this is a bellwether,” Bakker said.

“Will they actually live up to the commitments they have made to evidence-based decision-making with scientific integrity and also to reconciliation with First Nations?” she asked.

Gordon Christie, a UBC law professor specializing in indigenous legal studies, said at the news conference that the lawsuits might take months or years to wend their way through the courts and yet, in the meantime, the province is forging ahead with construction.

“Courts have asked the federal and provincial governments of Canada to act honourably and to demonstrate something known as the honour of the Crown and, no matter what your notion of honour might be, this is clearly dishonourable conduct,” he said

The decision to go ahead appears to be at odds with the federal government’s recent support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that requires informed consent from aboriginal people before projects on their land are approved, said the academics.

The significant environmental effects of the dam are unprecedented in the history of environmental assessment in Canada, Bakker said.

“Site C has 40 per cent of the total adverse environmental effects ever identified [in Canadian environmental assessments] since 1992, “ she said.

“We are calling on the government to explain why the unprecedented imposition of these very severe environmental effects would be justified by Site C — a project whose electricity output is currently unnecessary and for which less damaging alternatives exist.”

The Joint Review Panel concluded that the power will probably not be needed for decades and, with no demand within B.C. for the power, lately the province has been looking at selling Site C power to Alberta.

Federal fisheries and transportation permits have not yet been issued and Bakker said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that representatives of the group have approached ministries dealing with aboriginal affairs, fisheries, environment and justice and are hoping to meet with at least two ministers in the near future.

The group is also planning to release another paper, dealing with provincial Site C issues, she said.

It is rare for the Royal Society to speak out and it is the first time in several decades that the society has become involved in such a specific issue, Bakker said.

In a letter to Trudeau, Royal Society president Maryse Lassonde questioned why a project of such scope was not assessed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

“That should have been a priority. Why did the B.C. legislature pass an act to prevent this essential review?” Lassonde asked.

“This failure to subject the project to rigorous scrutiny raises serious questions about whether the project should proceed until such time as a more thorough review is undertaken,” she wrote.

The academic and scientific support delighted Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs president and an outspoken critic of Site C.

“This is great news. It’s very encouraging,” he said in an interview.

Site C can still be stopped, despite the provincial rush to get the project underway, Phillip said.

“It can be stopped if enough people speak out against this ill-conceived, unwanted and absolutely unnecessary project,” he said.

In February Site C was condemned by a group of non-profit agencies including Amnesty International Canada, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ecojustice and Greenpeace Canada.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities has also called for Site C to be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The provincial Ministry of Energy and Mines did not respond to questions in time for publication.

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: Construction for the Site C dam in the Peace River valley. Photo: Garth Lenz

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.

Over the last decade Canada has fallen from its position as a leader in ocean protection and become a laggard that has failed to keep up with international commitments, say some of Canada’s top marine scientists.

Lack of support for conservation has changed Canada from a country with innovative conservation policies to one where marine species on the brink of extinction are not afforded protection until too late because of delays and inappropriate legislation, said scholars and scientists who gathered in Victoria recently for the Royal Society of Canada annual general meeting.

But, with a new government, there is refreshed hope in the scientific community and a chance to reverse direction.

Some of the country’s top academic minds looked at challenges facing Canada’s three oceans and possible ways to mitigate warming oceans, acidification, disappearing species, microplastics and watered down environmental protection legislation.

“What can we do?” asked Isabelle Cote, marine ecology professor at Simon Fraser University.

Part of the answer came on October 19 — election day — she said.

“We know that red tides are usually very bad in the marine environment, but this one was very good.”

It was a theme echoed by several speakers who are encouraged by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mandate letter to Hunter Tootoo, his new Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.

The mandate includes increasing marine and coastal protected areas to five per cent by 2017 and 10 per cent by 2020, acting on recommendations of the Cohen Commission on restoring sockeye salmon stocks in the Fraser River, reviewing the previous government’s changes to the Fisheries and Navigable Waters Protection Acts and using scientific evidence, the precautionary principle and taking into account climate change when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management.

“Our new government has set out a refreshing new ocean agenda, including areas many of us have been fighting for over the last decade,” said Julia Baum, assistant professor in the University of Victoria’s biology department.

One of the disturbing trends over the Harper years has been what is seen as political tampering in appointments to boards that make vital decisions on endangered species, such as Committee of the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), a group of experts that assesses which species are in need of protection, Baum said.

Marine species are almost always denied protection, often because of conflicts with commercial fishing, said several speakers.

“We sit and let the species wait and do nothing. We know this is a really dangerous strategy,” Baum said.

“Almost 60 per cent of marine fish that have been assessed by COSEWIC as being at risk are sitting with no decision for many years. Those that are at greatest risk wait longest and are typically denied listing,” she said.

Recovery strategies, under the Species At Risk Act, are often three years late and action plans are almost never completed, she added.

Jeffrey Hutchings of Dalhousie University, who chaired the Royal Society’s pivotal expert panel 2012 report “Sustaining Canadian Marine Biodiversity,” believes the change in government will mean a greater willingness to discuss the report’s recommendations.

Those include making ocean stewardship and biodiversity conservation a top government priority, resolving conflicts of interest in legislation, more research into sustaining marine biodiversity and reducing the discretionary power of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in fisheries management decisions.

As Trudeau decides on his priorities, Hutchings would like him to consider splitting the ministry into two parts — the department of fisheries and the department of oceans — to resolve the conflict where the ministry is seen as acting as an agent for fisheries, not for conservation.

If it was split, the fisheries department, under the Fisheries Act, could take care of the economic development side, such as fishing and aquaculture — preferably with much-needed national aquaculture legislation — and the department of oceans, under the Oceans Act, could look after conservation, protection and habitat protection, Hutchings suggested in an interview.

Government should also look at the huge discretionary powers of the Fisheries and Oceans Minister, which add to conservation uncertainties, Hutchings said.

In Canada when it is scientifically determined that a fish population is being overfished, there is no requirement for the minister to take action.

“What has inevitably happened is the minister continues (to allow) fishing on the stock and it declines further and further,” Hutchings said.

In contrast, in the U.S. when it is scientifically determined a stock is in trouble, the department must take specific actions to rebuild the stock, usually by dramatically cutting catches, he said.

David VanderZwaag, Ocean Law and Governance Canada Research Chair at Dalhousie University, believes modernizing the Fisheries Act should be high on the agenda.

“It’s a no brainer,” he said.

“I call it a ghost ship. You see the mast in the fog, but everything is underneath. It’s all at the minister’s discretion.”

The department has attempted to paper over the legislative vacuum with multiple policies, but clarity is needed, he said.

In a similar vein, the Environmental Assessment Act is a roulette system, VanderZwaag said.

“You throw the dice to see what may be covered.”

National aquaculture legislation must be developed and the new government should look at laws and policies around future ocean renewable energy projects, such as wave power, VanderZwaag said.

“The federal government is not really prepared to deal with offshore renewable energy,” he said.

Photo: Dan Cox 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.

A lack of reliable scientific information about what happens when crude oil is spilled into rivers or the ocean and a fragmented system of response plans is hindering Canada’s efforts to prevent and clean up oil spills, says a major report by the Royal Society of Canada.

The lengthy report was written by a panel of seven experts on oil chemistry, behaviour and toxicity.

Case studies, including B.C.’s Pine River pipeline break and the April leak of fuel oil into Vancouver’s English Bay, showed delays in response time were common, with causes ranging from poor communication and coordination among government agencies to lack of preparedness.

But the main problem was an absence of reliable scientific data.

“There is a critical need for a coordinated and integrated database of information relevant to the assessment of risk of oil spills in Canada,” says the report.

Groups do not always share information and response scenarios can be unrealistic, according to the panel, which is recommending the formation of a joint government, industry and academic research program to come up with a national database to provide accurate information when an oil spill occurs.

“There is an urgent need in Canada to develop science-based guidance and protocols for oil spill impact, risk assessments and clean-up,” the report says

Sometimes the quality of existing data is questionable, the panel found. For example, pipeline leaks usually take hours to discover rather than minutes, so scenarios based on instant identification of a problem are unrealistic.

Panel chair Kenneth Lee, oceans and atmosphere director at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Perth, Australia, said in an interview that Canada has relatively stringent rules and processes, but they would be improved by a coordinated approach to research in key areas, such as the behaviour of different types of oil, pre-spill baselines, new techniques and the effectiveness of spill response options.

Lee would not speculate on the cost of a national research program or how it would be put together

“We are scientists so we come up with the recommendations. The policies and putting things in place are not our decision,” he said.

Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Needs More Research

An area pinpointed as needing more research is spill behaviour of diluted bitumen, the tar diluted with condensate that flows from the Alberta oilsands to the B.C. coast.

“It is not a product that is the same every day,” said Lee.

“Depending on the chemistry, some sinks and some floats even under the same conditions. There are a lot of complex interactions and we need that kind of data to make decisions,” he said.

The report acknowledges that heavy oils and dilbit present problems as they do not easily evaporate or dissolve in water.

“Thus their potential damage to the environment, waterfowl and fur-bearing animals is greater. Clean-up of heavy oils and bitumen is extremely difficult for both marine and inland spills because of their specific gravity, viscosity flash point properties and high asphaltene content,” the report states.

Weather and wave action will also affect the behaviour of the oil.

“Every oil spill is different,” Lee said.

The report points out that more research is needed to look at the effect of oil spills on sensitive ecosystems such as Arctic waters and wetlands and the effectiveness of spill response in remote areas.

“Investigations of oil spill effects in Arctic Canada must include collaboration with indigenous peoples to ensure that traditional knowledge is incorporated into our overall understanding of the risks of oil spills in northern locations,” it says.

Sociological factors should also be part of the equation because of public concerns over returning beaches or rivers to their pre-spill state.

Spills should be used as an opportunity to gain information for the national database and that means funding and teams of researchers should be in place and ready to go before the spill occurs, said Lee, who is also advocating for conducting research through small controlled spills.

With Canada producing more than 3.7 million barrels of oil every day, there is always the risk of a spill and the panel suggests the focus should be on prevention of large spills and rapid and effective response to smaller ones.

The questions that need to be asked are whether the risks are acceptable and whether they can be handled and to make those decisions accurate scientific data is needed, Lee said.

The RSC expert panel report was commissioned by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

Image: Western Canada Marine Response Corporation

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

This is a post by Michael Harris, originally published on iPolitics.

“Everything has a crack in it; that’s how the light gets in.” Leonard Cohen, take a bow.

Another crack has appeared in the Harper government’s surreptitious but merciless war to muzzle Canadian scientists — and just about everyone else.

The light entering through this particular crack shines on a disturbing fact. Canada, the only parliamentary democracy in the Commonwealth where a government has been found in contempt of Parliament, is now the only democracy in the world where a government bureaucrat can suppress scientific research.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, where a reign of terror aimed at choking off internal leaks has been in full swing since the disastrous decision to close the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), has issued a new policy on the publication of scientific papers.

Although there has always been a departmental policy on the publication of scholarly research, the 2013 version of the rules features some crucial differences.

Previous policies applied only to those papers prepared by DFO scientists. If government scientists teamed up with non-DFO scientists on a paper, it was merely “recommended” that DFO scientists adhere to the departmental publication policy.

The new policy applies to all submissions and DFO approval is required. Just to make sure scientists get the message, that part of the revised guidelines is printed in bold italics. Making things worse, the new policy does not lay out the criteria for giving thumbs-down to a publication.

How will it work? In a word, not the way it used to and not to the country’s benefit — assuming that intellectual freedom remains a core requirement of good science. In previous versions of DFO’s publication policy from 1997 and 2010, the word “copyright” doesn’t appear. In the new policy, the word shows up like flies at a picnic.

In fact, a footnote to the new policy clearly indicates that the divisional manager of DFO scientists must “sign off” on the copyright form, even after a manuscript has been accepted by a scientific journal. That gives the bureaucrat eleventh-hour powers to block a paper if DFO doesn’t want the information to be available to the scientific community or the public. One scientist familiar with that aspect of the new policy said: “Sounds like classic muzzling to me.”

Even if never exercised, the mere existence of this new power for DFO managers could suppress scientific ideas, hypotheses, data and conclusions that might raise serious objections to government policy.

Canadian government scientists have always rankled under policies that introduced politics into their profession. Scientists were muzzled in the 1990s by DFO managers over the creation of huge reservoirs in Northern Quebec. The federal government of the day didn’t want to stir up Quebec separatist sentiments. Accordingly, it discouraged its scientists from setting out the impact of the reservoir development from a scientific point of view.

The extension of the former publishing policy to papers authored by non-government scientists, and the assigning of final copyright approval to a government manager, will almost certainly discourage non-government scientists from collaborating with DFO scientists. The downside to that proposition is that it ultimately will have a negative impact on the quality of scientific advice provided to decision-makers and to Canadian society.

Jeff Hutchings, former chair of the Royal Society of Canada and Killam Professor in the faculty of science at Dalhousie University, sees the long shadow of government control — and even of self-censorship by scientists — lurking in the federal government’s new approach.

“The most disconcerting elements to the new policy are that they will apply to all scientific submissions, including those co-authored by non-DFO scientists, and that DFO managers have been given a hammer that they have not previously been able to wield: the withholding of copyright permission to allow for the publication of an article that has been externally peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by a scientific journal.”

Hutchings thinks that this could lead to government scientists, especially younger ones, thinking twice before undertaking certain projects that might displease their managers. Even if never exercised, the mere existence of this new power for DFO managers could suppress scientific ideas, hypotheses, data and conclusions that might raise serious objections to government policy.

The Harper government is well known for its policy-based approach to the facts rather than evidence-based decision making. The classic example was the disbanding of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because, as Harper cabinet minister John Baird explained at the time, the government didn’t like the advice it was getting.

Nor has the Harper government hesitated to shoehorn scientists into a communications policy that treats them like ministerial office staff.

Where else in the free world do government minders accompany scientists to learned conferences like last year’s international polar conference in Montreal, telling them what they can say and to whom?

Where else is a scientist like Kristi Miller, who makes a research breakthrough, forbidden to talk about it?

And where else on the planet would a government close down a unique and celebrated facility like the ELA to save $2 million a year, while blowing $25 million trying to breathe relevance into a 200 year-old war?

With Edmonton recently under an air-quality warning, tar sands toxins having been found in lakes distant from the project, and water levels dipping in the Great Lakes, it would seem that good science is more important now than ever. Instead, Canadians get bloviating flyweights like Environment Minister Peter Kent declaring that muzzling scientists is established practise.

Which, of course, it is — in Stephen Harper’s Canada, where the specialty is political science.

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.

by YOLANDE GRISÉ, president of the Royal Society of Canada

Scientific advances have shaped modern society, have led to increased health and well-being for Canadians and have played a leading role in forming public policy. The relationship between scientists and the Canadian government is critically important, given the crucial role of science advice in supporting our country’s long-term interests.

The Royal Society of Canada was founded in 1882 by an Act of Parliament because it was understood that public policy and scientific research needed to be in dialogue. Policy and science are in a mutual relationship based on the importance given by government to scientific advice in policy development, and the recognition by scientists that government decisions are made democratically and must take into account evidence beyond that provided by the scientific community.

For this relationship to work, scientists have a responsibility to act ethically and to communicate their findings to the broader community. Science works only when discoveries made in the lab or in the field are communicated and debated, not only to other researchers but to all stakeholders. Governments, in turn, have to respect scientific advice and not impede the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

Scientists and the federal government can be at odds when government policy does not appear to be well-aligned with the best scientific advice. That tension is often constructive: For example, a 2010 report by scientists providing evidence that oil sands activity was polluting the Athabaska River led to several levels of government taking a fresh look at the monitoring practices and activity of the industry in the region.

This relationship is now at risk in Canada. Unreasonable limits are being placed on the ability of government-employed scientists to communicate their findings, whether through publication of their research results or attendance at scientific meetings. These restrictions seem particularly severe in topics related to the environment, where several government scientists have been denied the opportunity to discuss their work.

A well-known case is that of Kristi Miller, a scientist in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. She published research on the Pacific salmon stock in 2010 in the international journal Science but has not been allowed to discuss her work publicly since. The government, in its defence, has affirmed that it needs to control what its employees say, arguing that what they say could be construed as representing the views of the government.

Several scientific organizations, most notably the prominent journals Nature and Science, have raised the alarm and urged the Canadian government to rescind the restrictions.

Such restrictions fly in the face of the government’s own cabinet policy of basing policy decisions on the best science available. Furthermore, they go against the positions taken by countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where scientists are expected to give their advice independently and free of restrictions, whether or not they’re employed by the government.

This disruption in the relationship between scientists and government is avoidable. What’s needed is a policy that clarifies the relationship between scientists, the advice they provide and the federal government. This should lay out the responsibility of the government to solicit and develop the best scientific advice possible in formulating public policy. It should underscore the government’s commitment to advance scientific knowledge and not to hinder its dissemination.

It should also demonstrate the government’s commitment to use scientific advice in policy-making, recognizing the uncertainties that often come with it. It should ensure the independence of scientific advice from government control. And it should reaffirm the responsibility of scientists to conduct their work ethically, to communicate it fairly and to declare their own conflicts of interest. Such a policy will strengthen the role of science in public policy development.

Canada will only succeed as a country if it’s able to harness the best scientific advice to make decisions. The federal government should immediately unshackle government scientists and let them do their jobs. The integrity of evidence-based public policy development is at stake.

The public should be allowed to learn directly from our scientists when they make discoveries in areas of public concern.

Yolande Grisé is president of the Royal Society of 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.