Simon Fraser University scientist Michael Price was in his office on Saturday, putting the finishing touches on an open letter to Premier John Horgan from 180 academic scientists, when his phone rang.

The surprise caller was Kevin Jardine, associate deputy minister for B.C.’s environmental assessment office.

Jardine had got wind of the open letter — which outlines why newly introduced legislation to reform B.C.’s environmental assessment process “lacks scientific rigour, with significant consequences for the health and environment of all British Columbians” — and wanted to walk Price through the legislation.

Despite what Price called a “constructive conversation,” he wasn’t swayed by Jardine’s reassurances that the legislation addresses “three deficiencies” identified by the scientists in their letter: a lack of scientific independence, peer-review and transparency.

“I welcomed a conversation,” Price told The Narwhal. “It was good to hear the government’s side, where they’re coming from…their primary intention is to restore public confidence, to protect the environment.”

At the end of the call Price told Jardine the scientists still intended to release their letter on Monday, which outlines how the proposed legislation “falls short” when it comes to protecting the environment and restoring public confidence in environmental assessments.

“There are many aspects when it comes to scientific rigour that continue to be lacking,” Price explained. “We hope that they’ll go back to the drawing board and tweak a few things that would really help fulfill their stated goals.”

‘A culture susceptible to biased data’

Bill 51, the Environmental Assessment Act, is being studied by a Committee of the Whole House and could be passed as early as this week.

One of the main deficiencies of the legislation, according to the scientists, is that it still allows project proponents to oversee, collect and present the vast majority of evidence for environmental assessments.

“In other words, the information required to assess environmental risk would continue to be gathered and analyzed by those with a vested interest in project approval,” the scientists wrote in their open letter, which was also addressed to five ministers, including Environment Minister George Heyman.

“This lack of independence can create a culture susceptible to biased data collection or interpretation, and will continue to erode the public’s trust in a process that they expect to be fair and evidence-based,” they wrote.

Former B.C. government ecologist Jim Pojar, one of the letter’s signatories, pointed to the Pacific Northwest LNG project in the Skeena estuary as an example of why information used to assess project risk must be gathered and interpreted by independent, qualified professionals who have nothing to gain or lose.

A 1973 report found that Flora Bank, next to the proposed site for a LNG terminal on Lelu Island, has one of the largest eelgrass beds in B.C., describing it “of high biological significance as a fish (especially juvenile salmon) rearing habitat.”

But Stantec, the engineering firm hired by Pacific Northwest LNG, filed a report with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) in 2015 claiming there will be little to no environmental impact from building an LNG terminal next to Flora Bank.

That submission, which did not include field data on fish, concluded “salmon do not use Flora Bank eelgrass habitat for nursery habitat or other life dependent processes.”

Pojar said the consultant’s report “turned out to be flawed.”

“In one case they didn’t find a particular fish population because it was the wrong time of year,” he said in an interview.

Even though the NDP government says the data collection process for environmental assessments will be far more rigorous under the new legislation, Price said it is “problematic” for project proponents to remain in charge of data collection.

“Even if there is no bias there’s going to be that perceived sense of bias in the public’s eye that the proponent is working with those who are gathering the information. We really feel strongly that that needs to be totally independent.”

Amendments to Bill 51 still an option

The government could amend the bill to allow baseline data for environmental assessments to be collected by contractors who are paid by project proponents but hired by the government, said Price, who commended the NDP for overhauling the Act, calling it a “good start” and noting that it allows First Nations communities to be involved at the start of assessments.

Heyman said “unfortunately” the scientists, who are mainly from B.C., didn’t approach him or the environmental assessment office to seek clarification before releasing their letter.

“I appreciate their concerns and share many of their concerns and that’s exactly why the issues they raise are in fact addressed in the Act and I’ll be making that clearer during debate on the bill,” Heyman told The Narwhal.

“The environmental assessment office contacted them over the weekend to walk them through how the bill does provide for the independence and transparency that they seek, the release of information and I think they got some of that message. Unfortunately they had distributed the letter already.”

Lack of peer review standards

Pojar, a forest ecologist research scientist and author of B.C. natural history books, said critical thinkers will look at all sides of the issue “and decide for yourself which makes more sense.”

He pointed out that the majority of the scientists who signed the letter “do not have a vested interest, don’t work for the government and most are not employees of environmental consulting companies.”

The scientists also zeroed in on the legislation’s failure to require independent peer review of evidence about a project’s proposed environmental risk, an omission Pojar called “a big deal” for scientists.

He said peer review is standard practice and “part of the code of ethics” for scientists. “It’s the way scientists are supposed to operate.”

Instead, the legislation sets up technical advisory committees to evaluate project risk that will include provincial ministry staff who might not be experts in a relevant field such as toxicology or salmon biology.

“This status quo approach fails to require those responsible for evaluating a project’s environmental risk to have the necessary expertise to adequately assess the evidence,” said the scientists’ letter.

Data used in assessments kept from public

And then there’s the question of transparency, which has been lacking in projects such as the Site C dam on B.C.’s Peace River.

Under the proposed legislation there is no requirement that all data generated by the project proponent, or gathered by a technical advisory committee, be made public, according to the scientists.

Nor does the proposed legislation include criteria for how the government’s final assessment decisions will be made, they say.

“At the moment there’s no requirement for them to make all records available,” Price explained.

But Heyman said all documents — “with the exception of something that is proprietary information” — will be made public and no amendments to the Act are necessary.

He said the new project design process outlined by the Act will determine “exactly what kind of information is needed, where it should come from and where it should be reviewed.”

And both the technical advisory committee and the Environmental Assessment Office have the option to seek further “outside independent advice,” Heyman said.

“It was very important to me that this project be trustworthy, that it be transparent and that information be independent.”

Price said the bill contains language that gives the technical advisory committee or the Environmental Assessment Office “options” such as calling for independent evaluators. But scientists need more assurance than “options,” he said.

“If there’s no requirement we have to trust that the government or the Environmental Assessment Office will follow through and ensure that things remain independent and they maintain their scientific credibility.”

“If they have these options, these loopholes, it doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence that the process will be as rigorous as it needs to be.”

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 Bryan Gaensler

If you’ve been paying attention, you know that on Aug. 21, we’re in for a special cosmic treat: the Great American Eclipse of 2017.

The moon’s shadow will track a 4,000-kilometre course across the continental United States from coast to coast, beginning with Depoe Bay, Ore., and end after 93 minutes in McClellanville, S.C.. As a result, tens of millions of Americans will be treated to that rarest of natural wonders: a total eclipse of the sun.

Canada, unfortunately, won’t experience a total eclipse, but the view will still be impressive: The sun will be 86 per cent eclipsed in Vancouver, 70 per cent in Toronto, and 58 per cent in Montreal. Canadians who want to experience totality from the comfort of home will need to wait until April 8, 2024 (Hamilton, Montreal and Fredericton), Aug. 23, 2044 (Edmonton and Calgary) or May 1, 2079 (Saint John and Moncton).

In the meantime, back here in 2017, everyone is focused on Aug. 21. Under the path of the eclipse, schools will be closed, traffic will be a nightmare, and hotel rooms at the Days Inn are on offer for $1,600 a night.

Absolute faith in eclipse predictions

What is remarkable among all this excitement and frenzy is the lack of “eclipse deniers.” Nobody doubts or disputes the detailed scientific predictions of what will happen.

I will be watching the eclipse from Simpson County, Ky., where I expect I will be joined by thousands of others, all of us knowing in advance that totality for us will begin at 1:26:44 p.m., and will end 141 seconds later. It is inconceivable to any of us that the predictions will be wrong by even a single second.

Not one person will argue beforehand that the jury is still out on eclipses, that scientists have tampered with the data, that eclipses are faked by NASA, that exposing children to eclipses causes autism or even that eclipses are a Chinese hoax. Across the continent, there will be climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers and flat-Earthers looking upwards through their eclipse glasses, all soaking up this wondrous moment along with everyone else.

This presents a puzzle: Why do people distrust or dispute so many aspects of science, but unanimously accept, without question, the ridiculously specific predictions on offer for every eclipse?

Why the selective denial of science?

One possible reason is that we’ve been right on eclipses every time before. But for most people, a total eclipse is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Most people won’t have experienced such predictions first hand, and will have to take it on trust that what’s happened before for others will happen again for them.

Another explanation might be that, unlike the case for climate change or vaccinations, the science behind eclipses is simple and uncontroversial. While it’s true that astronomers have been making reasonably accurate eclipse predictions for thousands of years, the required calculations are highly complex, extending far beyond the mathematics covered in high school or even in many university courses. Most people would find it difficult to reproduce or confirm any of these eclipse predictions for themselves.

The more likely answer is that eclipses are not a threat. There is nothing at stake. Eclipses do not endanger our way of life or our standard of living. Nobody fears that eclipses might have economic implications, could challenge our belief system or threaten our children. There are no anti-eclipse lobby groups trying to set the narrative, and there are thus no well-funded advertising campaigns or scientific studies that aim to raise doubts in our minds or to subtly shape our thinking.

Laws of science

Eclipses are agenda-free. The science — and the resulting extraordinary experience — are left to speak for themselves.

The problem is that we don’t get to pick and choose what scientific facts or consensuses are controversial, and which are not. The same strict laws of science are everywhere.

So if you’re comfortable putting down your non-refundable deposit for your eclipse hotel, if you let a steel tube flying at 30,000 feet carry you to a town under the path of totality, if on the morning of Aug. 21 you check the weather forecast hoping for clear skies, if you pay for breakfast with your credit card, and if that afternoon you snap a picture of the eclipse with your smartphone, then you have staked your bank balance, your August vacation and your very life on the fact that science is testable and reproducible, and that faulty theories can’t withstand extended scrutiny and testing.

Total solar eclipses are a strange cosmic coincidence and a remarkable, awe-inspiring experience. But they are also a profound reminder that when the emotions, money and politics are stripped away, none of us, at our core, are science deniers.

Bryan Gaensler, Director, Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Photo: Eric Reed 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.

Politically inconvenient findings can be revealed by scientific research and, as concerns grow in the U.S about a clampdown on the ability of scientists to speak freely, it is up to the international scientific community, media and the public to fight for scientific integrity, says a new study.

The paper, published Tuesday in the journal Conservation Biology, looks at the experience of scientists in Canada, Australia and the U.S and recommends reforms that are needed to defend the scientific integrity of policies to conserve endangered species and ecosystems.

While the U.S is struggling under changes made by the President Donald Trump administration and policy changes are needed in Australia, the situation in Canada is better under Justin Trudeau’s Liberals than under the Conservative Harper government. However, reforms are needed to protect scientific integrity in the future, says the study, which documents the extent to which the Harper government interfered with scientific findings and ignored science-based advice.

As an illustration, the paper says: “Under the Harper administration, the minister of the environment ceased transmitting COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) advice to the cabinet to delay protection of as many as 198 species, subspecies and distinct populations in Canada.”

How to Defend Science From Political Interference: New Study https://t.co/LyPHhyP3k3 #science #conservation @Society4ConBio

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 25, 2017

Trudeau has pledged that federal researchers will be allowed to speak publicly about their areas of expertise without prior approval and, last year, promised to appoint a chief science advisor with a mandate of safeguarding scientific integrity and ensuring the public is made aware of federal scientific research.*

Scientific integrity means being able to use and talk about scientific findings without censorship or political interference, says the paper.

“Science is the best method we have for determining what is likely to be true, but truth can be inconvenient,” said Carlos Carroll, Society for Conservation Biology North America president, who led the team of international scientists who wrote the paper.

There is a growing trend globally to attack scientific integrity with scientific evidence ignored or suppressed for political reasons or public access to websites or other government scientific data curtailed, Carroll said in a news release.

“Recent assaults on science and scientists under the Trump administration are particularly extreme, but (they) extend far more broadly,” said Carroll, an ecologist with the Klamath Center for Conservation Research in Orleans, California.

Recommendations includes strengthening scientific integrity policies, guaranteeing public access to scientific information and including scientists’ right to speak freely in collective bargaining agreements — something that subsequent governments would have difficulty in reversing.

In the U.S, during the Obama administration, public access to scientific policies was expanded through new policies and statutes, but, because of Trump’s dismissal of scientific underpinnings, those protections are now tenuous and there are fears that public access to government climate data and information on other touchy political subjects will be cut off, according to the study, which recommends “stronger institutional safeguards."

Government scientists should ensure that they communicate with scientific societies and organizations and bring in a broad range of views, the paper says.

It is challenging when some administrations are publicly hostile to science, but scientists should not shrink from defending their work and a culture of scientific integrity is needed, Carroll said in the news release.

“A transnational movement to defend science will improve the odds that good practices will be retained and strengthened under more science-friendly administrations,” he said.

“Scientists have a responsibility to engage broadly with the public to promote and affirm that science is indispensible for evidence-based policies and regulations.”

When policies unfold in plain sight, it helps sustain a functioning, democratic society, Carroll said.

*UPDATED July 26, 2017, at 9 a.m. to reflect the fact Trudeau has promised to appoint a chief science advisor, but DeSmog Canada has not yet been able to confirm that someone is actually in the position.

Photo: Brick 101 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.

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.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned aggressively on the issue of science in the lead up to the last federal election. And it makes sense that he did: for the first time ever in Canadian history the issue of scientific integrity was a major election issue for voters across the nation.

Images of shuttered libraries, gagged scientists and dumpsters full of books haunted the Canadian imagination under the Harper government.

Trudeau promised to change all of that. Brandishing the language of the scientific community itself Trudeau painted a vision of a Canadian scientific renaissance, with the restoration of scientific integrity and the veritable holy grail of political vows: evidence-based decision-making.

“As a scientist, I was personally thrilled with the Liberal government’s vocal support for science, especially regarding the critical role that scientific evidence should play in informed decision-making,” Wendy Palen, associate professor and biologist at Simon Fraser University, told DeSmog Canada.

In the early days of the federal government under Trudeau, there were several events that shored up that sense of optimism including the anchoring of ministerial duties in science in open mandate letters and restored funding for research in the first Liberal budget.

Trudeau also promised to bring social and scientific credibility back to the environmental assessments of major resource projects.

“I think I can say the scientific community breathed a sigh of relief over the change in attitude around science and the role of scientific decision-making,” Palen said.

But, she added, that sentiment has stopped short in recent months.

In September the federal government approved the controversial Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal near Prince Rupert, B.C. The terminal is expected to become Canada’s single largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Although opposed by all major environmental organizations in B.C., the project and its treatment under the federal review system raised a number of red flags for the scientific community in particular.

Flora Bank juts out towards Lelu Island, where the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal is to be located. Photo: Ocean Ecology

Proposed for the Flora Bank estuary, a unique eelgrass bed that provides resting grounds for hundreds of thousands of juvenile salmon from the Skeena watershed, the LNG terminal’s proposed site clashed hard with biologists and members of the conservation community who say, when it comes to salmon, a worse location simply couldn’t have been selected.

The federal environmental assessment of the LNG terminal — which concluded destroyed salmon habitat could simply be rebuilt elsewhere — was so fraught with problems members of the scientific community penned an open letter to Trudeau and his cabinet, pleading with them to reject the project’s review.

In that letter, scientists detailed a fundamentally flawed assessment process in which peer-reviewed science was ignored, basic principles of scientific investigation were violated and research paid for by the project’s proponent, Malaysian-owned Petronas, was given primacy.

The federal government ignored those pleas from the scientific community and on a September evening environment and climate minister Catherine McKenna announced the project’s approval.

“This project was subject to a rigorous environmental assessment and today’s announcement reflects this commitment,” she said.

Hearing those words, many scientists in B.C. were simply perplexed.

More recently Trudeau along with members of his cabinet approved the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline under a review process so thoroughly broken, Trudeau campaigned on the explicit promise to scrap it entirely.

But that’s not what happened and last month scientists were again baffled at the cooptation of the language of science in the pipeline’s approval.

“This is a decision based on rigorous debate, on science and on evidence. We will not be swayed by political arguments," Trudeau said.

"If I thought this project was unsafe for the B.C. coast, I would reject it."

For Palen, the announcement was particularly confounding.

Along with two co-authors, Palen wrote to Trudeau in the weeks prior to the pipeline announcement informing him of a new analysis that identified significant gaps in knowledge and research specifically on the impacts of Alberta oilsands crude, known as bitumen, on marine organisms.

A review of over 9,000 studies found not enough is known about the potential effects of an oil spill from the tankers that will be fed by the Trans Mountain pipeline to say with certainty the project is safe.

“The government’s words and use of the words ‘evidence-based decision-making’ are starting to be questioned by myself and others in the scientific community,” Palen said.

“I heard many of my colleagues wonder what the government really means by ‘evidence-based decision-making’ because those aren’t just empty words — they have a really specific meaning to those of us in science policy and in scientific fields.”

Palen said two important components of the scientific use of evidence are one, that the information is publicly available and preferably independently verified and two, that subsequent decisions are made on the basis of that evidence.

“That’s in contrast to making decisions and then subsequently backing up that decision by the selective use of science or evidence,” she said.

“That’s a big philosophical difference.”

Canadian Scientists Say They’re Unsure What @JustinTrudeau Means When He Says ‘Science’ https://t.co/nY9aCktGiB #cdnsci #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/MPEyzW1Bad

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 16, 2016

Palen said the federal government does not make publicly available the information it bases its decisions on so there is no way to independently verify the data or research undergirding these major project approvals.

Kathleen Walsh, executive director for the science-advocacy group Evidence for Democracy, said that’s a big problem for a government that wants to present itself as evidence-based.

“If government is serious about these decisions being based on science, they need to make that kind of information open and available and they need to be transparent about it,” Walsh told DeSmog Canada.

When it comes to gaps in knowledge, like on the effects of bitumen in marine environments, making evidence-based decisions becomes even more problematic.

“It’s one thing to ignore the evidence that exists but it's another to completely ignore gaps in evidence and pretend they’re not there,” she said.

“So for the federal government to say these decisions are based on evidence or science is not necessarily truthful.”

Walsh said she doesn’t want to elide the progress this government has made on the science file, more generally.

“Certainly there have been some big wins for them in the last weeks on science,” Walsh said, referring to the announcement of a Chief Science Advisor position as well as new rules to prevent the muzzling of federal scientists.

“But we can’t get that confused with their record and say it’s perfect.”

And making those grand claims about science will become more difficult going forward when the Chief Science Advisor position is filled, Walsh said.

“That person is going to have to answer these really hard questions about evidence and government decisions. I’m really looking forward to seeing how that plays out.”

In addition to the introduction of a scientific advisor, Walsh said the federal government’s current review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is also a huge opportunity to start getting science right in the country, especially as it relates to major project approvals.

Aerin Jacob, a Liber Ero postdoctoral fellow in environmental studies at the University of Victoria, couldn’t agree more.

“One of my motivations for being involved in the environmental assessment review is it’s not a very sexy topic,” Jacob told DeSmog Canada. “A lot of people think it’s boring.”

The Act went underwent significant changes in 2012 under the Harper government that many say has left some of the nation’s most important environmental legislation toothless.

“This is an opportunity to take a look at the changes to the Act in 2012 and the ramifications those changes have had. And not just to repeal those changes, but to take a good look at what good environmental assessments can be and to make sure Canada is a leader in that regard.”

Jacob recently organized the creation and release of an open letter from nearly 2,000 young scientists and researchers to the federal government as part of the review, calling on the government to return scientific integrity to the environmental assessment process.

The letter, which Jacob presented to the expert review panel in Nanaimo this week, outlines five ways the federal government could improve scientific rigour in the assessment process, including the use of best available evidence, making information and data available to the public, evaluating cumulative impacts of projects and eliminating conflicts of interest.

Dr. Aerin Jacob speaks at a Before the Abstract event about her research in the Serengeti. Photo: Before the Abstract

“We see what happens when science takes a back seat in this process,” Jacob said, pointing to the “entirely preventable” tailings pond collapse at the Mount Polley mine in B.C. and the recent approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

“With something like the Kinder Morgan decision, there was a lot of concern that has been raised over the last couple of years about that process. Scientists and independent experts have said again and again the evidence being present there isn’t the best evidence, it doesn’t paint the whole picture.”

Jacob said the lack of transparency around the evidence the government used to makes it decision about the pipeline is “deeply concerning.”

“Although it’s possible there is other evidence the government is considering, it’s not evident because we can’t see it.”

“It’s like a black box of decision-making. That’s not scientifically rigorous.”

Jacob said what her and other young scientists and researchers are proposing isn’t radical.

“These aren’t crazy new ideas, to share that information and share how you arrive at a conclusion. This is what we’re taught since elementary school: show your work.”

Jacob said she feels when it comes to science, there is a culture change underway in Canada.

Scientists were eager to get involved in the environmental assessment review, she said.

In Nanaimo, Jacob told the panel young scientists like herself have had a “coming of age.”

“Muzzling of scientists, putting data in dumpsters — that was the norm” for her and other young scientists under the former government. 

“It was not a good time to be looking at a scientific career in Canada and we do not want that ever to be the case professionally or personally.”

“I really can’t underscore how big an opportunity this review is,” Jacob told DeSmog Canada. “It could influence everything about how we make decisions about the environment.”

Jacob said so many of the social concerns that have arisen around major projects like pipelines and LNG terminals could be resolved through a more robust assessment process, starting with greater transparency and rigour from the outset.

The federal expert panel will conclude its review of the environmental assessment act this week and will make recommendations to the federal government by the end of January 2017. A secondary process, which will include the input of a multi-interest advisory committee, will follow on the heels of the panel’s report.

“I really hope the panel will take a bold approach. We’re talking a major overhaul here. And I hope our elected officials have the courage to implement it.”

Image: Justin Trudeau at a Science North event in Sudbury, Ontario. Photo: Prime Minister's Photo Gallery

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

Gaps in basic knowledge about salmon in the estuary near Flora Bank call into question the review — and approval — of the Pacific Northwest LNG terminal proposed for the mouth of the Skeena River, according to new research from fisheries biologist Jonathan Moore.

Data published Wednesday in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series shows salmon species don’t merely transit through the Skeena River estuary, as advanced by Pacific Northwest LNG in its environmental assessment, but can linger in the unique estuary environment for much longer periods of time than previously thought.

“The young salmon in the Flora Bank estuary are rearing from days to weeks and some individuals for months,” Moore told DeSmog Canada.

“In its environmental assessment Pacific Northwest LNG stated young salmon were moving through the estuary. Our data states that’s not true; the salmon are residing in the area.”

Moore said the new research, conducted by Simon Fraser University, Lax Kw’alaams Fisheries and the Skeena Fisheries Commission, calls into question some of the fundamental assumptions about the risks associated with building a major LNG export terminal on Lelu Island near Flora Bank.

Pacific Northwest LNG, a subsidiary of Malaysian gas giant Petronas, stated salmon species merely transited through the estuary, a rich intertidal zone home to rare eelgrass beds.

“That was the scientific foundation used to assess the risk to salmon populations in an area that is the base of a watershed the size of Switzerland,” Moore said.

Moore said far from being a simple point of passage, the area provides a critical point of transition to young salmon during their journey from river to sea.

“When young salmon are migrating from fresh water to ocean they have to go through this awkward transition.”

“It’s kind of like a puberty transition,” Moore laughed.

“To move from fresh water to salt water in the ocean can be very hard physiologically. They’re moving from breathing and living in fresh water to salt water.”

“They have to alter their systems so they don’t, basically, blow up in the ocean,” he said.

In monitoring wait times in the estuary, Moore and his fellow researchers found salmon were using the area as a waiting ground to reside, feed, grow and transition before continuing on their migratory route.

“This transition determines whether they do well out there or not,” he said.

“Their estuary period can be important for determining the trajectory of the population of salmon.”

Moore said there are some aspects of the salmon lifecycle that remain a mystery.

“There’s so much we don’t know.”

For example, previous research indicates young salmon move through estuaries very quickly.

“But everything we’ve found shows they’re not,” Moore said.

His research found 25 per cent of Chinook salmon spent at least 33 days in the estuary while Pink, Coho and Sockeye spent at least 30, 22 and five days respectively.

“The bottom line is [residency] depends on the estuary, on the species and on the population of salmon.”

Moore said in its assessment of the project, Pacific Northwest LNG concluded there would be no effects on fish.

“The concern is if you don’t properly assess the risks, you might come to the wrong conclusions,” Moore said.

The federal government’s approval of the LNG export terminal in September was met with significant criticism by the scientific and environmental community.

The scientific community asked the federal government to reject the project’s environmental assessment in March because of flawed science that represented an “insufficient base for a decision.”

Many project opponents have pointed out the review relied heavily on scientific information provided by the project proponent while excluding the research of peer-reviewed scientists.

Others have pointed to a federal study from the 1970s that found the mouth of the Skeena River was inappropriate for industrial development due to its importance for salmon species.

Last month a conservation group, SkeenaWild, launched a legal challenge against the project, saying the federal government based its approval on faulty and incomplete scientific information. Two additional legal challenges by First Nations have also been brought against the project on the basis of flawed consultation and respect of indigenous rights.

Moore said sound science is critical for the environmental assessment process.

“My scientific assessment is that there are major problems with the environmental assessment,” Moore said. “Pacific Northwest’s environmental assessment has a shaky scientific foundation and this is an example of where a claim was made without adequate information.”

“What that means is that the basis for the decision makers might not be based on reality, and might not be based on best scientific evidence.”

“More generally I think it speaks to the need to take a hard look at how Canada makes evidence-based decisions.”

An expert panel is currently conducting a review of the environmental assessment process to fulfill a promise made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to restore scientific integrity to the decision-making process around major industrial projects.

Image: Young salmon in the eelgrass of the Skeena River estuary. Photo:Tavish Campbell

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.