Media policies in most Canadian government departments do not effectively encourage open communication between federal scientists and journalists, says a report released Wednesday.

Published by Evidence for Democracy (E4D) and Simon Fraser University (SFU), the report said more than 85 per cent of the 16 departments studied were assessed a grade of C or lower in terms of openness of communication, protection against political interference, rights to free speech, and protection for whistleblowers.

The 22-page report also said that when compared to grades for U.S. departments (scored by the Union of Concerned Scientists), all but one Canadian department performed worse than the U.S. average.

“Overwhelmingly, current media policies do not meet the basic requirements for supporting open communication between federal scientists and the media,” Katie Gibbs, E4D’s executive director and an author on the report, said in an accompanying media release.

“These policies could prevent taxpayer-funded scientists from sharing their expertise with the public on important issues from drug safety to climate change,” Gibbs said.

The report — “Can Scientists Speak?” — gave the Department of National Defense the highest mark, a B grade, while the Canadian Space Agency, Public Works and Government Services, Industry Canada, and Natural Resources Canada each received an F.

Policies governing science-based departments received on average a C- for how well they facilitate open communication between scientists and the media, the report added.

Described as the first of its kind in Canada, the report comes after a 2013 survey of federal government scientists commissioned by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) found 90 per cent feel they are not allowed to speak freely to the media about their work.

The PIPSC survey also found almost 86 per cent of the scientists felt they would face censure or retaliation for speaking about a departmental decision that could harm public health, safety or the environment.

The survey, which is included in a report titled “The Big Chill,” is described as the first extensive effort to gauge the scale and impact of “muzzling” and political interference among federal scientists since the Stephen Harper government introduced communications policies requiring them to seek approval before being interviewed by journalists.

On Wednesday, PIPSC President Debi Daviau said the C- average for policies that govern science communication with the media is not something to be proud of.

“This is a grade that says Canada is failing its most fundamental obligations to keep Canadians adequately informed of urgent science matters such as climate change,” Daviau said.

E4D, a national non-partisan, non-profit organization promoting evidence-based public policy, provided several key recommendations in its report that departments can implement to improve communication between federal scientists and the Canadian public.

Policies should be easily available online for scientists, journalists and the public, E4D recommended, and it should be explicit that scientists can speak freely about their research to facilitate clear and timely communications.

Another recommendation said scientists should also have the right to final review of media releases that make substantial use of their work to protect against political interference.

In addition, scientists should be able to express their personal opinions as long as they make clear they are not representing the views of their department.

The report also recommended there be provisions to protect whistleblowers and effectively resolve disputes.

Federal government scientists play an important role in keeping Canadians safe and healthy by providing their expertise to both the public and decision-makers, the report said.

“The safety of our food, air, water, and environment depends on the ability of federal scientists to provide information to Canadians,” it added.

CBC News said it requested comments about the report from several government departments, who redirected the request to Ed Holder, minister of state for science and technology.

Holder did not respond directly, CBC said, but stated in the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoon that “ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments yet scientists have and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

Arne Mooers, an SFU professor of biodiversity and an advisor for the report, said federal scientists are important public servants with critical expertise.

“They should be encouraged to inform the public in their areas of expertise because only an informed public can evaluate what governments are doing on their behalf,” Mooers said.

“Strengthening communication between scientists and the public strengthens our democracy.”

The E4D report was published one day after Julie Gelfand, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, released an audit showing Canada will almost certainly not meet its international greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2020 and doesn’t even have a plan showing how the nation might achieve its climate change goals.

Image Credit: Zack Embree

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

More than four out of five respondents to a public opinion poll released Wednesday believe that B.C. farmland — like forests and water — is a vital public asset.

In addition, 82 per cent of those responding also indicated that “selling out the [Agricultural Land Reserve] ALR is a failure of leadership and a betrayal of the public trust.”

As many as 76 per cent of those taking part in the poll said the ALR protects farms, valleys and greenspace for wildlife habitat and recreational enjoyment.

Laws protecting the ALR should be strengthened or maintained, according to 71 per cent of respondents.

The poll — BC Public Attitudes Toward Agriculture and Food 2014 — also showed 58 per cent of respondents believed “there are no acceptable reasons for removing any more farmland from the Agricultural Land Reserve anywhere in B.C.”

The province-wide online poll was sponsored by the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia and the Vancouver Foundation. Carried out by McAllister Opinion Research, the survey canvassed 1,704 B.C. residents aged 18 and over between July 17-29. The sample is considered accurate to within ±2.36 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

The two foundations said they commissioned the study to inform discussion and decisions on the future of the ALR, a provincial land-use zone that protects farmland and land with potential to be farmed. The ALR currently makes up 5 per cent of B.C’s land base.

Pollster and president of McAllister Opinion Research, Angus McAllister, told DeSmog Canada that British Columbians have always been supportive of the ALR.

"Support for maintaining or even expanding the Agricultural Land Reserve is very high, especially among older voters,” McAllister said. “However, this support is really nothing new.”

“B.C. voters have always expressed strong support for the ALR, regardless of political stripe.”

He added, “what is striking this time however, is the strong linkage between public discomfort with changes in the ALR and rising concerns about food security.”

McAllister said concern over contaminated food imports plays a role in local support for B.C. farmland and food production. “Concerns about…food products imported from countries like Mexico and China are higher than I've seen in 15 years,” he said. “Concerns around the food supply are hard-wired to some very basic survival instincts, and that is never something to ignore."

The survey was conducted after Bill 24 — The Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act — was passed in the B.C. Legislature in May. Essentially, Bill 24 split the 40-year-old ALR into two zones.

Zone 1 consists of the Fraser and Okanagan Valleys and southern Vancouver Island, an area representing about 10 per cent of the original ALR. According to the Liberal government, decisions in Zone 1 will continue to be made on the basis of the original principle of preserving agricultural land.

Zone 2 covers the rest of B.C., the government says, where growing seasons are shorter and there are lower value crops. In Zone 2 “decisions will now, in addition to the original principle, include additional considerations to provide farmers with more flexibility to support their farming operations.”

Critics have pointed out that Bill 24 threatens critical farmland by opening up previously protected areas to non-agricultural uses, including oil and gas development.

In August farmers from the Kootenay region demonstrated outside the B.C. legislature, saying they hadn’t been consulted on the changes.

Wendy Holm, a professional agrologist with 40 years experience in public policy and agricultural politics told DeSmog Canada Bill 24 “opens the door for Site C,” a controversial megadam project that will impact 13,000 hectares of farmland in the ALR if approved.

With the changes made under Bill 24, “the land reserve will be considered toothless,” Holm said.

“There’s tremendous potential in the north,” she added. “There’s enough land to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for a million people.”

Among those organizations criticizing the passage of Bill 24 was the BC Food Systems Network.

“We are, of course, deeply disappointed in the passage of Bill 24 and this closure to the huge outcry from the B.C. public to protect farmland in our province,” Abra Brynne, BC Food Systems co-chair, said in a statement.

Farmland advocates fear changes from Bill 24 will increase the price of farmland for young farmers and will also increase the removal of viable farmland for commercial, industrial and real estate development, the statement said.

“This would result in reduced capacity for provincial food security in the face of climate change, as well as increased reliance of imported food, concerns over safe and sustainable agricultural practices in other jurisdictions, and increased food prices due to rising transportation costs.”

The poll released Wednesday also showed that respondents identified, when asked about the priority uses for land in British Columbia, “natural freshwater systems” (83 per cent), closely followed by “farming and growing food” (81 per cent).

It also showed that 80 per cent of respondents were concerned about dependence on other countries for our food security. In addition, 73 per cent said the ALR is a cornerstone of food security and the B.C. economy.

In a media release accompanying the poll findings, Jack Wong, CEO of the Real Estate Foundation of BC, said local, sustainable food systems are a priority issue for the foundation because of the link between food security and community well-being.

“With challenges such as development pressure on agricultural land and changing weather patterns, it is of vital importance to have forward-thinking policies that protect land for growing food, now and for future generations.” Wong was quoted as saying.

Kevin McCort, CEO of Vancouver Foundation, said the survey demonstrates that British Columbians believe strongly in safeguarding our farms and green spaces to ensure long-term health, well-being and resilience in our communities.

“The Agricultural Land Reserve is a vital public asset contributing to our ability to reliably produce fresh food, preserve local farmland and freshwater supplies, and to support local B.C. farmers and ranchers,” McCort said.

Image Credit: B.C. farmland by Kris Krug 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 new poll released Thursday finds that more than three quarters of British Columbia residents want the province to shift away from producing, using and exporting fossil fuels and to embrace cleaner sources of energy.

The online survey, conducted by Strategic Communications Inc., found that 78 per cent of British Columbians agree that B.C. should transition away from using fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy to prevent climate change from worsening, compared to 17 per cent who disagree.

"As climate science continues to demonstrate, climate change could have devastating impacts on both the environment and the economy," said Kevin Sauve, spokesperson for the Pembina Institute in B.C.

"It's encouraging to see that British Columbians are on the same page. Not only do they understand the need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels but see economic benefits in developing cleaner sources of energy as well."

"British Columbia is largely sitting on the sidelines of a global clean energy bonanza," said Merran Smith, Director of Clean Energy Canada. "Citizens know that the world's energy system is changing. The provincial government needs to strengthen the province's clean energy economy through targeted policy today."

The poll was commissioned by the Pembina Institute, Clean Energy Canada and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Eight hundred and two adult B.C. residents were surveyed from April 1 to April 2, 2014, using an established proprietary research panel. The results were statistically weighted according to the most recent education, age, gender and region Census data to provide a representative sample of the B.C. population.

"This poll sends a clear message that British Columbians want steps put in place now to transition this province towards a prosperous low-carbon future," said Tom Pedersen, Executive Director of the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). "It is encouraging to see such strong support for change across all levels of society, but especially among tomorrow's leaders — 18-34 year olds."

The poll found that 67 per cent of B.C. residents agree that the province should decrease its reliance on fossil fuels for greater economic security while more than 78 per cent suggested a move away from fossil fuels is necessary to avoid worsening climate change. Another 74 per cent agreed the province could benefit from clean sector jobs and growing the alternative energy economy.

Natural gas "out of step with clean energy"

The results of the poll come as B.C. Premier Christy Clark is pushing for the increased development of natural gas fields and liquified natural gas (LNG) plants for export.

On Earth Day, April 22nd, Environment Minister Mark Polak suggested the rush to develop the province's vast gas deposits was a part of B.C.'s climate plan.

“Our proven track record of climate leadership and our unwavering commitment to sustainable economic growth will also guide the development of B.C.’s liquefied natural gas industry. Climate change is a global issue. By exporting our abundant natural gas, B.C. will supply growing markets with the cleanest burning fossil fuel from the world’s cleanest LNG plants," she said.

Yet B.C.'s natural gas and LNG ambitions might not square with its ambitious emissions reductions.

“There are scenarios under which natural gas could potentialy be a transition fuel and that’s certainly the way the government has been positioning it," Sauve told DeSmog Canada. "But there is very little analysis to back that up.”

An increase in natural gas development will pile up on the climate impacts of other fossil fuels, Sauve said.

“Given this poll it looks like [the development of natural gas] is out of step with the expectations of British Columbians. It is out of step with clean energy.”

He added: “The general direction B.C. wants to go in is away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy.”

Image Credit: Sookie / Flickr Figures 1-3: British Columbians' opinions on climate change and clean energy: poll summary

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 public opinion survey commissioned by Environment Canada suggests that many Canadians are unhappy with the way the Harper government is balancing environmental issues and economic priorities.

Two in five, or 40 per cent, of Canadians who took the telephone survey "disagreed or strongly disagreed that the government is striking the right balance between addressing environmental and economic concerns," reports Postmedia News.

26 per cent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

The survey was conducted by Harris-Decima from May 23 to June 6, 2013, and included 3,001 Canadians from across the country. It was carried out to help Environment Canada gauge the mood of Canadians, and develop "communications products and policy" accordingly.

The survey also found that residents of British Columbia and the territories were most likely to strongly disagree that Canada was striking the right balance between environment and economy — 17 per cent as opposed to 12 per cent nationally.

Residents of Quebec were most likely to to strongly agree with the statement — nine per cent as opposed to six per cent nationally.

Most Canadians who took the survey did, however, prioritize economy over environment. When asked what the government's top priority should be, the economy was the top answer, given by 15 per cent of respondents.

11 per cent answered healthcare, and environmental issues came in third with 10 per cent of the respondents. Following environmental issues was job creation, and government accountability and leadership.

Respondents who wanted the government to focus on the environment indicated that water quality, oilsands, greenhouse gases and pollution were the most pressing environmental concerns.

Should the survey be repeated, results would be expected to fall within 1.8 percent of the current results 95 out of 100 times.

Image Credit: Prime Minister's Office / 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.