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

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

The Harper legacy that Trudeau inherited was a troubling one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s not all “sunny ways,” however.

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

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 28, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A one-of-a-kind debate in Victoria this week brought science and technology to the minds of federal candidates who all, despite their differences, agreed vociferously on one thing: Canada needs to be freed from the “war on science.”

In a packed room at the University of Victoria federal candidates for the NDP, Liberal and Green parties voiced unanimous concern with the muzzling of scientists, the cuts to research funding and the lack of transparency in government decision-making — all of which have, the candidates argued, became common place in the last four years of Conservative party majority rule.

Event organizer Aerin Jacob, a postdoctoral fellow in Geography at the University of Victoria, said Canadians are aware that there is a science crisis in Canada, even if they aren’t clear on the details. She invited candidates from all parties in four Vancouver Island ridings to speak to the community about those concerns.

Jacob said candidates from the Conservative Party did not respond to multiple invitations to participate in the science and technology debate.

Science Under Seige

“I think everyone in this room knows we’re seeing a war on science that is unprecedented, dangerous and deeply ideological,” Liberal candidate Tim Kane told the audience. “There is no doubt science in Canada is under siege.”

Jo-Ann Roberts, former CBC journalist and Green party candidate said the issue of science in Canada “is a big reason why I decided to run for office after being a journalist for 37 years.”

“It is not just war on science: it is information and knowledge in this country that is under siege,” Roberts said. “Canadians are angry about it.”

NDP candidate Murray Rankin said Canada has “moved from the age of enlightenment to the dark ages” due to “arbitrary funding cuts, centralization of power and a lack of respect for research.”

“Stephen Harper’s war on science is everywhere to be seen and his victims are everywhere in our system,” Rankin said.

CBC radio journalist Bob McDonald, who moderated the event, said, despite the current situation, “Canada has a long history of doing really excellent science.”

“We need scientific literacy in politicians and in the public because we have hard decisions we need to make about the future,” he said, “about how we keep ourselves warm, how we move from place to place and where that energy is going to come from, where our food and water is going to come from.”

McDonald told the audience “science is one of the last institutions we have that actually looks for the truth.”

All three candidates said if elected they would take steps to introduce a parliamentary science officer in Ottawa and bring back the mandatory-long form census.

Roberts said the Green Party’s platform includes a plan to make publicly funded science freely available to the public — something both Rankin and Kane said their parties would also pursue. Kane said the federal Liberal Party has plans for a central online portal that would make federal science more easily accessible to the public.

Rankin said the NDP will institute a bill of rights for science in government, something that would protect public servants from the fear of political reprisal.

“There should be an understanding that you can’t be fired for speaking truth to power,” he said.

Science a Number One Election Issue

The non-partisan science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy has been working hard to make science a relevant election issue. The group recently reviewed questions from federal leaders debate since 1968 and found none mentioned science policy.

Katie Gibbs says events like this week's science and technology debate show how much science has become a major player in the upcoming federal election.

“I have actually have been amazed to see how much science is playing into this election,” Gibbs said.

“And I think unprecedented that we’re seeing science as one of the main issues being discussed.”

Gibbs said the issue of science and the current challenged being faced with funding cuts and communications restrictions has “reached the next level of public awareness.”

This week Maclean's listed science as the top policy concern for Canadians who voted in the magazine's policy "face-off." Seventy-four per cent of participants said they wanted to see publicy funded science more readily available to the public.

“It’s really the public that is bringing this up,” Gibbs said. 

Transition Off Fossil Fuels Pressing for Candidates

All three candidates promised to reinstate funding for federal science, redirecting funds from contentious oil and gas subsidies.

McDonald asked the candidates to address the “big elephant in the room,” the fact that Canada is an oil producing country.

“How do you make the transition” off of fossil fuels, McDonald asked.

“The majority of fossil fuels must stay in the ground,” Roberts said. “We’re the only party that is opposed to the expansion of the oilsands…because if you’re expanding you’re going to need more pipelines and if you’re expanding you’re not bringing down your greenhouse gasses.”

Roberts said other countries provide a view of what a greener future could have in store for Canada.

“We have seen in Germany their renewable energy is 11 per cent of the GDP,” Roberts said. “Our oil and gas accounts for six per cent [of the GDP] and two per cent of the population works in the sector.”

The transition to cleaner forms of energy won’t occur without incentives, Roberts added.

Rankin said the NDP’s view on oilsands projects and pipelines is that decisions about these kinds of projects has to be “based on science, not ideology.”

“It’s just as bad for the Conservatives to never meet a pipeline they didn’t like for ideological reasons and to simply say we hate them for ideological reasons, “ he said.

Rankin added the transition to renewable energy will affect the approximately 550,000 people employed in the fossil fuel industry and must be “taken seriously.”

Rankin said there are smart ways of looking to transition. “If we move to geothermal — which is a technology that is much easier on the environment —geothermal is found where natural gas is found so that gives us an easy transition from the natural gas industry.”

“The question is sensitive to the reality that we have to look after those people who will be displaced,” he said.

Kane said he saw “lots of commonalities” between the three parties positions, adding the Liberal Party would work to create a favourable tax regime to draw renewable energy technology to cities like Victoria.

Kane also promised the Liberal Party will work with provincial premiers to formalize emissions reductions targets for the nation as a whole and “restore credibility” to the federal environmental assessment process which determines the fate of major oil and gas projects and infrastructure like the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Jacob said she hoped the event would remind Canadians of the importance of science to the upcoming federal election.

“Science is about discovery and it’s exciting. Talking about science is talking about optimism, it’s talking about the future, about what we don’t know and what we want to find out and how we will go about doing that.”

“When people go to the polls they might be thinking about their jobs or their families,” Jacobs said, “but their jobs and families are deeply connected to science and technology whether or not they know it.”

“It’s important for politicians to pay attention to science and tech and for people to ask them questions about it.”

Jacob said she was “thrilled” to see the room so full of community members.

“It gives me hope.”

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

In an absolutely unprecedented move Canada’s Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) announced it will engage in political activity in the lead-up to and during the next federal election.

“Extraordinary times call for extraordinary actions,” PIPSC president Debi Daviau said in a press release.

“This government has forced non-partisan organizations such as ours to make a very difficult choice: to remain silent or to speak out. We have chosen to speak out,” added Daviau.

PIPSC, Canada’s largest union of federal government scientists and professionals, represents some 55,000 public sector employees across the country.

The organization says the Harper government’s harsh treatment of union employees is damaging the public sector and the nation’s democracy.

In a recent annual general meeting the group pledged to “take all necessary action to ensure that Canadians are aware of what is at stake in federal public service collective bargaining.”

The group also agreed to “energetically defend and promote federal public services and expose the damage this Conservative government has done to these.”

In addition, the organization is preparing for potential “job action.”

“This government is driving our members down the path to job action,” Daviau said.

“It has launched an unprecedented assault on unions, and other democratically elected organizations in this country. It has cut thousands of federal public service jobs, programs and services. It has targeted, through bills such as C-377, C-525 and last year’s C-4, the very existence of unions and collective bargaining.”

In 2013 PIPSC released a study called The Big Chill that revealed the degree to which federal researchers and scientists were prevented from speaking about their work under the Harper government’s strict communications protocols.

Ninety per cent of federal scientists said they were prevented from speaking freely to the media about their work. Eighty-six per cent said they feared reprimand if they were to speak out against a department decision they found to go against public interest.

In addition, 50 per cent of respondents said they were aware of political interference in the communication of scientific research to the public.

“Canadians deserve to know the damage this government is inflicting – unnecessarily and often underhandedly – to their services, programs and even to their democracy,” concluded Daviau.

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper 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.

In an open letter published Monday more than 800 scientists are asking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end “burdensome restriction on scientific communication and collaboration faced by Canadian government scientists.”

The Harper government has recently attracted international attention after a report published by a leading research union identified Canadian scientists as particularly hard hit by budget cuts and communications protocols that prevent their freedom of expression.

More than 800 scientists from over 32 countries signed Monday’s letter, drafted by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The letter states “a rapid decline in freedoms and funding” is restricting scientific freedoms in Canada by preventing open communication and collaboration with other international scientists.

“Canada’s leadership in basic research, environmental, health and other public science is in jeopardy,” the letter states. “We urge you to restore government science funding and the freedom and opportunities to communicate these finding internationally.”

Harper government downplays concerns

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) is promoting the signed letter in news outlets across Canada to raise awareness during the Government of Canada’s Science and Technology week.

In 2013 PIPSC released a survey that found 90 per cent of federal government scientists felt they were not able to speak freely with the media about their work. The survey also found 86 per cent feared censure or retaliation were they to speak critically about a departmental decision that might harm public health, safety or the environment.

Recently the science advocacy group Evidence for Democracy released a report that gave the majority of federal departments studied a low or failing grade when it comes to open communication, protection against political interference, freedom of speech and whistleblower protection.

In a statement Scott French, spokesman for science and technology minister Ed Holder, said the government has made “record investments in science, technology and innovation,” adding the country is first among G7 countries for its support of academic research and “other research institutes.”

PIPSC told the Canadian Press that $2.6 billion in budget cuts are planned or underway for Canada’s 10 science-based federal departments between 2013 and 2016.

French said “while ministers are the primary spokespersons for government departments; scientists have, and are readily available to share their research with Canadians.”

World is watching Canada

Michael Halpern, Union of Concerned Scientists manager of strategy of innovation, said the open letter is meant to emphasize international scientific concern over Canada’s treatment of science.

Severe restrictions on research, communication and collaboration impedes the advancement of scientific knowledge and in some cases, Halpern said, U.S. researchers are hesitant to work with Canadian government scientists because of strict partnership agreements that prevent the free flow of information.

In early 2013 University of Deleware researcher Andreas Muenchow made waves when he refused to sign a revised Canadian information sharing agreement that he felt threatened his “freedom to speak, publish, educate, learn and share.” Muenchow had been collaborating with federal government scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for a decade at the time of the revisions.

Halpern said the Harper government’s cuts to air pollution and climate monitoring are negatively affecting understanding of these issues. He added that scientists are also prevented from traveling to international conferences to share their work, undermining the scientific process.

U.S. scientists faced similar problems

Halpern said the Union of Concerned Scientists reached out to PIPSC because it faced similar threats to scientific freedom in the U.S.

“Science thrives in an environment that is open and free and where researchers can collaborate across borders,” he said. “Canadian government scientists have made many critical contributions to our understanding of environmental and public health challenges, and we need to best and the brightest throughout the world to be able to work together.”

Peter Bleyer, policy advisor for PIPSC, told the Canadian Press the group is publicizing the letter because “we thought it was important to draw attention to what the world thinks – what the science world thinks.”

He said currently federal scientists are unable to speak freely.

“There’s so much evidence pointing to how government science has been undermined and how Canadian government scientists have been muzzled,” Bleyer said. “What is more important now is what’s the impact of that? What’s the impact in terms of our reputation around the world…and what’s the impact on Canadians in their day to day life?”

“We really hope that this appeal to what the world thinks of Canada is something that will strike a chord.”

Image Credit: Stand up for Science rally by Zack Embree.

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

A push to prioritize economic gains over basic research is endangering science and academic freedom in countries around the world, according to a new report published by a leading researchers union, the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers (SNCS-FSU).

The group surveyed higher education and research unions in 12 countries including France, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S.

The research union found governments internationally are pushing for policies “geared towards innovation in order to spur consumption and competitiveness,” according to Patrick Monfort, secretary-general of the SNCS-FSU. “Budget cuts are often blamed for our problems,” he said, “but they are only part of the picture.”

Monfort told the prestigious journal Nature that scientists in Canada have been particularly hard hit, not only by broad funding cuts, but contentious communications protocols that prevent their freedom of expression.

The new French-language report mentions Environment Canada scientist David Tarasick, who was prevented from speaking about his research on the ozone layer as well as Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristi Miller, who was prevented from speaking with the media about her research into declining salmon stocks.

The report also notes Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore who was not allowed to speak with media about a flood that occurred 13,000 years ago without receiving ministerial approval.

The turn to applied research and science that directly benefits the economy threatens the job security of professional scientists, concludes the new report. The problem is affecting the international scientific community to such an extent the group will call for an international science campaign at their upcoming Higher Education and Research Conference this November.

Canada’s so-called “War on Science” has made international headlines, especially after deep funding cuts led to the closure of some of Canada’s most important research centres. Thousands of federal scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as well as Environment Canada have lost their jobs as a result of the cuts.

Since 2006 the Harper government has introduced strict communications procedures that prevent scientists from speaking freely about – and at times even publishing – their research. Federal scientists are required to gain upper-level bureaucratic approval before they speak with journalists about their work, leading the international scientific community to call for the 'unmuzzling' of Canada’s scientists.

A report last year from the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre catalogued numerous instances of muzzling and led to an investigation by Canada’s information commissioner Suzanne Legault. That investigation is on-going.

Another report, released by the Professional Institute for the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), released in October 2013 found 37 per cent of federal researchers and scientists felt that within the last five years they were directly prevented from sharing their expertise with the public or media.

Nearly 25 per cent said they were forced to by government officials to modify their research for non-scientific reasons.

PIPSC president Gary Corbett told DeSmog Canada he found the level of political interference in federal science “very surprising.”

“The findings should be very concerning to the public,” he said, adding a full 50 per cent of scientists said they were aware of cases of political interference in the communication of scientific research.

The PIPSC survey came on the heels of a fundraising letter from the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association that referred to a group of Canadian scientists as “radical ideologues.”*

The letter was mentioned in the recent SNCS-FSU report, noting the phrase “radical ideologues” is “a term normally reserved for terrorists.”

Excerpt from the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers report.

The muzzling of scientists in Canada – and its political implications – is well documented in DeSmog Canada contributor Chris Turner’s book “The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Willful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada” and has gained celebrity attention from the likes of actress Evangeline Lilly.

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Lilly recently said she was “terrified” to hear about the muzzling of Canadian scientists.

“All over Canada right now scientists are having their funding pulled,” she said, “especially scientists who are speaking about climate change.”

“I rely on the experts in this world, experts like scientists and journalists, to give me the information to help guide me, to help me guide the government and I think that circle is the way democracy is supposed to work,” she said.

* An earlier version of this article stated the letter calling Canadian scientists "radical ideologues" was sent by Minister Greg Rickford. It was sent by the president of the Kenora Electoral District Association. 09/09/2014

Image Credit: Stand Up for Science rally in Vancouver. Photo by Zack Embree.

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

You may know the Canadian actress for her tough-girl roles in Lost or The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. But Evangeline Lilly has a battle – besides those with orcs and island smoke monsters – to fight: the battle for Canada’s scientists.

Lilly first heard about the defunding and muzzling of Canada’s federal scientists when she was reading DeSmog Canada just over a year ago. In a spate of funding cuts, the federal government eliminated some of Canada’s most prestigious scientific institutions, to the dismay of scientists and Canadians across the country. And since the Harper government has been in power, strict communications protocols have prevented scientists from speaking with the public about their research, limiting public awareness of taxpayer-funded science.

Lilly, who now lives in the U.S., said she keeps an eye out for stories about her homeland. And it always concerns her when she stumbles across something so disheartening.

“I think it’s always a little bit scary and astounding when as a citizen of what you consider to be a free nation you discover one day for various reasons…that something awful has been going on under your nose and you didn’t know,” she told DeSmog Canada. “And that happens to me a little more often than I’m comfortable with nowadays.”

Lilly was dismayed to learn that “all over Canada right now scientists are having all their funding pulled,” she said, “especially scientists who are speaking about climate change.”

“That terrified me,” she said.

Democracy relies on science

Like experts, journalists, science advocacy groups and environmental organizations across the country, Lilly said freedom and transparency in science is ultimately an issue of democracy.

Like what you're reading? Help us bring you more. Click here to support DeSmog Canada's Kickstarter campaign to clean up the climate and energy debate in Canada.

“As a democratic nation most of us would shake our heads and say that’s terrible,” she said, adding the targeting of scientists is an affront to “human rights.”

Most importantly, she said, people need scientific information to retain their decision-making power. If Canadians are uninformed then they won’t even know when decisions are being made for them.

“People need [scientific] information. They need that base objective standard that they can test their decisions against.”

Part of the fear associated with muzzled scientists, Lilly said, is the realization that governments are making decisions on behalf of their citizens, without their input or consent.

If Canadians knew more about the decisions the Government of Canada was making, “they would disagree, I think, for the large part [with] these decisions,” she said.

Even the basic issue of defunding scientists, Lilly said, doesn’t seem to be something most Canadians would support.

“I don’t think there’s a Canadian who would say ‘yeah that’s a great idea, let’s get rid of scientists, what do we need scientists for?’” she said.

“I think we’re a nation of intelligent, rational, peaceable, harmonious people. I’m very proud to be Canadian but Canadians aren’t getting the information they need to have.”

Lilly said that she, like a lot of people, doesn’t have tons of time to devote to researching every environmental issue, or policy issue and what the facts are behind these issues. She’s a young mom, with a flourishing acting career and a new career in writing.

The truth is, she said, ordinary people have to rely on experts they can trust.

“I rely on the experts in this world, experts like scientists and journalists, to give me the information to help guide me, to help me guide the government and I think that circle is the way democracy is supposed to work,” she said.

No science, no accountability

The important thing about science, Lilly said, is it acts as evidence for decision-making. Without science to back up decisions, it becomes very difficult to hold governments accountable in their leadership.

“As soon as the government is trying to control both scientists and the media now they start to control my ability to control them,” Lilly said. “That becomes really dangerous because it takes all the power out of the hands of the people in a democratic situation.”

Lilly said that the government pulling funds from major research institutions and restricting the freedom of scientists to speak about their work without upper-level bureaucratic permission actually impedes her ability to be a productive, informed citizen.

“They’re not allowing me to have that expert provide me with the information I need in order to make educated decisions about how I vote on different issues in the country.”

Time to stand up for our scientists

Lilly believes it’s her job – just as it’s the job of every average Canadian – to support scientists.

“I really believe it’s the Canadian people’s time and responsibility to stand up on behalf of their incredible scientists who are fighting for the truth and trying to give them the facts.”

Most of us just don’t have the time to discover these facts out on our own, Lilly said. “Or maybe don’t even, in my case, have the intelligence probably to discover these facts,” she laughed.

But she said, in all seriousness, science acts as a pillar of democracy. It’s a task for all of us to ensure it remains standing strong.

“It’s my job to stand up for that scientist and fight for them and say to my government, ‘I don’t think what you’re doing is right and I’m not going to let you get away with it,’” Lilly said, adding: “’It’s not your job to regulate science, it’s science’s job to regulate you.’”

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 article is part of DeSmog Canada's ongoing series "Science on the Chopping Block."

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a strong case for parents to accept scientific evidence about the effectiveness of vaccines.

“We do have scientists and medical professionals who do great work and verify this and I just think its a tragedy when people start to go off on their own theories and not listen to the scientific evidence,” he told the CBC in an exclusive interview.

“Don’t indulge your theories, think of your children and listen to the experts.”

Within his own government, scientists and professionals who do research and gather evidence, are urging the prime minister to take a second look at his own theories.

A major survey, conducted by Environics Research and sponsored by the labour union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, collected dozens of quotes from scientists who believe the Harper government doesn’t know how to use evidence. They allege the government is muzzling them, interfering with their research and ignoring their findings – particularly when it comes to evidence that covers issues such as climate change and other impacts of unsustainable industrial development.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

Here’s a list of ten significant quotes from that survey:

Quote 10: The “Banana Republic”

“I am a surplused employee at DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). I will be leaving my position and the civil service soon. What has been done to environmental legislation and Regulatory Authority in Canada in the last year+ is CRIMINAL! This now also includes a complete lack of capacity and funding. The Public are being grossly misled by Gov’t as to the state of the environment, especially the aquatic ecosystems and likely future negative consequences. The face of DFO is now virtually gone from communities and especially in the North where all the development is occurring. We are becoming a ‘Banana Republic’ when it comes to environmental legislation and regulations. These ‘wholesale’ changes are being led by ideology and not cost savings or common sense. The list of threatened and endangered species continues to grow. Salmon stocks are struggling all along the west coast of NA (North America). The number of contaminated sites continues to grow and clean up efforts are tied up in politicized bureaucracy. We have tens of millions of dollars for The War of 1812 and Canada’s Action Plan but cannot even respond in a timely fashion to the Cohen Report (inquiry into the plight of salmon) that cost $26 million. Canada has also lost significant environmental and scientific credibility internationally b/c of the muzzling of scientists and inaction on climate change. Continually making decisions and policies based on politics and the economy only will continue to degrade the environment around us.”

Quote 9: “Systematic dismantling”

“In my 31 years with the federal public service, I’ve never seen such a systematic dismantling of science capacity. My only hope of ever seeing a scientifically viable and credible public service again is a change in government.”

Quote 8: “Set aside and ignored”

“Because of changes in regulations and shifts in departmental mandates, science disciplines aimed at environmental and human protection have been set aside and ignored, without taking the real risks into consideration (e.g. environmental assessment, toxicology research on freshwater systems, aircraft inspection, food inspection).”

Quote 7: Using funds to equip companies

“I am a researcher in AAFC (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) and I have witnessed a strong research branch, which contributed immensely to Canada’s Agriculture and food sector getting dismantled under the guise of ‘transferring’ this activity to the private sector. The new research activities are narrow and serve short-term profit objectives. Funds are used to equip and run individual companies. These are business subsidies and not research programs benefitting all Canadians… I fear the public does not yet realize that within 10 years there will be no one acting in their interests.”

Quote 6: “Political interference”

“The current government’s positions have led to fundamental changes in environmental laws and regulations. Government scientists are as professional as ever but have to do their best in the current political context. Government interference is pervasive in our work, sometimes subtly (communications approval process, muzzling of the public, transparency towards the public) and sometimes very explicitly (changes to laws and regulations). Muzzling, lack of transparency, abandonment of Canadian environmental values for economic values at the expense of the environment, and political interference for economic purposes are the defining characteristics of the current government when it comes to the environment. It is harder to work in the environmental sciences under this government which is trying to do everything it can to avoid answering questions on the environment and serving as a world leader in environmental protection.”

Quote 5: “Orwellian”

“I am outraged by the Orwellian restriction of information under the current government… I am sure that I did not sign a confidentiality agreement designed to protect elected officials from minor embarrassment or surprise. If the public service is truly non-partisan, then our results should not be repressed to serve the interests of one political party over another. Furthermore, every time we have to ask permission to speak to the media, even if that permission is ultimately granted, it reduces the appearance of independence and transparency of government science.”

Quote 4: “Hate every day of my job”

“Despite what the scientists think, we are told what to say and that we have to put a positive spin on everything and to support economic development at all costs. Our role as both stewards and advisors has been silenced. We are tasked with work that we ethically do not agree with and must support. If we do not, they simply bring in project people who are non scientists who will write what senior management wants to hear. I am over worked, disrespected, undervalued, and I hate every day of my job where I used to love coming to work.”

Quote 3: “Minders”

“Up until the Harper govt., when the media called for an interview with me as a research scientist I simply gave the interview and wrote up a media report thereafter. Now managers decide if whoever gets the call is the appropriate contact for the specific topic; the process of waiting for approval is slow (days), and onerous (lots of email, phone calls) and involves minders, therefore I have given up doing media interviews bc it takes so much time from my work. I refer reporters to NGOs that might be involved. I believe other research scientists and biologists do the same based on conversations with them.”

Quote 2:

“Help”

Quote 1:

“I’m probably quitting. Harper wins.”

This article originally appeared on mikedesouza.com and is republished here with permission.

Image Credit: The Professional Institute of the Public Services of Canada report The Big Chill

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.

As cuts to federal science budgets continue, former government scientists and academics who’ve lost their funding say the cuts have upended their careers, compromised knowledge about Canada’s environment and undercut the development of the next generation of scientists.

The cuts were cast into the national spotlight earlier this year when CBC’s Fifth Estate ran an episode called Silence of the Labs.  

As the list of affected departments grows, DeSmog Canada has reached out to former government and university scientists to hear their stories.

Mercury and Climate Unwatched?

Britt Hall, a biogeochemist at the University of Regina, would travel every summer to the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a freshwater research institute, to study the way chemicals move in the environment. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

There, she examined mercury, a neurotoxin, found in the environment naturally, but predominantly from burning coal for electricity.

Thomas Duck, a climate scientist at Dalhousie University, spent 18 years travelling to a remote weather station on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic to do climate science at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory in Eureka, Nunavut.

Both Duck and Hall worked at world-renowned research institutes that faced elimination in 2012 — and then were saved, but their careers have by no means returned to normal.

The ups and downs of the Experimental Lakes Area’s 58 lakes in northwest Ontario have been well recorded in the media. When the federal government chopped the area’s $2-million annual funding in May 2012, world-renowned scientists decried the cuts.

All seemed lost until the Ontario and Manitoba governments stepped in to support the International Institute for Sustainable Development as the new manager.

For seven years, Hall and other scientists had been feeding a lake, a forest and a wetland with mercury at the Experimental Lakes Area. They were studying how long it takes mercury to leave fish when the doors were shut.

Funding for Duck’s polar lab dried up after the Harper government cut off money to the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, a fund for climate science created by the Chretien government.

Running on reserves until early 2012, the lab was forced to close for part of the year when it couldn’t secure $1.5 million in annual funding. Then, a year and a bit later, the government stepped in with $1-million-a-year for five years.

Prior to the doors closing, Duck was working on “cutting edge” research into how the atmosphere and permafrost were interacting. The Arctic’s infrastructure — roads, buildings and bridges — is built on the permafrost and if it melts “we have real problems,” Duck says.

A recent survey of Arctic dwellers found residents want research to be focused on issues relevant to their daily lives. 

Just because the Experimental Lakes Area and the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory were saved doesn’t mean Hall and Duck’s return is certain, however.

“I am hoping to get out there [the ELA], so we will see if I can scrape together a small amount of money to go,” says Hall, who says she lost her funding as a result of a fundamental reordering of the way science is funded in Canada.

Duck, meanwhile, says funding was restored — 40 per cent lower than the original amount — but the closure kneecapped his research and gutted his capacity to carry on research into the impact of climate change on the permafrost.

“It took the ability to even propose these kinds of ideas out of our hands — the loss of capacity meant we could no longer make a credible case for it,” he says.

Disappearing Dollars

For environmental scientists, the main source of funding for research has traditionally been the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Hall says.

Changes to the council over the last few years cut back money for discovery grants for blue-sky science and shifted internal money to research with an industry partner. These changes resulted in Hall losing her discovery grant, she said.

She contacted three industries that release mercury, but to no avail.

“I can’t solve a problem for industry,” Hall says. “I can help study the release of the mercury, but I can’t stop their mercury release — I am not an engineer.”

Disappearing support for research that doesn’t directly benefit industry was a story we also heard from former federal forestry scientist Philp Burton. He told DeSmog Canada in Part 1 of our Cuts to Science series that this is the first time in his 30-year career he has run out of ideas on where to look for research dollars.

In addition to the changes at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, “there are no other programs specifically related to forestry as there had been in the past,” Burton said.

Lost Capacity

Duck’s team at Eureka helped build a $1.2-million advanced laser radar called lidar, but it’s currently turned off and “its future remains somewhat in doubt,” Duck says.

When the polar lab closed, Duck went from working with 10 people — undergraduate and graduate students, research associates, and a senior scientist — to having one graduate student. All of the instrument operators, who were highly skilled at operating 25 different complex instruments in the hostile Arctic environment, were laid-off, Duck says.

“It was a loss of exceptional people…it also breaks the chain in training graduate students,” Duck added.

The two-year break halted the cycle of senior graduate students passing their knowledge onto junior graduates, resulting in huge loss of “institutional knowledge and capabilities.”

Hall echoes the sentiment. Losing federal funding halted her research and dropped the number of students working under her from around five to one (who is only there because he gets his salary from someone else), she said.

“That engine of training scientists, training students to be scientists, and producing new knowledge basically stopped,” Hall says. “I have seen it throughout my entire department.”

If more funding for research does not become available, Hall says she would take on more teaching responsibilities, while Duck is contemplating changing his research focus after such a major setback.

“This was a life-changing event,” Duck says.

Photo: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

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.

“Our plan is working, thanks to our Prime Minister’s strong leadership on the environment,” states a new sleek ‘fact sheet’ released to the public after the federal government announced a new National Conservation Plan (NCP) last week.

The Harper government is committing five years and $252 million to the NCP, an initiative they say is aimed at conserving land, restoring ecosystems, and connecting Canadians to nature.

"Our Government is committed to working closely with Canadians so that together we can provide effective stewardship of Canada’s rich natural heritage for present and future generations," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement.

"The National Conservation Plan will help ensure the sustainability of our nation’s greatest resources, contribute to our country’s long-term prosperity and further position Canada as a world leader in conservation. It will also help ensure that Canadian families and visitors can enjoy the beauty of our country from coast to coast to coast for years to come," he said.

The rollout of the conservation plan has been accompanied by a substantial public outreach campaign, including an email from Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq encouraging Canadians to get their own “free fact sheet” to “ learn more about what PM Harper and the Conservative Government have done to protect our natural heritage.”

Short on substance

The ‘fact sheet’ claims Canada is a “world leader in clean energy production,” investing “more than $10 billion in green infrastructure, energy efficiency, and clean energy since 2006.”

According to Simon Dyer, regional director for Alberta and the North at the Pembina Institute, "Canada's investments in clean energy per capita are significantly less than U.S. or Europe." A significant amount of money is being directed to carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, while the federal government has cancelled its Ecoenergy programs for efficiency and renewable energy, "which is a big gap," Dyer told DeSmog Canada.

And although the Ontario government has successfully phased out coal, Dyer said federal rules allow some Canadian coal plants to operate as late as 2062.

Prominent conservation groups are calling the government's plan into question, saying a more clear and rigorous strategy needs to be put into place. The federal government also needs to lay out how action on climate change will factor into the conservation picture, they say.

“Preserving land…without reducing greenhouse gas emissions is public relations, not conservation,” John Bennett from the Sierra Club said.

“We do need to preserve much more of nature but it is more complicated [than just] putting up a no trespassing sign.”

Alison Woodley, national director for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Parks Program, told DeSmog Canada there is “potential for progress” in the announcement of the NCP but how the plan will be implemented remains unclear.

“It is not clear how this announcement will enable Canada to meet its international commitment to protect at least 17 per cent of our land and 10 per cent of our oceans by 2020,” Woodley said. Canada currently protects 10 per cent of land and 1 per cent of Canadian waters.

“We desperately need a nation-wide, science-based plan to get there, and the federal government should be leading this effort. Yet this was not part of the announcement,” Woodley told DeSmog Canada.

Climate change is making nature conservation a more urgent issue, according to Woodley.

“We need to ensure that much more of our lands and waters are protected, and that these areas are connected together so wildlife can move through the land and seascape as they adapt to changing conditions,” she said.  

The conservation of Canada’s park land has an important role to play in addressing climate change.

“Conserving natural areas can also help with efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, by storing carbon and by buffering against extreme weather events like flooding and storm surges,” Woodley added.

Éric Hérbert-Daly, national executive director of CPAWS wrote it was “shocking” to see the government’s plan offered no support for National Parks. As DeSmog Canada recently reported, federal funding cuts to Parks Canada has left many of Canada’s national parks unattended, with little to no research being conducted on an ongoing basis, even in regions harshly affected by the pine beetle epidemic.

“National parks are the federal government’s flagship conservation tools that are beloved by Canadians,” Hérbert-Daly said. “A national conservation plan that ignores our national parks has an enormous gap.”

The Conservative government's 'fact sheet.'

A new 'environmental' brand for the Harper Government?

In 2012 Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, an internationally binding climate change agreement, and made major cuts to science programs and research at both Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The funding cuts, coupled with strict communications procedures that prevent scientists from speaking freely with the media, have been cited as evidence of the Harper government’s “war on science.”

As Andy Radia from Yahoo Canada News points out, the Conservative’s rebranding exercise makes sense, given how poorly the party is perceived when it comes to environmental policy.

As a potential sign of more aggressive environmental campaigning to come, Radia points to a much-publicized speech Conservative thought-leader Preston Manning gave at the Manning Conference earlier this year:

While conservatives are generally seen to be competent on the economy, we continue to be seen as defensive and weak on the environment. In our Quebec poll, for example, perceived weakness on the environment was given as the number one policy reason for not supporting conservative parties.

Of course, what is most exasperating is that this need not be so. I know, you know, all kinds of people – especially ranchers, farmers, loggers, fishers, hunters, hikers, out-door people who either work or recreate in close communion with their physical environment – who are fiscal or social conservatives and environmental conservationists all at the same time. They hold all of these commitments and positions in common.

And this shouldn’t surprise us. Conservative and conservation come from the same root. Living within our means financially is easily and logically extendable to living within our means ecologically. And market mechanisms, which conservatives prefer to excessive regulation by governments, can just as readily be harnessed to environmental protection as to economic development.

But this perceived weakness on the environmental front needs to be more seriously addressed if conservative support is to be broadened, especially among the young. The philosophical and policy means for doing so exist in the growing body of literature and activity on the “green conservative” theme. And the appointment of Leona Aglukkaq as Canada’s Environment Minister is a most positive and welcome step as the Arctic, with which she is intimately identified, is seen by many Canadians as the place to make a “fresh start on the environment” and the better management of the environment/economy interface.

Ultimately, says Woodley, the government has to make good on the promise to conserve Canada’s green spaces.

“The announcement was just that, an announcement – with a list of investments, but no details about what they are meant to achieve,” she said. 

“It is not clear if they are going to now create a plan with clear goals and objectives and strategies to achieve these. We hope there is something more comprehensive coming, but the announcement didn't mention anything along those lines.”

Image Credit: Prime Minister Stephen Harper announcing the NCP. Photo courtesy of the Prime Minister's website.

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.

Acclaimed Canadian author Margaret Atwood appeared on Jian Ghomeshi’s CBC radio show Q where she spoke out against the muzzling of Canada’s taxpayer funded scientists.

Ghomeshi started the conversation with, “Margaret, you’ve recently told the Ottawa Citizen that you feel our current government is hostile to a particular kind of science. What were you thinking of particularly?”

“Oh, now we’re talking!” she responded.

“It’s all over the internet that the scientists that you and I pay for with our tax dollars, we’re not allow access to their actual results. They have to submit that to some kind of Big Brother bureaucrat who tells them whether or not it’s, quote, ‘on message,’ before they can tell us what they found out.”

“Number one,” she said, “that is a very shoddy treatment of our tax dollars. And number two, it’s potentially hazardous to your health because what if they’re finding out things that are going into our drinking water, into the air…and we’re not being told about it.”

“And number three,” Ghomeshi added, “a great source of frustration to the scientific community.”

“That too,” said Atwood, “a great source of frustration to them, the ones that your tax dollars are paying for…Tax payers paid for this stuff, we should be allowed access to the results as those results come out and those people should be able to talk to…journalists, because the journalists are the interface between them and the public.”

“And how concerned are you that environmental science or investigative science are going to be undermined in a significant way?” Ghomeshi asked.

“Pretty concerned,” Atwood responded. “And I’m not alone in that. In fact the New York Times has just had a piece on it in which they said this government here in Canada is worse than the Bush government in the United States was on that same issue.”

“You’re also handicapping Canadian technology in that way and you’re handicapping Canadian education," she said.

For more on the War on Science, read "Harper's Attack on Science: No Science, No Evidence, No Truth, No Democracy."

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.

Last year the Harper government’s decision to gut the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) led to the deft and unceremonious firing of more than 1,000 federal employees, many of them researchers, lab technicians and experts crucial to Canada’s understanding of marine science. Frontline stories of tearful staff meetings, where the devastating news was delivered en masse, convinced many Canadians we were in the midst of what is now popularly known as the ‘War on Science.’

That storyline continues today after a new Environment Canada report outlines the department’s plan to eliminate more than 1,000 jobs, a disproportionate amount of which will come from the climate change division.

The ‘plans and priorities’ report shows the department will reduce spending from more than $1 billion in 2014-2015 to $698.8 million in 2016-2017, reports the Toronto Star.

In addition program spending for Environment Canada’s climate change and clean air program will be reduced from $234.2 million in 2014-2015 to $54.8 million in 2016-2017.

Full-time equivalent jobs will drop from 6,400 this year to 5,348 in 2016-2017.

Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord. Environment Canada’s most recent emissions report, released in October 2013, shows Canada’s current measures are inadequate for reaching our emissions reductions targets.

Emissions trends reported in Environment Canada's 2013 Emissions Report.

A new study released by Globe International that examined nearly 500 pieces of climate legislation in 66 countries found Canada had “no flagship legislation” for climate despite being in the top 20 worldwide emitters. The report also notes Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Accord in 2011.

Megan Leslie, Halifax MP and environment critic for the NDP, says given the global challenges posed by climate change, Canada’s decision to cut related programs at Environment Canada doesn’t make sense.

“Knowing what the situation is with greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, one would think they got the numbers backwards. And that we would be ramping up rather than ramping down,” she told the Toronto Star. “That is a shocking decrease, it really is.”

Leslie noted these changes to Environment Canada are happening while the country still awaits promised emissions regulations for the oil and gas sector. The oilsands are Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the Pembina Institute, “if Alberta were a country, its per capita greenhouse gas emissions would be higher than any other country in the world.” They also report “7 per cent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions came from oilsands plants and upgraders in 2010.”

Emissions from the extraction and upgrading of oilsands bitumen is estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive on a per barrel basis than conventional crude produced elsewhere in Canada or the U.S.

“This is a sector with the fastest growing emissions and we’re still waiting,” Leslie said.

Image Credit: Kris Krug

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.