Greening C-51

Elizabeth May (Green Party Leader and MP) and Bruce Hyer

(Deputy Leader and MP) announced their proposed amendments of

 Bill C-51 at a press conference Monday morning. The two Green Party MPs,

both vocal critics of Bill C-51, will table 60 amendments during

clause-by- clause consideration of the bill.



From  elizabethmaymp.ca/ Monday, March 30th, 2015
“ ...While there is no way to fix this deeply flawed bill, our duty as elected legislators compels us to protect Canadians from its most egregious faults,” said Ms. May. “Our amendments seek to protect Canadian’s Charter rights and make this country safer by eliminating the reckless and dangerous Conservative policies in C-51.”

The Green Party proposed amendments to each of the 5 parts of the omnibus terror bill. Part 1 would create an information sharing act that would allow almost every government department to share private information about citizens with virtually no restrictions.

“I was shocked that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada was not invited to testify at Committee,” said Ms. May. “There’s a reason: he is deeply concerned that this bill will trample on Canadian’s privacy rights. Our amendments are guided by those concerns.”

Part 2 would expand the no-fly list in Canada. It has been widely criticised as having been drafted without appropriate consultation with the airline industry.

“I greatly question the need to expand Canada’s no-fly list,” said Mr. Hyer. “C-51 creates a dangerous scenario with a complete lack of due process and the ability for Canadian officials to share the information on the list with virtually no caveats.

“Remember, this list catches people deemed too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest. The money spent on these pre-screening systems would be better spent on investigative or emergency response measures.”

Parts 3 and 4 would introduce broad new criminal code offences for ‘promoting terrorism’ and radically transform CSIS, providing new police powers to the agency which was designed to only collect domestic intelligence.

“C-51 will chill free speech,” said Ms. May. “It would make those involved in de-radicalising efforts fearful of prosecution which would serve to further isolate – and thus make more dangerous – those individuals prone to committing ideologically driven acts of violence.

“By providing CSIS with disruption abilities, we take an agency that we know to overstep its existing powers, and equip it with a mandate to operate like a secret police. The weak changes the Harper administration announced last week are nowhere near sufficient to satisfy the bill’s many critics. The single best solution to C-51 remains scrapping it completely.”

While Ms. May was a regular attendee of committee hearings during its study of Bill C-51, Conservative MPs blocked her every attempt to ask a single question. Although any MP has a right to sit at committee, participation is at the discretion of the Chair. During these hearings, the Chair chose to put Ms. May’s requests to the floor for unanimous consent, which was summarily denied by her Conservative colleagues.

The process by which Green MPs submit amendments to committee is one created by PMO to deprive Green MPs from‎ presenting amendments to the House of Commons at Report Stage. Ms. May used this right effectively in opposing Bill C-38 in spring 2012. Since the fall of 2013, due to identical motions passed by Conservatives in every committee, Green amendments are deemed to have been moved at committee. Ms. May and Mr. Hyer will be given time to present each amendment but are not allowed to vote. ..."

Dear Prime Minister Harper: heads up from scientists

 Open Letter on the Joint Review Panel report regarding the Northern Gateway Project


May 26, 2014
The Right Hon. Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Langevin Building
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Dear Prime Minister Harper:

Based on the evidence presented below, we, the undersigned scholars, have concluded that the Joint
Review Panel’s (JRP) assessment of the Northern Gateway Project (the Project) represents a flawed
analysis of the risks and benefits to British Columbia’s environment and society. Consequently, the JRP report should not serve as the basis for concluding that the Northern Gateway Project is in the best interests of Canadians. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this report.

The Canadian electorate expected the JRP ruling to present a balanced and appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits of the Project, drawing upon the best available evidence, and expressing a cogent rationale for the final ruling.

By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel’s review:

1. Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
2. Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate
consideration of key issues,
3. Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
4. Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents, and
5. Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the
proponent’s yet-to-be-developed mitigation measures.

Below, we expand on these five fundamental flaws that invalidate the report as an appropriate basis for
your Cabinet to approve the Project.

1. Failure to Articulate a Rationale

The panel failed to articulate a rationale for numerous findingsi, and failed to satisfy the criteria of
“justification, transparency and intelligibility” expected of administrative tribunals.ii Such a rationale is
fundamental to both scientific and legal judgment. The Panel’s charge was to determine whether the
Project is in the public interest of British Columbians and Canadians, based on a critical analysis of the Project’s economic, environmental and social benefits, costs and risks over the long term. Instead of such a balanced consideration, the panel justified its recommendation of the project by summarizing the panel’s understanding of environmental burdens in five short paragraphsiii and judging that these adverse environmental outcomes were outweighed by the potential societal and economic benefits.
Without a rationale for why the expected benefits justify the risks (e.g., why must an environmental
effect be certain and/or permanently widespread to outweigh economic benefits that themselves are
subject to some uncertainty?), any ruling of overall public interest is unsupportable.

2. Consideration of Narrow Risks but Broad Benefits, Omission of Key Issues

The panel included in its deliberation a broad view of the economic benefits, but an asymmetrically
narrow view of the environmental risks and costs. The need for the Project as stipulated by Enbridge
includes consideration of the enhanced revenues that would accrue from higher prices for oil sands
products in Asian markets. These enhanced revenues are benefits to producers from production. The
environmental risks, however, were only considered if they are associated with transport, not
production or later burning/consumption. All negative effects associated with the enhanced production
of oil sands bitumen, or the burning of such products in Asia, were excluded, as were greenhouse gas emissions generally.iv This exclusion of the project's contributions to increased atmospheric emissions undermines Canada’s formal international commitments and federal policies on greenhouse emissions.v Other key issues omitted include the difficulty of containing freshwater spills under ice, as has already been demonstrated on the Athabasca River from oil sands developments.vi

3. Reliance on Information from the Proponent, without External Evaluation

On critical issues, the panel relied on information from the proponent without external assessment. For example, on the pivotal matter of the risks of a diluted bitumen tanker spill, the panel concluded that a major spill was unlikely.vii Yet, a professional engineers’ report concluded that the quantitative risk assessment upon which the panel relied was so flawed as to provide no meaningful results.viii Regarding the consequences of such a spill, the panel relied on the proponent’s modeling to conclude that the adverse consequences of a spill would not be widespreadix or permanent,x even as it acknowledged that there is much uncertainty about the behavior of diluted bitumen in the marine environment. That modeling discounted the prospect that diluted bitumen could be transported long distance by currents, when the product submerges, as it does under a wide range of conditions.xi Thus, the panel may have underestimated the scale of potential damages. Because the proponent is in a clear conflict of interest, an independent assessment of potential oil spill damage should have been commissioned.

4. Contradiction of Official Government Documents

A decision on the potential for significant adverse environmental effects on any species or habitat must be consistent with the government’s own official documents. The panel’s conclusions that marine mammals in general will not suffer significant adverse cumulative effects stands in direct contradiction
to the government's own management and recovery plans.xii For example, the Recovery Plan for large
whales (blue, fin, and sei whales—species-at-risk under the federal Species at Risk Act, SARA) lists
“collisions with vessels, noise from industrial … activities, [and] pollution” as imminent threats —all
three threats are associated with the NGP proposalxiii. Contamination has also been identified as a threat for other marine mammals: the management plans for both the sea otterxiv and the Steller sea lionxv identify a risk from marine contamination—in particular the acute effects of large oil spills, but also from the toxicity of smaller, chronic spills that are likely to increase proportionally with vessel traffic. The panel also failed to account for newly identified critical habitat of the humpback whale and failed to specify how the proponent’s mitigation plan would reduce the significant risks from increased shipping, a serious threat identified in the recently published Recovery Strategy for the species.xvi A plan to manage the threats to the species and its habitat is a legal requirement given that the humpback whale is a species of Special Concern under SARA.

5. Inappropriate Treatment of Uncertain Risks, and Reliance on Yet-To-Be-Developed Mitigation
Measures

The panel effectively treated uncertain risks as unimportant. For instance, Northern Gateway omitted
specified mitigation plans for numerous environmental damages or accidents. This omission produced
fundamental uncertainties about the environmental impacts of Northern Gateway’s proposal
(associated with the behaviour of bitumen in saltwater, adequate dispersion modeling, etc.). The panel
recognized these fundamental uncertainties, but sought to remedy them by demanding the future
submission of plans. However, the panel described no mechanism by which the evaluation of these
plans could reverse their ruling. Since these uncertainties are primarily a product of omitted mitigation
plans, such plans should have been required and evaluated before the JRP report was issued. To assume that such uncertainties would not influence the final decision of the panel, is to sanction the proponent’s strategic omissions, and effectively discount these potentially significant risks of the
Project, to the detriment of the interests of the Canadian public.

Conclusion

The JRP report could have offered guidance, both to concerned Canadians in forming their opinions on
the project and to the federal government in its official decision. However, given the major flaws
detailed above, the report does not provide the needed guidance. Rather, the JRP's conclusion—that
Canadians would be better off with than without the Northern Gateway Project given all
“environmental, social, and economic considerations”xvii—stands unsupported.

Given such flaws, the JRP report is indefensible as a basis to judge in favour of the Project.

Sincerely, Kai MA Chan, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

Anne Salomon, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University

Eric B Taylor, Professor, University of British Columbia


Elena Bennett, Professor, McGill University

James M Byrne, Professor, University of Lethbridge

Michael Barkusky, Founding Director, Pacific Institute for Ecological Economics

Suzanne Bayley, Emeritus Professor, University of Alberta

Ratana Chuenpagdee, Professor, Memorial University

Simon Donner, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

Edward Gregr, Professional Biologist / Recovery Plan Author, University of British Columbia

Eric Higgs, Professor, University of Victoria

George Hoberg, Professor, University of British Columbia

Kathryn Harrison, Professor, University of British Columbia

Don Jackson, Professor, University of Toronto

Mark Jaccard, Professor, Simon Fraser University

Jeremy Kerr, Professor, University of Ottawa
Ken Lertzman, Professor, Simon Fraser University


Sarah Otto, Professor, University of British Columbia

Evgeny Pakhomov, Professor, University of British Columbia

Paul Paquet, Assistant Professor, University of Victoria

Wendy Palen, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University

David Schindler, Professor, University of Alberta

Douw Steyn, Professor, University of British Columbia

Ussif Rashid Sumaila, Professor, University of British Columbia

Boris Worm, Professor, Dalhousie University


Abe Torchinsky, Medical Student, University of British Columbia

Alan Lewis, Emeritus Professor, University of British Columbia, Earth & Ocean Sciences

Alan Sinclair, Fisheries Scientist, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Retired

Alec Blair, Ph.D. Candidate, McGill University

Alejandra Echeverri, M.Sc. Candidate, University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources,
Environment and Sustainability

Alexandra Muhametsafina, Graduate Student, Wilfrid Laurier University

Alina Fisher, Research Manager, University of Victoria

Alisha Hackinen, M.Sc. Candidate in Soil Science, University of British Columbia

Allison Thompson, Master's Student, University of British Columbia

Alys Granados, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Alysson Vrielink, Electrical Engineer Ph.D. Student, Stanford University

Amanda Mathys, Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia

Andrena Moore, Member, Canadian avalanche association

Andrew Huang, M.Sc. Student, University of British Columbia

Andrew Littlejohn, Mr, Harvard University

Andrew Riseman, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia, LFS

Anna Shoemaker, Ph.D., Uppsala University

Anne Dalziel, Ph.D., Universite Laval

Anne Paling, Environmental Scientist, Vaisala

Anne Steino, Ph.D., Pharmaceutical Industry

Antje Ellermann, Professor, University of British Columbia

Antonia Mills, Professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Antony Porcino, Project Director (CAMEO/Research), University of British Columbia

Arne Mooers, Professor, Simon Fraser University

Art Fredeen, Professor, University of Northern BC

Aylin Ulman, Researcher, M.Sc. Student, Sea Around Us, University of British Columbia

Barrie Webster, Professor (retired), University of Manitoba

Beatrice Proudfoot, Biology Student

Ben Seghers, Lecturer, Oxford University

Bernardo Ranieri, Conservation Biologist. Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia, Institute for
Resources, Environment and Sustainability

Bina Joy

Blake Poland, Associate Professor, University of Toronto

Bradley Walters, Professor of Geography & Environment, Mount Allison University

Brenda Ross, CAMEO Program

Brendon Larson, Associate Professor, University of Waterloo

Brett Favaro, Research Scientist, Memorial University

Brett Howard, Graduate Student, Simon Fraser University


Brian Starzomski, Ian McTaggart-Cowan Professor, University of Victoria

Brianna Wright, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia

Bridget Bergquist, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

Brock Ramshaw, M.Sc., University of British Columbia

Bruce Hunter, Professor, Seneca College

Bruna Amaral, M.Sc. Student, University of Queensland

C.S. Holing, Emeritus Professor, University of Florida

Cael Cook, Student

Cameron Egan, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Cameron Webster, Research Assistant, University of British Columbia

Caragh Geiser, Scientist

Carling Gerlinsky, Research Assistant, University of British Columbia, Fisheries Center

Carol Pollock, Professor of Teaching, University of British Columbia, Dept. of Zoology

Cathryn Murray, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of British Columbia

Charles J. Krebs, Emeritus Professor of Zoology, University of British Columbia

Charlotte Whitney, Ph.D. Student, University of Victoria

Chico Birrell, M.Sc., University of Queensland

Chris Aikman, Associate Research Officer, Retired NRC scientist

Chris Barrington-Leigh, Assistant Professor, McGill University

Chris Darimont, Assistant Professor, University of Victoria

Chris Joseph, Researcher, Sustainable Planning Research Group, Simon Fraser University

Christian Beaudrie, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Christina Roberts, Retired Instructor & Associate Prof., University of Toronto, Harvard University,
University of Calgary

Christopher Raymond, Senior Research Fellow, Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia

Cintia Camila Silva Angelieri, Ph.D. Student, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

Colleen Milligan

Constance Finney, Ph.D.

Cory Pahl

Courtney Halvorson, Student, Marine Science

Crispin Jordan, Ph.D., University of Edinburgh

Dalal Al-Abdulrazzak, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Dallas Genereaux, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia

Dana Lepofsky, Professor, Simon Fraser University

Danica Patton, Ph.D., Stanford University

Daniel Rainham, Associate Professor, Environmental Science, Dalhousie University

Danny Harvey, Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Toronto

Darren Irwin, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

David Ng, Director, AMBL, Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia

David R. Boyd, Adjunct Professor, Simon Fraser University

David Roberts, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Alberta

David W Mayhood, President, Lead Consultant, FWR Freshwater Research Limited

Dawn Hemingway, Associate Professor, University of Northern BC

Dayna Nadine Scott, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School and the Faculty of Environmental
Studies, York University

Deb Chen, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Deb Niemeier , Professor , University of California

Debra Wertman, Insect ecologist, University of Victoria


Dennis Murray, Canada Research Chair, Trent University

Diana Allen, Professor, Simon Fraser University

Diane Srivastava, Professor, University of British Columbia

Dolph Schluter, Professor, University of British Columbia

Dominique Roche, Ph.D., Australian National University

Donald Spady, Adjunct Professor Pediatrics & Public Health, University of Alberta

Doug Prest, Professional Engineer, Professional Engineers Ontario

Edd Hammill, Lecturer, University of Technology, Sydney

Edi de Pencier

Eduardo Martins, Ph.D., University of British Columbia

Elaine Hsiao, Ph.D. Student, Liu Scholar, University of British Columbia

Elena Lazos, Professor in Socio-environmental Studies, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

Eliana Jacobs, Student, University of British Columbia

Elizabeth Kleynhans, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Elizabeth Law, Ph.D. Student, University of Queensland

Elizabeth Pendray, Research Assistant, Simon Fraser University

Ellika Crichton, Student, Simon Fraser University

Elysabeth Theberge, M.Sc. candidate, University of Ottawa

Emily Anderson, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Emily Brault, Graduate Student, University of California Santa Cruz

Emily Darling, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of North Carolina

Emily Rubidge, Visiting Scientist, University of Victoria

Emma Burgess, Student, University of Queensland

Eric Keating, Mr

Eric Treml, Research Fellow, University of Melbourne

Erica Frank, Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of British Columbia

Erin Crockett, M.Sc. Student, University of Oxford

Esther Speck

Eva Stredulinsky, M.Sc. candidate, University of Victoria

Evan Morien, Computational Biologist, University of British Columbia

Florie Cai, Student, University of British Columbia

Fred Bunnell, Emeritus Professor, University of British Columbia

Gabrielle Grant

Geoff Bernz

George Ellenton

George McKibbon, adjunct professor, University of Guelph

Gerardo Ceballos, Professor, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Instituto de Ecologia

Gilles Wendling, President, Ph.D, P.Eng, GW Solutions

Gordon Laxer, Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta

Gunnar Schade, Associate Professor, Texas A&M University

Gwylim Blackburn, Biologist, University of British Columbia

Hannah Wauchope

Hannah Wittman, Assoc Prof, University of British Columbia

Harald Yurk, Research Associate, Behavioral Ecologist in Bioacoustics, Vancouver Aquarium

Heike Lotze, Associate Professor, Dalhousie University

Helen King, Ph.D., Cranfield University

Ian Colquhoun, Chair, M.Sc. Environment and Sustainability, Western University

Ignacio Palomo, Ph.D., BC3


Isabelle Cote, Professor, Simon Fraser University

J Shiller, Aquatic ecologist, University of British Columbia

J Thomas Beatty, Professor, University of British Columbia

James Bernier, Biologist

James D Johnson, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

James Grant, Professor, Biology, Concordia University

James K. Rowe, Assistant Professor, University of Victoria

James S Clark, Nicholas Professor of Global Environmental Change, Duke University

Jamie Leathem, M.Sc., University of British Columbia

Jana Vamosi, Associate Professor, University of Calgary

Jane Watson, University-College Professor, Vancouver Island University

Jason Read, Instructor, University of British Columbia

Jean-Sebastien Moore, Ph.D., Universite Laval

Jedediah Brodie, Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia

Jeff MacAdams, Graduate Student, University of Victoria

Jeffrey C. Ho, Ph.D. Student, Stanford University

Jeffrey Charters, M.Sc., Technician, University of Guelph

Jenn Burt, Ph.D. Student, Simon Fraser University

Jennifer N Harding, Ph.D. Candidate, Simon Fraser University

Jenny L. McCune, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Guelph

Jessica Dempsey, Assistant Professor, University of Victoria

Jessica Forrest, Assistant Professor, University of Ottawa

Jessica Lu, Student, University of British Columbia

Jessica Reeves, Faculty, Quest University Canada

Jessica Schultz, M.Sc. Student, Simon Fraser University

Jessica Walsh, Ph.D. Student Conservation Ecology, University of Cambridge

Joan Kleypas, Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Jocelyn Gifford, SGI Green Party

Jocelyn Nelson, M.Sc., University of British Columbia

Jody Reimer, M.Sc., University of Alberta

John D. McPhail, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia

John Larda

John R. Post, Professor, University of Calgary

John Reynolds, Professor, Simon Fraser University

John Robinson, Associate Provost, Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources,
Environment and Sustainability, Dept. of Geography

John Smol, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, Queen's University

John Volpe, Associate Professor, University of Victoria

Jonathan Moore, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University

Jonathan Witt, Associate Professor, Dept. of Biology, University of Waterloo

Jonn Axsen, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University, School of Resource and Environmental
Management

Jordi Honey-Roses, Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia

Joshua Silberg, MRM Candidate, Simon Fraser University

JR Welch, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier 2), Simon Fraser University, Archaeology,
School of Resource & Environmental Mgmt.

Judith Myers, Professor Emerita, University of British Columbia

Julia Atkins, Abbotsford Regional Hospital


Julia Gustavsen, Ph.D. Student, Biological Oceanography, University of British Columbia

Julia K. Baum, Assistant Professor, University of Victoria

Jutta Beher, Biologist, University of Queensland

Karen Cooke, Research manager, University of British Columbia School of Nursing

Karen Golinski, Honorary Research Associate, University of British Columbia

Karena Shaw, Associate Professor and Director, University of Victoria, School of Environmental Studies

Kate Kirby, Ph.D., University of Toronto

Katherine Acheson, Associate Professor, University of Waterloo

Katherine L. Parker, Professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Katherine Proctor, Ethnoecologist

Kathleen MacLeod, Professor, University of British Columbia

Kathryn Adams, Student, King's University College

Katie Gale, M.Sc., Memorial University of Newfoundland

Ken Hall, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia

Kenneth Denman, Adjunct Professor, University of Victoria

Kiely McFarlane, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia

Kimberley Langley, BLS, BA

Kitty Corbett, Professor, Simon Fraser University

Kyla Farmer, Alumni, Carleton University

Kyle Lamont, Funktion Design

Laura Benestan, Ph.D. Student, Universite Laval

Laura Fedoruk, M.Sc., University of British Columbia

Laura Wegener Parfrey, Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia

Laurie Chan, Director and Canada Research Chair in Toxicology and Environmental Health, University of Ottawa, Center for Advanced Research in Environmental Genomics

Lawrence Dill, Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University

Leah Honka, M.Sc. Student, Simon Fraser University

Lee Cain, Director of Recreation, Anacostia Watershed Society

Lena Molinari, Environmental Outreach Professional

Lenore Fahrig, Professor, Carleton University

Lia Chalifour, Biologist, University of Victoria

Linda Jennings, Assistant Curator, Beaty Biodiversity Museum

Lindsay Der, Ph.D. Candidate, Stanford University

Lisa McDonnell, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of British Columbia, Faculty of Science

Lisa Westerhoff, Ph.D. candidate, University of British Columbia

Locke Rowe, Professor, University of Toronto

Lorri Lapp

Louis Bernatchez, Professor, Universite Laval

Louise Chavarie, Ph.D. Student, University of Alberta

Lucas Fehr

Lucy Rodina, Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability

Luke A. Rogers, M.Sc. Student, University of Toronto

Lyn Baldwin, Associate Professor, Thompson Rivers University

Lynne Quarmby, Professor, Simon Fraser University

Maayan Kreitzman, Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources Environment
and Sustainability

Margaret Steyn


Margo Tamez, Assistant Professor, University of British Columbia

Margot Parkes, Associate Professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Marianne Abraham

Marieke Beaulieu, M.Sc., Universite de Sherbrooke

Marina Winterbottom, Marine Biologist, Dalhousie University

Marisa Brook, Ph.D. Student, University of Toronto

Mark S. Boyce, Professor of Ecology & Alberta Conservation Association Chair in Fisheries & Wildlife, University of Alberta

Martha Stark, Adjunct Professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Martin Bunch, Professor, York University

Martin Krkosek, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto

Mary Hufford, Senior Research Scientist, Virginia Tech

Matt Dolf, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia

Matthew Ladd, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Ottawa

Matthew Lapointe, Timmins

Matthew Mitchell, Ph.D., McGill University & University of Queensland

Matthew Taccogna, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia

Matthew Wagstaff, Research Assistant, University of British Columbia

Maureen May

Maureen Nadeau, Student, University of British Columbia

Maxwell A. Cameron, Professor, University of British Columbia

Maxwell Sykes, M.Sc. Student Resource Management, Simon Fraser University, Energy and Materials
Research Group

Meaghan Labine, Ph.D., University of Manitoba

Megan Osmond-Jones, Research Assistant, Thompson Rivers University

Meinhard Doelle, Professor, Dalhousie University

Michael Brauer, Professor, University of British Columbia

Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor and Director of Earth System Science Center, Penn State
University

Michael Gillingham, Professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Michael Russello, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

Michelle Moore

Michelle Nelson, Ph.D. Candidate, Simon Fraser University

Milind Kandlikar, Professor, University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources Environment and Sustainability

Nancy Turner, Distinguished professor, University of Victoria

Natalie Ban, Assistant professor, University of Victoria

Natalie Hunter

Nathan Toh, Research Assistant, University of British Columbia

Nicholas Vagelatos, Ph.D.

Nick Dulvy, Professor, Simon Fraser University

Nicole Shumway, Research Ecologist, University of Queensland

Nigel Haggan, Ph.D., University of British Columbia

Nikos Christodoulou, Ph.D., Nuclear engineering specialist

Noah Mitchell

Olivia Festy, Ph.D., Queen Mary University

Paige Olmsted, Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia

Pamela Zevit, Registered Professional. Biologist, Principal Adamah Consultants


Pascale Gibeau, Ph.D. Student and Biologist, Simon Fraser University

Patricia Balvanera, Professor, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

Paul Beckwith, Part-time Professor/Full-time Ph.D. Student, University of Ottawa

Paul Bentzen, Professor, Dalhousie University

Paul R. Ehrlich, Bing Professor of Population Studies, Biology Dept., Stanford University

Perrier, Ph.D., Universite Laval

Peter Arcese, Professor, FRBC Chair, University of British Columbia

Peter Rankin, Mr, Marine and coastal scientist

Philip H. Austin, Associate Professor, University of British Columbia

Philippe Henry, Assistant professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Philippe Le Billon, Professor, University of British Columbia

Rebecca G Martone, Program Lead, Stanford University, Center for Ocean Solutions

Rebecca Seifert, Master's Student, Simon Fraser University

Rebecca Witter, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of British Columbia

Rebekah Jones, Coastal Resources Scientist, Louisiana State University

Regina Bestbier, M.Sc., University of British Columbia

RenÇù Dyrborg, Natural & Historical Facilitator

Rene Beyers, Research Associate, University of British Columbia

Renee Duclos

Rhea Paniesin, Instructor of Sociology and Psychology, Mount Saint Mary College

Richard Schuster, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia

Robby Walker, Student

Robert B. Gibson, Professor, Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo

Robert DeWreede, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia

Robert Howarth, David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology, Cornell University

Robert Stupka, Engineer

Roberta Fulthorpe, Professor and Graduate Chair, University of Toronto Scarborough

Robyn Burnham, Associate Professor, University of Michigan

Roland Alcock, Ph.D.

Romney McPhie, Biologist, Dalhousie University

Ronald Gibson, Associate Clinical Professor, University of British Columbia

Sameer Shah, Graduate Student, University of British Columbia

Sandra Binning, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Neuchatel

Sandra Johnson, Ph.D., QUT

Sandra Solomon

Sara Harris, Senior Instructor, University of British Columbia

Sarah Klain, Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia

Sarah MacInnes, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford University

Scott A Mandia, Asst. Chair/Professor Physical Sciences, Suffolk County Community College

Scott Findlay, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa

Sean Cox, Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University

Sean Godwin, Graduate Student, Simon Fraser University

Sean Naman, Graduate Student, Dept. of Zoology, University of British Columbia

Sebastian Pardo, Ph.D. Student, Simon Fraser University

Sebastian Scheer, Ph.D., University of British Columbia

Sebastien Renaut, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of British Columbia

Sheryn Sauve, OLIP

Silja Hund, Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia

Siobhan Chandler, Ph.D., University of Waterloo

Sonja Wilson, M.Sc., P. Eng., University of British Columbia

Stephanie Grand, Research associate, University of British Columbia

Stephen, Associate Professor, University of Northern British Columbia

Stephen Chessor

Stephen Rader, Professor of Chemistry, University of Northern British Columbia

Steve Easterbrook, Professor of Computer Science, University of Toronto

Steven Vamosi, Associate Professor, University of Calgary

Stuart Murray, Canada Research Chair, Carleton University

Susan Shirley, Research Associate, Oregon State University

Susanne C. Moser, Director, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting

T. E. Reimchen, Adjunct Professor, University of Victoria

Tara Ivanochko, Director, Environmental Science, University of British Columbia

Tara Martin, Ph.D., University of British Columbia

Tara McBryan, M.Sc. Student, University of British Columbia

Tara Moran, Research Associate, Stanford University

Terry Hughes, Retired NRC Senior Research Officer

Terry Robinson

Thea Kurdi, Instructor, Sheridan College

Thomas D Sisk, Professor, Northern Arizona University

Thomas De Pree, Student, Columbia University

Thomas F. Pedersen, Executive Director, University of Victoria, Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions

Thora O'Grady, Raincoast Science

Tim Storr, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University

Tim Vines, Ph.D., University of British Columbia

Timothy McDaniels, Professor, University of British Columbia, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, School of Community and Regional Planning

Toby Spribille, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Montana

Tony Pitcher, Professor of Fisheries, University of British Columbia

Trevor Hancock, Professor and Senior Scholar, University of Victoria, School of Public Health and Social Policy

Victoria Francis, MA Student, Memorial University

Villy Christensen, Professor, University of British Columbia

Warren Walker

Wendy Watkins, Data Librarian, Carleton University

William Atlas, M.Sc., Simon Fraser University

William Burt, Ph.D. Student

William E. Neill, Professor Emeritus Zoology, University of British Columbia

William Harrower, Ph.D. Candidate, University of British Columbia, Dept. of Botany

William Ramey, Professor of Teaching, University of British Columbia

William Rees, Professor Emeritus, University of British Columbia

Zheng (Jackie) Yip, Ph.D. Student, University of British Columbia

Zoe Meletis, Associate Professor, University of Northern British Columbia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i Consider, for example, the views of the panel on the consequences and significance of spills, Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project, Volume 2, Section 7.2.5, beginning on page 128. On page 129 we read “The Panel finds that there is potential for some oil to sink if it interacts with sediment or suspended particulate matter, or over the long term, due to natural weathering processes.” The Panel has discounted the possibility that bitumen residue could submerge in the short term in the absence of particulates. It is impossible to know how they reached this conclusion, which turns out to be wrong.

ii Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9: A court conducting a review for reasonableness inquires into the qualities that make a decision reasonable, referring both to the process of articulating the reasons and to
outcomes. In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. (at para 47)

iii The Panel judged that some risks were significant, but with stated limitations. For example, for the Project’s contribution to cumulative effects on caribou and grizzly bears, the Panel judged the effects significant (“at the low end”; Northern Gateway JRP Report, Vol 2, p.10). For the “unlikely event of a large oil spill”, the Panel found that it “would not cause permanent, widespread damage” (Northern Gateway JRP Report, Vol 2, p.12). But see this letter’s points 2-5 regarding the Panel’s mischaracterizations of risks.

 iv Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project Volume 1, page 17 and Panel Session Results and Decision issued January 19, 2011, pages 12-14:
 https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/fetch/2000/90464/90552/384192/620327/624909/662325/A22-3_-_Panel_Session_Results_and_Decision_A1X2L8.pdf?nodeid=662117&vernum=-2

For the general exclusion of climate change, see :
http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc.ca/clf-nsi/fq/rcmmndtn-eng.html#s14

 v Canada agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, in order to limit global warming to less than 2°C, to 17% below 2005 levels by the year 2020. Canada’s recent report to the UN, however, projected that our emissions will be 24% above our international target in 2020 and 78% percent of the growth in emissions by 2020 is projected to come from oil sands production. Canada’s Emissions Trends – 2013. Environment Canada Report October 2013.
P24: “Specifically, emissions from oil sands mining are projected to more than double over the 2005 to 2020 time period. Emissions from in situ production are expected to increase from 11 Mt in 2005 to 55 Mt in 2020.”
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/985F05FB-4744-4269-8C1A-D443F8A86814/1001-
Canada's%20Emissions%20Trends%202013_e.pdf

vi This may be the most serious and likely risk. For example, already two spills have occurred on the Athabasca River under ice. In the first of these, in 1982, a fire at Suncor in January released a moderate amount of oily substances; due to the inability to contain the spill, these substances travelled all the way to Lake Athabasca, closing the fishery for 2 years. In October 2013, the tailings pond breached at Obed mine. This spill continued to spread and could not even be assessed until the ice left more than six months later.

 vii “The Panel finds that a large spill, due to a malfunction or accident, from the pipeline facilities, terminal, or tankers, is not likely. Northern Gateway JRP Report, Vol 2, p 168

viii Concerned Professional Engineers. 2014. Flawed analysis, irresponsible approval. White Paper #1.
http://concernedengineers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Whitepaper-1-Flawed-analysis-irresponsible-
approval.pdf

ix JRP Report Vol 2, p 129: “The Panel finds that a large terrestrial, freshwater, or marine oil or condensate spill would cause significant adverse environmental effect and that the adverse effects would not be permanent or widespread.”

x It is not necessary to conclude that a consequence would be permanent to establish that the consequence is so long-lived as to represent a significant adverse effect. The effects of the Exxon Valdez are apparent after more than 25 years:
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/Exxon_Valdez_25YearsAfter_508_0.pdf

xi Crosby, S., R. Fay, C. Groark, A. Kani, J.R. Smith, and T. Sullivan (March 2013) Transporting Alberta’s Oil Sands Products: Defining the issues and addressing the risks.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxub2Fhb2lsc2FuZHNwcm9qZWN0fGd4Ojc5NmVlMDk3NjczNjIzNGU. Accessed May 2, 2014

xii Management plans are intended to prevent species listed as Special Concern from becoming endangered or threatened.

xiii Gregr, E.J., J. Calambokidis, L. Convey, J.K.B. Ford, R.I. Perry, L. Spaven, M. Zacharias. 2006. Recovery Strategy for Blue, Fin, and Sei Whales (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus, and B. borealis) in Pacific Canadian Waters. In Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Vancouver: Fisheries and Oceans Canada. vii + 53 pp.

xiv Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2014. Management Plan for the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. iv + 50 pp.

xv Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010. Management Plan for the Steller Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) in Canada [Final]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa. vi + 69 pp.

xvi DFO, 2013, Recovery Strategy for the North Pacific Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Canada, http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/plans/rs_rb_pac_nord_hbw_1013_e.pdf

xvii JRP Report Volume 1, page 11.



related links on stormidae:

Northern Gateway and The Enbridge 21

Raife Mair vs the Enbrige pipeline

Canada Day 2012: On Guard for Enbridge

 ...about oil tankers

random science 10: Harper vs Science

 

 

the Fair Elections Act (Bill C-23) could stop you from voting

sign the petition here

Free the CBC

Friends of Canadian Broadcasting - Free the CBC

random science 13: Experimental Lakes Area and the Conservative attack on science

more Rick Mercer on YouTube
Experimental Lakes Area website

sign the petition here

from care2: "The Harper Government is trying to shut down a unique and world-renowned environmental research centre in western Ontario.

The Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), sparsely populated with 58 small lakes and their drainage basins, has served as a facility for experimental and long-term ecosystem research since the 1960s. Because it's largely unaffected by human and industrial activity, it provides a natural laboratory for the study of physical, chemical and biological effects on the environment.

ELA is the one place in the world where the effects of mercury poisoning on a natural ecosystem could be tested, thus providing evidence needed to convince at least American regulators to finally force removal of mercury from coal-fired power plant emissions, which can save billions in annual health costs.

Canada, however, has not acted on this evidence, and the proposed funding cut would silence ELA for good.

Tell Canada to keep the ELA Research Centre Open!"

related posts: random science 10: Harper vs Science

Canada-China Investment Treaty

 (from: Green Party of Canada, October 11, 2012)

What Has Harper Done? 

On September 9th, Prime Minister Stephen Harper signed an agreement with China, the Canada-China Investment Treaty. The agreement was kept from the Canadian public and Parliament until September 26th, 2012, when it was quietly made public, tabled in the House of Commons. No press release. No technical briefing. The deal is set for automatic approval. No vote or debate will take place in the House. Once tabled in the House, the clock started ticking. 21 sitting days from September 26 (October 31), this treaty will bind Canada.

Red Carpet for China
 
So what is the Canada-China Investment Treaty? Simply put, it is the most significant trade agreement signed by Canada since NAFTA. Only this time our “partner” is the communist government in Beijing, an authoritarian regime with an appalling record on human rights –and it isn’t getting better. This deal requires that Chinese government-owned companies be treated exactly the same as Canadian companies operating in Canada. Once in force, it lasts a minimum of 15 years. If a future government wants to get out of it, a one year notice is required – and even once the treaty is cancelled, any existing Chinese operations in Canada are guaranteed another 15 years of the treaty’s benefits.


We at the Green Party of Canada believe there are many flaws in that agreement. And we think Canadians should know about them:

 

1. Open bar for Chinese state-owned enterprises

The Canada-China Investment Treaty means easier takeovers of Canadian assets, especially in the resource sector. In the context of the possible takeover of Nexen by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), it is crucial that we collectively pause to consider the wisdom of granting Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) such an easy access to our natural resources.

 

2. The right for China to claim damages over Canadian laws

The Canada-China Investment Treaty allows Chinese companies (including state-owned enterprises) to sue the Government of Canada over decisions that can limit or reduce their expectation of profits. In treaty language, this is called “tantamount to expropriation.”  China can claim damages against Canada for decisions at the municipal, provincial, territorial or federal level.  Even decisions of our courts can give rise to damages. The damage claims start with six months of diplomatic negotiation. If that fails, damage claims move to arbitration – behind closed doors.

 

4. Secret hearings

The Canada-China Investment Treaty would allow Chinese investors to sue Canada outside of Canadian courts. Special arbitrators would take the decisions. These arbitrators, unlike judges, do not have secure tenures or set salaries. Their decision cannot be subject to judicial review. And the arbitrations are to be secret. Even the fact they are happening is to be secret.

 

5. Right to be heard

Only the federal government is allowed to take part in the arbitration process. Provincial governments or Canadian companies, even if their interests are affected, do not have the right to voice their concerns during the arbitration process.

 

6. China’s obsession for secrecy

The Canada-China Investment Agreement makes Chinese lawsuits secret . At any time, we will not know if we are being sued and who will decide the case. We will not know what our government is saying on our behalf. We will not know if Canada has been ordered to change government decisions. This is a complete U-turn for Canada who has always insisted on complete openness in investor-state arbitration, for example when signing the Canada-US-Mexico free trade deal.

 

7. Restrictions on our use of our own resources

The Canada-China Investment Treaty requires that if, in the future, Canada wants to conserve natural resources (fisheries, water, oil, uranium, forests --  everything is covered), and reduce Chinese access to these resources, we are only allowed to do so to the extent we limit our own use of those natural resources.

sign the petition here

email a letter to your MP here

so it begins: Harper's attack on reproductive rights

click to Send a message to PM Harper and your MP

from LeadNow, September 2012:

In just 48 hours, our MPs will debate a Conservative motion that the Canadian Medical Association, representing 70,000 doctors, is calling a ‘backdoor’ attempt to criminalize abortion.^[1,2]

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the abortion provision of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. But this week, Parliament will be debating a motion that would threaten our reproductive rights - and the rights of our friends, daughters, mothers, sisters, and partners.^[3,4,5]

Prime Minister Harper has chosen to allow this motion to go forward to a free vote in Parliament, so every MP must decide whether or not they will stand up for the rights that women and our allies have been fighting to protect for decades. 

We need a huge public outcry to show our MPs that Canadians will not tolerate this covert attack on women’s rights.

Twenty-four years ago, Supreme Court Justice Wilson stated that governments in a democratic society must never interfere with a woman’s right to choose: “The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state.” – Supreme Court Justice Wilson^[3]

The motion seeks to undermine the Supreme Court’s ruling by reopening the debate on the legal definition of a human being under the Criminal Code. High-profile members of Harper’s caucus have stated that the real goal of the motion is to attack women’s rights: “The ultimate intention of this motion is to restrict abortions at some development stage in Canada.” – Conservative Party whip, Gordon O'Connor^[6]

This tactic has been used in the United States in a slow and relentless campaign to criminalize women’s reproductive rights and fan the flames of their culture war. Prime Minister Harper has publicly stated that he does not want to reopen this debate. Yet, while he exerts complete control over his own party, he has still chosen to let this covert attack on women’s rights go to a free vote that will test how Canadians react and open the door to attempts to criminalize abortion. 

If enough of us speak out and contact our MPs right now, we can make sure this motion is decisively defeated and send a clear message that Canadians will defend our reproductive rights.

click here to Send a message to PM Harper and your MP

Sources:

1. Tory MP concedes ‘abortion’ bill lacks support (Globe and Mail)
   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-mp-concedes-abortion-bill-lacks-support/article4549387/
2. Doctors call on Ottawa to reject ‘backdoor’ attempt to recriminalize abortion (Globe and Mail)
   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/doctors-call-on-ottawa-to-reject-backdoor-attempt-to-recriminalize-abortion/article4482594/
3. R. v. Morgentaler, 1988 (Supreme Court of Canada)
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Morgentaler
   http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1988/1988canlii90/1988canlii90.html
4. Facing little support, MP says he’ll stand up for rights of unborn children ‘as long as I have breath’ (Calgary Herald)
   http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/canada/Facing+little+support+says+stand+rights+unborn+children+long+have+breath/7250891/story.html
5. For the full text of Stephen Woodworth MP’s motion, M-312, see:
   http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=5437818
6. MPs denounce motion to study when life begins (CBC)
   http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/04/26/pol-abortion-debate.html

Further Reading:

Canadian Medical Association votes against reopening abortion debate (Postmedia News)
http://o.canada.com/2012/08/15/93534/
Protesters picket MP’s office over definition of life controversy (Kitchener-Waterloo Record)
http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/798467--protesters-picket-mp-s-office-over-definition-of-life-controversy
Harper may have to watch his back(bench) (Globe and Mail)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-may-have-to-watch-his-backbench/article4548668/
Counter Arguments Against Motion M-312 (Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada)
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/M-312.html
The Right to Reproductive and Sexual Health (United Nations)
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/women/womrepro.htm

random science 10: Harper vs Science

reblogged from: Discover Magazine Blogs: Chris Mooney's The Intersection, posted May 3, 2011 

"Why the Harper Majority is a Step Back for Science – Let Us Count the Ways

(post by David Ng, a science literacy academic at the Michael Smith Laboratories of the University of British Columbia.)

In case you missed it, last night saw the Canada election deliver a Conservative majority. It was an interesting and historic vote for a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is that now the Harper government is in a position to do pretty much as it pleases, given its position of majority power in both the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate.
As is the norm for any democratic action, this is good and bad depending on your perspective and ideals. Those who make their homes in the business or economic front generally see the result as a positive; whereas those who value fairness, ethical government practices, and social issues tend to look upon the election as a daunting and frustrating setback. In this mix, however, is the scientific point of view. And speaking as a Canadian scientist, I want to use this space to make the case that all things being considered, this is a fundamentally bad moment in history for Canadian science.
To do this, let’s access how the Harper government (not the “Government of Canada” as it was once officially called) has performed so far (in the science context anyway).
And let’s argue for this in a rational way. We are after all scientific folk. In fact, let’s apply the good old rubric of looking at the claim, providing a reason, and then presenting the evidence for this stance.
First up is our claim: let’s just go with something direct:
The Harper Government is bad for Science.
As for coming up with a reason, it’s actually fairly straightforward. Here, we’ve seen repeated examples that would demonstrate a clear lack of understanding science culture, as well as actions that often undermine the very notion of scientific literacy. Sometimes, you get the sense that science just isn’t important to this government, and on occasion it even feels downright inconsequential.
But, of course, this wordy reason can’t stand on its own verbiage. We need concrete evidence for our claim, and to do this, it’s probably easiest to focus on a number of key points that demonstrate Harper’s modus operandi.
Point 1. The Harper government is not terribly scientifically literate.
There’s a few examples of this (also see point 2), but let’s simply draw attention to the appointment of a Minister of Industry, Science and Technology who waffles on the science of evolution. In case you don’t know his name, it’s Gary Goodyear: and in essence, his role in government is meant to be the primary driver on pushing and representing how science is funded, courted, guided, and basically done in Canada. Although an architect of many a cut to science funding in times that arguably need more scientific innovation (see 4 for more), he was and still is noted as a controversial figure when in 2009, the Globe and Mail asked him to share his stance regarding evolution. To this, he replied, “I’m a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.”
Now from a scientific point of view, this type of statement is mildly troubling – you would hope that at least the Minister representing science would have more eloquent words to say on this subject. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the case as illustrated with his further comments on the matter when pressed again during a television interview. During this incident, he chose to proclaim his belief in evolution, but continued with this very odd and ludicrous description of what evolution is:

“We are evolving, every year, every decade. That’s a fact. Whether it’s to the intensity of the sun, whether it’s to, as a chiropractor, walking on cement versus anything else, whether it’s running shoes or high heels, of course, we are evolving to our environment.”

2. The Harper government has managed to make Climate Change science an ideological issue.
You’ve actually seen a lot of this already in American politics, but nowadays there’s also a Canadian version. Here’s how it works:
In general, science is fairly particular about the way it is done. The method is built to thrive on objectivity and it is ultimately based on the things we see, record, and analyze. It isn’t perfect, since the concept of a paradigm can exert influence, but the evidence it builds on still has to meet some pretty tough criteria – certainly much more stringent than other epistemologies, or other ways of knowing. Put another way, scientific evidence is not suppose to be swayed by ideological or partisan lines.
Despite this, Harper’s politics have warped the science of climate change into one of partisan debate. All other Canadian political parties take the science at face value, and build from it. Not so with the Conservatives. This is inherently disrespectful to the scientific community, as it suggests that we can make decisions concerning climate change in a place where scientific literacy has no currency, whereby the overwhelming scientific consensus is treated as nothing more than an interesting and suspicious footnote.
As a result, Harper runs the country on the pretense of whether one can trust or distrust the scientific evidence, without actually debating the actual technical strengths and weaknesses of the climate science data currently presented. Harper runs the country based on messages that economically sound promising, but are environmentally unsustainable, and have strong repercussions which conveniently will take form long after he is retired. Above all, he places an emphasis on nurturing a subtle form of climate change denialism and has made it part of the conservative ideology. From a scientist’s point of view, this is probably not the best way to formulate important policies – on “feelings” as oppose to concrete evidence. In essence, we can say that I may not be a betting man: but if I was, I’m pretty sure that the scientific community is the best place to get our odds.
Now, one might argue that this is not Harper’s stance at all. It would appear that the official take would proclaim the government’s official backing of the “fundamentals of climate change science.” However, as always is the case, actions speak louder than words. As evidence of this, you only need to keep track of the Harper’s record on climate change. Since obtaining its first minority government in 2006, the Conservatives have essentially moved away from Canada’s commitment to Kyoto, and has repeatedly undermine climate change talks (to the point of being consistent winners of the “Fossil of the Day” award), part of which involves the continual setting up of disappointing emission targets.

In 2009 the goal was to cut carbon emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020; an equivalent of 3% below 1990 levels by 2020. The goal was later changed in early 2010 to 17% of 2005 levels by 2020; an equivalent of 2.5% above 1990 levels.
The three most populous provinces disagree with the federal government goal and announced more ambitious targets on their jurisdictions. Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia announced respectively 20%, 15% and 14% reduction target below their 1990 levels while Alberta is expecting a 58% increase in emissions. (Wikipedia, April 2011)

More troubling, is that Harper appears to not have any qualms about pushing his agenda in any way possible, and does so in a way that draws clear distinctions between party lines. In particular, is his flagrant misuse of Senate power to go against the democratic passing of a Climate Change Bill (Bill C-311).
Here, a quick lesson in Canadian government procedures might help. Essentially, when Canadian laws or Bills are put on the table, they need to go through a vote in the House of Commons. This is represented by elected members of government, such that the voting here is inherently meant to represent the “will of the people.” However, if passed, the law then needs to go through the Canadian Senate. This level of government is suppose to reflect a place of “sober second thought,” but historically, the Senate very rarely goes against the decisions made in the House of Commons. This is because Senate members are appointed, and therefore in principle are there to still respect the democratic underpinning of the House of Commons’ vote. However, in December 2008, Harper filled 18 vacant Senate spots with Conservative appointments, and has used this Senate majority in undemocratic ways – including the killing of the Climate Change Bill.
Still, there are other ways to force an ideology along: which brings us to point number three.
3. The Harper government has demonstrated a willingness to “muzzle” science.
In 2010, the release of Environment Canada documents showed that new media rules introduced by the Harper Government in 2007, with the aim to control the ability for Federal climate scientists to interact with media, had been responsible for what many of these scientists have called a “muzzling” effect.

“Scientists have noticed a major reduction in the number of requests, particularly from high profile media, who often have same-day deadlines,” said the Environment Canada document. “Media coverage of climate change science, our most high-profile issue, has been reduced by over 80 per cent.”
The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.
The document suggests the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to “muzzle” them. (Montreal Gazette, March 15, 2010)

This facet of Harper’s strategy is especially troubling. Science, as a whole, is a venture that best works when there is fluidity and an openness in how information is shared. Whether that is within the scientific community in the form of expert peer review, or back and forth between scientists and the general public or the policy makers as a dialogue of civic consequence, there is simply no commendable reason for this form of control. It should be obvious that discussions on Climate Change, which has obvious public importance, things shouldn’t be run like a corporation protecting its secrets and/or hiding information that veers away from the desired message.
4. The Harper Government is out of touch with science culture: scientists are driven by many things, and not always by the industry/business/corporate mentality.
Over the last couple years, we’ve seen examples where the Harper Government has consistently pushed research towards a heavy emphasis for applied sciences and industry, often at the expense of basic science. Whether this is via funding cuts to granting agencies such as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (a bastion of basic science research), diverting such monies towards projects where business-related objectives are encouraged, or via restructuring of the National Research Council such that industry-related projects are given priorities, there’s definitely a method to his ways. Overall, this indicates a general ignorance of how scientific progress works – that is, it is almost always the discoveries born from basic research that fuel the future innovation necessary for applied benefits. Put another way, if Harper continues on this track to give himself quick political gain, he does so at the expense of future Canadian science. Even a small lull in basic research in the present could result in a significant lull in applied and economic potentials in the future.
As well, this constant patronage towards the business side of science also doesn’t necessarily reflect the intentions of the scientists themselves. Money and economics may be desirable things for scientists, but most often there are other stronger motivations at stake – including an aspiration to bring about positive change in the world, as well as plain old intellectual curiosity.
An example of Harper’s willingness to always give credence to the corporate line, is his Government’s poor handling of the recently diposed Bill C-393. Essentially, this is an episode where bad politics trumped good science. The good science in this case is the fact that there are very effective antiretroviral drug out there, which make HIV/AIDS a treatable disorder. Unfortunately, these are mostly priced too high for individuals in developing countries – countries where unnecessary death from HIV/AIDS is catastrophically high. The bad politics concerns a frustrating series of events that saw a Bill (C-393), designed to fairly and with monitoring facilitate production of generic drugs, get passed in the House of Commons (i.e. democratically given the green light); then was taken to Senate, where it was deliberately stalled for five days, in an atmosphere where misleading information provided by the pharmaceutical industry was being distributed to the Tory Senators; such that it was ultimately killed by default when the new election was called. The fact that the reason for this was ultimately because of the Harper’s Government willingness to patronize Big Pharma is extremely galling, especially when so many lives were literally at stake.
Conclusion
It’s important to note that science culture isn’t the only thing that drives a civil society. However, as a conduit for reasoned discourse and relevant information that affects local and global concerns, it’s obvious that science must not be taken for granted. Based on last night’s election results, we have every reason to worry about the Conservative majority, as the Harper Government has repeatedly demonstrated past activities that not only take science for granted, but treat it with a form of contempt. The Harper government has consistently ignored whatever sound utility the scientific endeavor can provide, and by doing so, has put the future of Canadian science at risk, as well as the elements of society that would have otherwise benefited from it.
In the end, this means that we must watch the actions of this Harper Government more closely; and to be vocal, to be active, and to do our best to hold them to account for their actions. Democracy has given Harper a mandate to govern as he sees fit, and for this there should be an element of respect as well as an element of opportunity. However, Harper should not forget that Canadian democracy is ultimately driven by the people of Canada. For that reason, I will be watching you closely. Scientists will be watching you closely. Canadians will be watching you closely.
David Ng is a science literacy academic at the Michael Smith Laboratories of the University of British Columbia. He has written essays for the Walrus, humour for McSweeney’s, commentary for Boingboing, and is now trying to learn more about Access to Medicine issues at the My Rights Versus Yours Blog. You can follow him on twitter @dnghub. If you’re a Canadian reader, he also encourages you to check out aidsaction.ca to note that almost all conservatives still align themselves with Big Pharma’s stance on Access to Medicine issues. Why not send them an email to make sure they know exactly how you feel?"