Article content continued

In the fall of 2016, another peer-reviewed article, this one assessing the potential impacts of oilsands on the marine environment, was being published at the time the Trudeau government was evaluating the Trans Mountain and Line 3 projects. Despite an embargo on releasing the study publicly prior to its official publication, we shared a copy of the article with the Prime Minister’s Office, along with a short letter summarizing our finding of significant gaps in scientific understanding of multiple risks, including the toxicity and behaviour of diluted bitumen in marine ecosystems. We also offered to meet with government officials to discuss the implications of data gaps that we felt were highly relevant to the pending pipeline decisions.

We heard nothing. One week later, Prime Minister Trudeau announced his approval of the Trans Mountain and Line 3 pipelines, claiming the decisions were “based on rigorous debate on science and evidence.” I was not so naïve as to think that our scientific publication would sway a national policy decision, but the government’s failure to share the scientific basis of their decisions was troubling, particularly given its pledge to increase transparency in policymaking.

Nevertheless, I assumed our work came too late to be considered, or perhaps that other, undisclosed data led policymakers to discount our findings. Then, on Oct. 11, 2017, I was sent a 13-page document obtained by a journalist under the Access to Information Act. That document, 18 additional pages of which were denied to the public, showed that on the very day we sent our study to the prime minister and his cabinet, officials with Natural Resources Canada discussed our research and its merits, then circulated comments intended to gloss over risks and dismiss our findings. In several instances, the comments were so off-point as to suggest that the officials had not actually read the full paper.