Listening to U.S. pundits and politicians talk about issues like climate change, you might think Americans are increasingly anti-science. But before we Canadians start feeling smug, we should consider that access to government scientific information is far more restricted here than in the States.

Canada’s government must approve all media and speaking requests for its scientists. Often, it doesn’t give approval, or delays it so experts can’t speak in a timely and meaningful way. U.S. policy states that “scientists may speak freely with the media and public about scientific and technical matters based on their official work without approval from the public affairs office or their supervisors.”

That’s just the start. Besides restricting the ability of government scientists to speak publicly about their work, Canada’s government has changed legislation and severely cut scientific staff and programs at a time when sound science-based decision-making is needed more than ever. The consequences for Canadian society could be profound and disturbing.

The government justifies its cuts on economic grounds. But let’s look at one example. Over the past 45 years, the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area has provided important research on the impacts of acid rain, mercury pollution, nanoparticles, nitrogen overload, climate change, fish farming and more — for about $2 million a year. That’s far less than the $9 million the government is spending on an ad campaign to convince Canadians of its “Responsible Resource Development.” The federal government plans to close the ELA or sell it to a private company in a secret deal, which could mean losing data from long-term studies and removing research from the public realm.

Cuts have been made at Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Statistics Canada, the National Research Council, Library and Archives Canada and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. The government has also eliminated the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, ended funding for the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory and decided not to renew the national science adviser position. On top of that, through two omnibus budget bills, it has gutted or weakened much of Canada’s environmental protection legislation, including the Environmental Assessment Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act and Fisheries Act.

Meanwhile, scientists who still work for the government are not allowed to share information with the public, even though we pay for that research with our taxes. The government’s muzzling of scientists has drawn condemnation from publications and organizations ranging from the prestigious journal Nature to PEN Canada to several science writers’ organizations. It even led to an unprecedented protest on Parliament Hill in July by hundreds of scientists and supporters, many dressed in white lab coats.

The most recent consequence of the muzzling is an attempt to downplay research from government scientists confirming earlier findings that toxins from the tarsands are contaminating the surrounding environment.

What money the government is investing in science is almost entirely aimed at job creation and economic growth. Many of the cutbacks are geared toward removing obstacles to resource-extraction initiatives, including tarsands and pipeline projects.

Will these initiatives and legislative changes be good or bad for Canada in the long run? Will they lead to increasing threats to the environment, human health and even the economy from runaway global warming or pipeline spills or biodiversity loss? Without the science to advise us, we can only guess — and that’s not good.

Everything in nature, including humans, is interconnected. It’s difficult to understand the impact of any single event or project if we study it or the ecosystem it directly affects in isolation. For example, if we fail to protect wild Pacific salmon, the effects will extend beyond the oceans to the rivers and lakes and coastal rain forests and everything they support, from trees, eagles and grizzlies to coastal communities. And we sure can’t hope to understand the consequences of our actions in the absence of scientific research and monitoring.

Without the kind of vigorous debate and knowledge that comes from having citizens informed by open discussion of science and information, we can’t even hope to have a proper democracy. A strong economy is important, but the biosphere is more important. Life isn’t just about making money — and the kind of short-sighted thinking behind the government’s war on science will inevitably impoverish our people, our economy and our country.

David Suzuki is an author, broadcaster, environmentalist and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: