Although I count myself (along with most Americans) woefully ignorant of Canadian politics, I do know what fellow scientists north of the border thought of the Harper administration: they uniformly hated it. Under Harper, funding was cut, especially to environmental research, scientists were muzzled, and, as I documented a while back a scientist at Environment Canada was even suspended for writing a song (in his off hours!) criticizing the Prime Minister. That’s unconscionable retribution, and smacks of fascism. When I went to the Evolution meetings in Ottawa a few years back, scientists marched from the meeting venue to the Parliament, dressed in lab coats and protesting the administration’s attack on science.
A new article in the Guardian documents these and other abuses of science and claims that the anti-science stance of the Harper administration helped bring it down:
All of these efforts began to attract significant domestic and international attention. There were numerous stories in the media. Opposition MPs took to the Parliament floor to denounce attacks on science. CBC ran a documentary, cleverly titled “The Silence of the Labs.” There was even a folk song, Harperman, which went viral after Environment Canada suspended geographer Tony Turner for performing it. “I knew the song was a little edgy but I believe I was within my rights to sing that song,” he told the Guardian.
Eight hundred scientists from thirty-two countries wrote an open letter urging the prime minster to ease restrictions on scientists and data. In October 2014, a Ryerson University professor wrote in Science magazine that the election presented an “opportunity to reboot the federal government’s controversial approach to science policy and research.”
All of this advocacy worked. Science became a major campaign issue during the election. There were all-party debates on science policy and extensive media coverage. The Green, Liberal and NDP platforms included significant commitments to restore science to its rightful place in society and public policy.
Well, I hope so, for it bespeaks an awareness of the importance of science by the Canadian public. The good news is that the Trudeau administration is vowing to reverse many of the previous administration’s attacks on science.
The issue that received the most attention was the so-called “muzzling” of government scientists. This week, Liberal MP Marc Garneau said that these restrictions would be eliminated “right away.”
. . . “We’ll reverse the $40 million cut that Harper made to our federal ocean science and monitoring programs,” said Liberal leader Justin Trudeau at a September campaign stop. “The war on science ends with the liberal government.” In tweetafter tweet after tweet, opposition candidates argued that they were best positioned to defend scientific integrity.
Now that it’s been elected with a healthy majority, the Liberal Party says it willmake data openly available, unmuzzle scientists, bring back the long form census, appoint a chief science officer, and make the agency Statistics Canada fully independent.
The Guardian calls for the appointment of a government science advisor and for adherence to Canada’s Science Integrity Project. calling for honesty and openness in scientific research. And it notes that optimism may be premature, for the wonderful things that were supposed to happen to science when Obama took office haven’t materialized (funding, for example, is at an all-time low). Still, I’m convinced that the secrecy and muzzling of scientists that characterized Harper’s tenure are now at an end.
A lot of Canadians are hopeful. I hope Mr Trudeau does not disappoint.
The Liberals have a lot of work ahead of them but at least they won’t be destroying data and firing scientists anymore and the return of the long form census is wonderful. Harper wanted only to see information that supported his ideology. The Liberal government can’t help but me more evidence based (any less would be utterly totalitarian).
“Harper wanted only to see information that supported his ideology.”
Sounds very familiar. U.S. republicans (including Shrub) might have been the model used by Harper.
I know Harper was a Key acolyte, but the anti-science nuttery is not something you can blame Key for. For a start, he’s the first of our PMs to have a science advisor, and he actually uses and listens to him. He’s got this crazy idea (for a politician) of basing decisions on data and evidence.
I didn’t include Key in the bromance. I think that was more a Harper-Abbott phenomenon.
Key just pulls pony tails. 🙂
Talk about making my country a laughing stock! Thanks Diana! 🙂
😀
Would all y’all Canucks be so kind as to invade America and impose your form of government upon us?
b&
Sorry, excuse us, but we try not to do much of that. Be glad to send election observers and blue-helmet UN peace-keepers if that helps. But gotta pass on that invasion thing. Sorry, eh?
Finally, we get one of those “eh”. I was wondering for awhile if we were really hearing from people in Canada.
Glad to hear that you lived through your Bush years.
It was just an unwarranted, gratuitous “eh” but I figured that someone would be looking for it.
LOL – I’ve lived here 38 years and still nary an “eh” has escaped my lips.
Supposedly a true anecdote from a friend of mine. One of his college buddies was crossing the border into Canada and:
Border guard: “Are you carrying any weapons into Canada?”
Buddy: “No, Bee?”
BG: “What?”
Buddy: “Well, you Canadians say ‘eh’, the Mexicans say ‘si’. We’re in the middle, so shoudln’t we say ‘B’?”
BG: “Please step out of the car …”
Nice. But surely not true. Then again, you said it was a college student.
This image may be helpful. 🙂
http://canadianproblems.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/187c7e04174711e392c922000a1fb771_7.jpg
So if you could be any McKenzie, which McKenzie brother would you be?
Bob. Not William Lyon – he was bonkers and occult-y.
Hilarious Diana! I love it!
We were traveling with some Canadians one time in Poland. When asked by the Poles, where do you come from, the reply “we’re Canadians” elicited a quizzical look from the Poles.
So they explained it this way (which I thought apt and hilarious (as a USian)):
“Canadians. Canadians are like Americans, except they’re nice.”
🙂
Election reform would be a great start, beginning with ending the Court-sanctioned bribery known as “campaign contributions.”
b&
C’mon, just think of the Potomac estuary as the new Juno Beach and invade, already.
You know we’d do it for you, or for anybody else that asks — or doesn’t ask, as the case may be.
We’ll let you make hockey the national pastime and substitute poutine for hot dogs!
And we’ll open up Swiss Chalet franchises in the US.
And indirectly letting Westminster win after 250 odd years 🙂
Hee hee hee
Mr Harper is very sneaky. It will take a concerted effort to undo the damage that he has done to Canada. I hope that we have seen the last of this man.
Yes, but we Canadians must apologize to President Obama (and the rest of the world) for our new Prime Minister’s lack of spine in militarily confronting ISIS. He will be pulling the F-18s out. Moron.
No; we should thank you for showing us the way out.
Bombing the fucking shit out of Iraq isn’t going to make it any better, only worse. Iraq is going to continue to get worse no matter what we do, but it will get less worse and do so more slowly if we stop bombing the fucking shit out of the place.
Leave them alone and it’ll quickly settle into a condition very much like Saudi Arabia is in today, only the government will declare enmity with the US rather than allegiance. Saudi Arabia is an hellhole worse than Iraq was under Saddam Hussein, to be sure…but, when you realize that bombing the fucking shit out of Saudi Arabia wouldn’t do anything to reform it, you’ll also realize that bombing the fucking shit out of Iraq isn’t going to do anything to make that a better place, either.
b&
Interesting perspective. Completely delusional, but interesting. Do you feel that framing it in the way you have is accurate, or might it be true to say that any & all military strikes against ISIS are specifically targeted at them and their activities? Good luck trying to reason with ISIS.
Saudi Arabia may be a human-rights hell-hole, but it keeps the oil spigots open and forks over its petro-riyals for our military hardware.
Plus, the Bush family is tight as tics with the Saudi royals, going so far as to adopt the former Saudi ambassador as “Bandar Bush.” That connection provided the means for the bin Laden family members in the States to vamoose immediately after 911, before they could be questioned, while ordinary American citizens couldn’t get off the tarmac.
I’m comfortable with Canada’s military playing its traditional peace-keeping role but not with participating in the various skirmishes around the world. One of the things that I most like about Canada is its non-aggression. No one hates us.
I didn’t speak to the “various skirmishes”, I spoke to the very real and horrific ISIS. If they are not worthy of our action, then what is? (Before you answer that, pause & reflect on their actions).
Although fundamentally a pacifist, I agree with you here, Colin, that this barbaric ISIS must be defeated by whatever means necessary.
But do we have to do this? There are countries closer to the action that are capable of handling it – infidels on the ground or flying over can’t be a great thing and every time we bomb, we kill innocents stuck in the hell they cannot leave.
Up to and including nukes?
Be careful what you wish for.
So then the question is: will bombing as we have been doing defeat them? Arguably not.
And, if bombing ISIS will civilize them, should we not also be bombing Saudi Arabia? They’re in every bit as much need of reform and civilization.
b&
And Africa.
Where, specifically, is the line between participation and non-participation in the various skirmishes around the world? Atrocity abounds. Canada is not and should not try to be a military policer.
Are you suggesting that there are numerous entities equivalent to ISIS around the world that we are fully ignoring?
No. I asked where you drew the line.
The question you pose is erroneous. It is not a simple matter of “drawing a line”, but when one has an entity like ISIS doing what it’s doing, and does nothing but watch (with or without a frowny face), that, I suggest is immoral. It’s tantamount to watching Hitler in his hey-day and doing nothing.
But what about Africa? We do nothing to help stifle the atrocities there. Nigeria is a wreck.
I don’t think you’ve understood the question, Colin, or maybe the concept. The bravery of being out of range? Feel free to volunteer your services instead of just watching (with or without a frowny face).
Yes.
Saudi Arabia for starters. North Korea and Iran and Pakistan for three more obvious examples.
b&
We need a strong military to assert our arctic sovereignty. It’s going to be a thing soon and all we have are a few Inuit with rifles.
Ya, and our navy consists of three canoes and a kayak. Who are we going to chase away?
Definitely not the Russians who are rearming their arctic bases.
Don’t worry about the Russians. If they make any serious military incursions into Canada, the US will turn Moscow into a glass parking lot mere minutes before the Russians return the favor.
b&
Yeah but then we’ll owe you guys and you’ll bring it up all the time when it comes to trade deals and such. 🙂
Stephen Harper, the pleasantly banal face of evil. Just lower case evil, with a small e, mind you, but still a reminder that vilians don’t all look like the scarred version of Mads Mikkelsen in Casino Royale.
Damn, I am sorry to hear that. I always thought Harper secretly saw himself like this: http://www.countercurrents.org/klauskinski.jpg
(Klaus Kinski in Aguirre)
That’s too hippy looking for Harper. He probably sees himself more like that Soviet and Nazi propaganda art with the fine gents with square jaws.
Bam! 🙂
Nice article. As a Canadian scientist with friends working for the government, I can say that this piece is mostly spot-on.
Although the Harper government attacked and muzzled scientists, his regime liked to flaunt technology developed in Canada (usually developed under previous governments). One sad – yet hilarious – example is how Harper’s people faked space photos of the “Canada Arm” used by astronauts and placed the photoshopped images on federal websites. See this: http://mountainmystery.com/2014/11/23/canadas-deceptive-arm/
sub
Reblogged this on The Mountain Mystery and commented:
I will write about the change of government here in Canada (and its likely impact on science) in a future blog post. But meanwhile, here is an excellent summary of what Monday’s election may mean for Canadian science.
My friend in Israel sent me this funny Beaverton article. The Beaverton is the Canadian equivalent of The Onion.
The city of Montreal was recently in a spat with the Harper government. To justify its position, the tories said they needed to have a scientific assessment done before they could decide.
The mayor commented that most members of the Harper government had done their best to suppress science and that they probably thought that the Flintstones was a documentary.
A not too subtle allusion to the born-again creationists in the cabinet.
I hope one day conservatism gets so small we can drown it in a bathtub.
Voter apathy has been a problem here, and I confess to have been a contributor. One of the things that got me out to vote this time was precisely this issue. I was once (temporarily) muzzled by a funder (patent issues), but that was their business. To be muzzled by a government, especially a Canadian government, is just not acceptable.
The conservatives were notoriously anti-evidence. They implemented a mandatory minimum sentencing regime that even Texas legislators thought was over-the-top. They simply ignored data on the effectiveness of minimum sentences and the associated costs. That’s just the tip of the iceberg with these folks. Good riddance.
“The conservatives were notoriously anti-evidence”
Here I fixed that: “Conservatives are notoriously anti-evidence”
“Although I count myself (along with most Americans) woefully ignorant of Canadian politics”
No need to feel woe! The politics of Canada are exactly as consequential as the politics of one’s hat!
As American’s largest trading partner and the place that shares its longest boarder, I think you may be way off the mark here.
+1
Canadian scientist here, and one of the hopeful. I believe we have grounds for optimism – on his first day as the prime minister-elect Mr. Trudeau held a news conference. I had to rub my eyes when this appeared on the news, not having seen a proper news conference in years. You know, the sort where at the end of a prepared statement the leader is expected to answer potentially awkward questions from journalists? Harper’s disdain for press conferences was emblematic of his approach, and I am delighted that he is finished.
I know – Vladmir Putin answers more questions from journalists than Harper ever did.
Vive Le Trudeau part deux!
Bring Maggie back to 24 Sussex Drive; she seemed to have a good time last go ’round.
Stones as house band.
Dear Steven Harper: “Fuddle Duddle!”