>> It looks like it's been
worse along here and here.
>> Linden: She was digging up a
thousand years of history,
but it took just minutes to
bury her career.
>> She said you have five
minutes to collect important
personal things, and I said
everything here is important
to me, this is my life.
>> Linden: He was dedicated to
reversing the destruction of
our oceans.
>> You could hear a pin drop.
People were ashen.
We all knew what was
happening.
>> Linden: Scientists and
science, decimated by a
transformation in political
priorities.
>> It's crippled my life's
work.
>> Linden: Obliterating years
of talent and experience.
>> My entire research group
disappeared.
They deserved a better fate
than this and for that reason,
they won't come back.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: I'm Linden MacIntyre
in Baffin Island.
This is the story of the
bitter conflict between
ideology and knowledge.
What can happen when factual
discoveries raise inconvenient
questions for politicians.
It's a conflict that has
transformed environmental law
in Canada, shaking the
foundations of public
institutions, and is damaging
the reputation of Canada among
scientists and scholars around
the world.
It is the essence of everything
we know about our world.
Every life improvement from
health to habitat began with
science.
Science, the mother of
invention, once an independent
arm of public policy.
But in Canada, there is trouble
in the realms of science.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: It is happening from
coast to coast and north to the
farthest reaches of the Arctic.
Science that isn't practically
useful for advancing policy
objectives has been curtailed
or scrapped.
Hundreds of programs and
world-renowned research
facilities have lost their
funding in the last five years.
More than 2,000 federal
government scientists and
researchers have been
dismissed.
Programs that monitored smoke
stack emissions, food
inspection, oil spills, water
quality and climate change
were drastically cut or ended.
The downside of an obsessive
political focus on economics
that critics warn ignores
environmental peril and even
rewrites history.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: Pat Sutherland, an
archeologist, is travelling
through time.
Back a thousand years to a
place where Viking ships
explored the gateway to what
we now call the Northwest
Passage.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: Baffin Island.
A remote and barren place they
call the land of the stone
slabs.
A place for hunting and for
trade with the local people.
Dr. Sutherland is of a new
explorer breed, scholars and
academics with technology to
uncover secrets lost in time.
She's been coming here for
years.
You got interested in the Norse
factor that other people ...
>> Linden: Documenting some of
the earliest recorded contacts
between cultures from both
sides of the Atlantic.
>> This project was looking at
contact and interaction in a
very early time period, with
indigenous people living in
the Arctic.
It was presenting the Arctic
as complex and interesting a
place as any other place in
the world a thousand years
ago.
>> Linden: Her work was
admired internationally and
she was close to proving that
Norse explorers based in
greenland had been here
earlier and for a longer time
than anyone had previously
known.
A finding that was making
headlines in scientific
circles.
It even excited mainstream
media attention.
On CBC TV, "The Nature of
Things" did an hour on her in
June of 2013.
She got a photo and feature
spread in "National
Geographic."
The European media was
fascinated.
The kind of exposure academics
only dream about.
>> It's like it's been worse
along here and here.
>> Linden: And it should have
been a cause for celebration
by her employer, the Canadian
Museum of Civilization.
>> I had expected that they
would be pleased because this
kind of media attention is
rare for archeologists in
Canada any way, and I had
hoped that it would be seen as
beneficial to the museum and
that it would certainly help
to promote continuation of the
research.
>> Linden: Behind the
tourist-friendly facades,
there's always been a serious
purpose here.
Original research exploring
20,000 years of human history
through science, biology,
geology, archeology.
But if Sutherland expected
celebration over high-end
media publicity, she was in
for a disappointment.
Her focus was on a story about
which her managers were
becoming, to say the least,
indifferent.
In 2013, the museum was to be
rebranded, and her archeology
project didn't fit the new
identity.
From now on, the museum is to
be primarily a vehicle for
celebration.
>> Canada needs a national
institution that celebrates
our achievements and what we
have accomplished together as
Canadians.
The Canadian Museum of History.
>> Linden: History, like
science, the essence of who we
are, where we came from.
But the history the Harper
government now wants the
museum to emphasize is British
through and through.
Big on war, beginning with the
war of 1812.
>> 200 years ago...
The United States invaded our
territory.
>> Linden: A campaign,
including ads like this, will
have cost $28 million, just to
recreate and promote the war
of 1812.
>> We stood side-by-side.
>> Well, we're going to see
symbols of Canada's past,
images of famous people, the
monarchy, glorification of our
role as a warrior nation, the
kind of history that's
consistent with the ideology
of the current government.
>> Linden: James Turk is the
executive director of the
Canadian Association of
University Teachers.
>> Whereas the Museum of
Civilization's mandate was to
increase Canadians and the
world's critical understanding
of cultural events in history,
we're now reversing that.
We're turning it into a
glorified Madam Tussaud's Wax
Museum or a Canadian history --
Canadian hockey Hall of
Fame view of history.
>> Linden: The Harper
history of Canada leans
heavily on a doomed British
expedition that disappeared in
1845.
The Franklin surge for the
Northwest Passage.
>> Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper:
In exercising our sovereignty
over these waters, we are also
being faithful to all who came
before us.
Who, through great hardship
and sacrifice, made a quest
for knowledge of the north.
Today, we are searching for
Franklin, both literally and
symbolically.
>> Linden: Might be tempting
to dismiss the government's
fixation on the Franklin
expedition, the war of 1812,
the British monarchy as
feel-good sentiment.
It's much more than that.
That's just a soft outer
coating on a policy that's all
about the rapid exploitation
of natural resources in the
north.
And the political rewards they
expect will follow, an
unprecedented boom in material
prosperity.
It's a political objective
bolstered by our British
antecedents but not at all by
a project that confirms a
European presence here long
before the British.
>> So the emphasis for the
Arctic seems to be on 19th
century British naval
exploration in the Northwest
Passage.
My work isn't in the Northwest
Passage, it's on something
that's too old.
The project I think was not on
message for the conservative
government.
>> Linden: At some point in
2010, Dr. Sutherland sensed
diminishing support for her
Baffin Island project.
But she was too busy to take
it very seriously.
Did you have any clue just how
perilous the situation was?
>> No, I don't think so.
I'm passionate about the work
that I do, I love the work
that I do and my focus was on
that.
(Chanting)
>> No science, no evidence, no
truth, no democracy.
>> Linden: But pat Sutherland
would soon discover a new
political reality.
A wave of outrage rising in
unlikely places, in the labs
and classrooms of the country
and inevitably, it would flow
out on to the streets.
Unlikely radicals protesting
an unlikely cause.
The sacrifice of scientific
knowledge on the altar of
political expediency.
And she would become a part
of it.
(Cheering)
>> The facts do not change just
because the Harper government
has chosen ignorance over
evidence.
And ideology over honesty.
(Cheering)
>> Linden: They believe their
work is being compromised,
their voices silenced, that too
much political interference
with the work of scientists
will have dire consequences for
the environment and public
health and scholarship.
>> This is uncomfortable
territory for any scientist to
be in.
>> Linden: Tom Duck is a
professor of atmospheric
science at Dalhousie
university in Halifax.
>> Hey, we're not used to
making political arguments,
we're not even interested in
making political arguments
but I think the circumstances
require that we speak out.
They require that we tell the
public what's going on.
>> Linden: When we come back,
poisons in the ocean,
blindness in bureaucracy.
>> By default, what we have
done in Canada is turn off the
radar.
We are flying along in an
airplane, and we've put
curtains over the windshield
of those pilots of that flight
crew, and we've turned off the
instruments.
( ♪♪ )
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: Our oceans, like the
Pacific, define our geography
and have shaped our history.
According to marine scientists,
the oceans now hold alarming
information about our future
on the planet.
The Pacific, scientific
monitoring reveals it has
become a toxic habitat for
anything that lives in it,
especially our marine
relatives, the mammals like
killer whales.
>> We were looking at all
sorts of species.
We were looking at killer
whales and harbour seals as
really invaluable canneries
out there in the ocean.
>> Dr. Peter Ross spent 15
years building a powerful case
that the ocean environment has
been seriously degraded, that
fish and animals who live
there and people like the
Inuit who eat them had become
grotesquely toxic.
>> We were looking at Beluga
whales up in the Arctic, we
were looking at ringed seals in
Labrador, all of them telling
us about these chemicals that
know no boundaries, and travel
around through atmospheric
currents with impunity.
We have the Inuit people who
were discovered in the 1980s
to be the most contaminated
people on the planet, who
would have expected that?
>> Linden: Ross is unique.
The only marine mammal
toxicologist in Canada.
He was head of a 55-member
team of pollution specialists
across the country, but he's
also typical, for Peter Ross,
science has no politics, no
point of view.
The facts owe loyalty to no
one, which can be a challenge
for a public sector scientist.
>> Well, over my 15 years with
the federal government, there
are many uncomfortable
situations when we would
publish a paper on contaminants
in fish, when we would -- when
the media expressed an interest
in what were the human health
implications of finding these
pollutants in seafoods, when
we would document how
contaminated some of these
marine mammals are, in fact.
Killer whales in British
Columbia being 500 times more
contaminated than the average
Canadian.
(seal barking)
>> Linden: He didn't expect
authorities in government or
industry to celebrate his
work, but nobody disputed that
the information was important
and that something should be
done to mitigate or to reverse
the damage.
Ross felt that it was important
to share his information with
the people who were paying
for it, taxpayers, and he made
science easy for the public
media.
>> So these harbour seals are
telling us what types of
persistent chemicals are
circulating in the environment
and accumulating --
>> Linden: He was a frequent
face on local newscasts until
2006.
(cheering)
>> Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper:
Merci beaucoup.
Tonight, friends, our great
country has voted for change.
(Cheering and Applause)
>> Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper:
And Canadians have asked
our party to take the
lead in delivering that change.
(Cheering and Applause)
>> Linden: With a new
government in place, it wasn't
long before new rules were
introduced, that controlled
contact with the media by
Dr. Ross and other scientists
who worked for the government
of Canada.
Decrees like this one would
require all media requests to
pass through a political spin
machine, government
communicators with specific
instructions.
Just as we have one department,
one website, we should have
one department, one voice.
Nothing wrong with that except
the voice would now be the
voice of politics, not science.
>> Since the first minority
government came into power,
I continued to do my research,
but my ability to convey
important findings to the
general public, to the
electorate, to the taxpayer
has been severely curtailed.
>> Science gives us facts,
factoids, that we can use.
It doesn't tell us what the
thresholds should be.
No scientist can say this is
acceptable, this isn't.
That's ultimately going to be
a public choice.
>> Linden: Dr. Peter Phillips
is a University of Saskatchewan
specialist in public policy,
argues scientists should work
behind the scenes,
confidentially, to help
politicians make the wisest
choices possible.
>> We don't have philosopher
kings who make choices for us.
We muddle through with
collegial decision making and
in that sense, scientists give
us the evidence that
accumulates and it generates
compelling stories about how --
what can and should be done
by society.
But it doesn't tell us when do
we move, it doesn't tell us
where to move, it gives us
some options.
>> Linden: But the Harper
ministries were becoming more
selective in what they wanted
scientists to tell them.
They were actually spending
more on science, but there was
a fundamental shift in where
the money went.
Science geared to economic
growth would do well.
Science raising inconvenient
caution signals about human
health, climate change, habitat
destruction, not so well.
In labs and publicly-funded
research institutes all across
the country, lights were
dimming and, for many, would
soon be extinguished.
Funding either ended or
diverted to support the goals
of industry and commerce.
>> You measure this in --
>> Linden: An archeological dig
that, if anything, might
comfort Europeans looking for
their own historical claim to
Arctic riches suddenly became
a low priority.
By early 2012, Pat Sutherland,
one of a diminishing number of
pure scientists working for
the Museum of Civilization was
feeling the chill and it wasn't
all from the north wind.
>> I was certainly being
monitored.
It was difficult to work in
the museum at that point.
>> The silence was really
deafening the last couple of
years in the employment of the
federal government.
There was a certain hollow
ring to the hallways as we
went to work, and we continued
to publish, we had lots of
work, we kept ourselves busy.
>> Linden: By Spring 2012, the
Peter Ross workplace near
Victoria, B.C. wasn't pleasant
but he didn't realize that his
career was on the line.
>> When I arrived at my desk
8:30 one morning and there was
an E-mail indicating that I was
to meet with managers in
the boardroom upstairs at
9:00 a.m. and then at five to
9:00, I walked out of my
office, and everybody in my
entire wing walked out of their
office, walked upstairs and
into the boardroom.
>> Linden: His story would
have resonated with Pat
Sutherland.
She'd even sought outside
funding to supplement the
shrinking budget for her work.
Then, like Peter Ross, she was
summoned to a meeting.
>> I was presented with an
envelope and the envelope,
contents of the envelope said
that I was to appear at 9:30
on the Monday for a meeting.
>> No eye contact, everyone
was staring at their shoes.
There's a box of kleenex in
the middle of the table.
Without any conversation
beginning, you could hear a
pin drop.
People were ashen.
We all knew what was
happening.
A letter was read to us that
had been written in Ottawa
announcing the termination of
our entire program.
No more ocean pollution
research and monitoring, we
don't consider this to be part
of our mandate.
>> And a statement was read by
the vice-president of research
and collections telling me
that I was dismissed and the
HR person told me that she
would accompany me to my
office.
She said you have five minutes
to collect important personal
things and I said everything
here is important to me, this
is my life.
And then a security guard
appeared at the door, a large
man, and I was walked out of
the building into the edge of
the property.
>> Linden: How do you choose,
after all those years, what to
take in that five-minute
window that they presented you
with?
>> I took nothing.
>> Linden: When the axe fell,
she would discover that
investigators had prepared a
445-page report that lays out
a highly-personal attack which
she sees as the prologue to
her dismissal.
A potentially-damning document
museum officials were only too
swift to share with us, even
though they refused to discuss
her firing in a formal
interview.
The report is a repentative
litany of complaints mostly
based on the evidence of
former colleagues, their
critique boiled down to an
unflattering if not uncommon
portrayal of a single-minded
scientist, bossy and
impatient, a perfectionist who
sometimes spoke too bluntly,
but it helped to get her fired
and her dismissal brought an
end to her beloved Baffin
Island project.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: When we come back,
deep thoughts and plain talk.
>> But you can't run a
democracy and make it function
on a public informed with B.S.
( ♪♪ )
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: Even from the remote
perspective of an astronaut,
the human imprint is
unmistakable.
It dominates the northern
hemisphere.
And dominating that, the
Athabasca oilsands.
A vast, industrial machine
that grinds out jobs and
wealth for all Canadians, but
at a cost yet uncalculated and
perhaps incalcuable.
But government and industry
would have us focus on a
somewhat different picture.
(advertisement voiceover)
>> The oilsands is a powerful
source of Canadian energy.
>> Linden: The advocacy is
constant whether through
gorgeous commercial propaganda
or broad stroke political spin
that's difficult to challenge.
(advertisement voiceover)
>> It happened because of the
human energy that goes into
it.
>> Linden: The upbeat industry
perspective is music to the
ears of politicians who dream
of a Canada that will become
an energy superpower.
But it has turned an
unprecedented number of
Canadian scientists into
critics of the Harper
government.
>> There's still this idea
that globalization is the
solution to economic
prosperity and we have to be
more aggressive than anyone
else for Canadians to get
their share.
>> Linden: Dr. David Schindler
won international renown in
the 1960s, '70s and '80s as a
founder of the experimental
lakes area project in
northwestern Ontario,
a one-of-a-kind facility that
led to innovative policies to
control acid rain and
pollution from domestic
phosphates.
For nearly a quarter century,
till he retired in October
2013, he was professor of
Ecology at the University of
Alberta where his research
raised alarms about pollution
from the oilsands.
He's become a leading critic
of an ideology that raises
material prosperity to primary
importance in almost every
aspect of public policy.
So we brought him with us on a
tour of the Athabasca project.
>> You pick up any newspaper,
you go on almost any website,
you turn on the television,
and there's an ad every half
hour telling you how wonderful
the oilsands are, and we have
public officials, both
provincially and federally,
running around saying things
like we have the toughest
environmental regulations in
the world.
Simply not the case.
>> Linden: Joe Oliver, Minister
of Natural Resources, is the
political point man for the
federal policy that has
outraged many scientists.
He wouldn't talk to us, but
he's far from shy, projecting
his upbeat vision of flat-out
resource exploitation without
environmental consequences.
>> The world will not stand by
and wait until Canada endlessly
deliberates the merits of its
resource potential and
squanders its legacy.
Canada is well-known for its
high environmental standards,
and they will be enhanced, but
we must also seize the
enormous opportunities
presented to our country in
the global market so we can
secure prosperity for future
generations of Canadians.
>> They're feeding the public
a bunch of hogwash, and I
think it's -- I think most
people would accept that you
can't run a democracy and make
it function on a public
informed with B.S.
>> Linden: For the Harper
government, prosperity starts
here.
The Athabasca region in
northern Alberta.
A 140,000 square kilometre
resevoir of potential energy.
An estimated 168 billion
barrels of a raw fuel source
called bitumin, a porridge of
oil and sand, clay and water.
>> Linden: You just tell me
what this is.
>> This is just a mine pit
that has water seeping into it.
>> Linden: Schindler is one
scientist who has definitely
not been silenced.
He's now retired but this is
his new battle ground, the
ecology of northern Alberta,
his new crusade.
Schindler and his team of
researchers found that intense
oilsands development was
contaminating the Athabasca
watershed.
Fish exposed to this water
developed deformities and
tumours.
>> You can imagine you've got--
you saw something like that
in Safeway lying with a bunch
of normal fish.
>> Linden: When the findings
were published in the
proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Schindler
was roundly criticized and
contradicted by both the
Alberta and federal
governments.
Why do you think the
government is so concerned
about what scientists have to
say?
>> I think their philosophy is
that policy should drive
science rather than what
scientists think is that
science should be reflected in
policy.
So it's like they don't want
to hear about science anymore.
This stuff is always in their
face, they want policies to
reflect economics 100%,
economics being only what you
can sell, not what you can
save.
>> It's when we start
interpreting the evidence as
what it says about what
governments should or should
not do that you're starting to
usurp the policy prerogative
of the executive government.
>> Linden: Dr. Peter Phillips,
who is an economist, believes
that democracy is all about
choices and decisions and
decision making must be in the
hands of politicians.
>> That's their job.
Their job is to frame policy
debates and frame dialogue.
Do they ignore some important
issues?
Undoubtedly.
This government's not unique.
Every government has issues
that they just don't want to
address.
>> We have a government who
really, really doesn't grasp
what science is about.
Okay?
They really don't know what
science is for.
>> Linden: Tom Duck is a
professor of physics and
atmospheric science at
Dalhousie University.
>> It's very important that
scientists are able to maintain
that distance between what
they're doing and any policy,
what we need to do is be seen
as impartial advisors.
Unfortunately, that link has
been broken.
And it's been badly broken.
>> Linden: June 2012, if there
was any doubt about who
controls public policy,
scientists or politicians, it
vanished with a single piece
of legislation in the House of
Commons.
>> All those in favour, please
say yea.
>> (Together): Yea!
>> All those opposed, please
say nay.
>> (Together): Nay!
>> Linden: Bill C-38,
supposedly a budget bill.
But MPs would discover buried
in its more than 400 pages and
700 clauses, fundamental
changes in more than 70 pieces
of existing legislation.
Including just about every
existing measure to manage and
protect the environment.
It would cancel 3,000
environmental assessments,
gut existing legislation, and
demolish programs protecting
fish, lakes, rivers, and
oceans.
One high-profile victim of the
axe, Schindler's decades-old
experimental lakes project
where scientists had pioneered
controls for acid rain and the
reduction of pollution in our
waterways.
And it was the beginning of
the end for Dr. Peter Ross and
his work documenting the
destruction of our ocean
habitat.
>> Bill C-38 really spelled
the end of the federal
government's interest in ocean
pollution and it was only a
question of time and degree in
terms of what the consequences,
what the outcome was going to
be for our work.
>> The use of omnibus bills as
budget measures is an
interesting process.
>> Linden: And Dr. Peter
Phillips believes appropriate
in this case, environmental
regulation impacts directly on
the economy and definitely
needed a radical overhaul.
>> I think there's a strong
argument to be said that we
have historically built up
regulatory systems that were
all well-intentioned but that
the burden increased to a
point that exceeded the
benefits of the regulation
themselves.
We just regulated for
regulation sake.
>> Linden: It was getting in the
way of development.
>> It was getting in the way
of expeditious decision making.
>> Linden: It was a big change
in a hurry, but government had
help, most influentially not
from scientists but from
industry.
Months before bill C-38 was
introduced, the oil and gas
industry, including the
Canadian association of
petroleum producers, weighed
in with this letter to former
environment minister Peter
Kent, in effect a wish list of
initiatives to expedite
resource development.
Existing legislation was
outdated, too focused on
prevention.
Governments should make
adjustments to existing
legislation and take a more
positive approach, economic
growth, jobs.
Bill C-38 gave them almost
everything they asked for.
We asked two senior
bureaucrats and four cabinet
ministers with responsibility
for resources, the environment
and science to explain their
policies and their expectations
and to answer critics who argue
that by dismantling public
sector agencies and protocols
for protecting the environment
they have e-masculated science
and public sector scientists.
All refused.
Scientists and other public
servants use words like
gutted, muzzled.
>> And in some cases I think
that's true.
>> Linden: Environmental
regulation gutted?
>> Not obviously.
I mean --
>> Linden: Bill C-38 didn't gut
12 or so pieces of
environmental protection
legislation?
>> I mean, I haven't seen
major developments that have
emerged in the intervening
period.
I think what's happened is
there's been a rebalancing.
To some people, that's gutting
because it changes the balance
of power in these processes.
Undoubtedly, if what the
government has done works the
way they hope it will work, it
will speed up the process.
Which for those who do not
want to see certain types of
development will be gutting.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: When we come back,
heading for the last bonanza.
>> What kind of economy do you
expect you can have with
poisoned waterways and with
polluted air?
( ♪♪ )
>> Not a lot of room in there.
(Applause)
>> Linden: The Arctic for Prime
Minister Harper has become a
legacy destination.
He sees potential here for a
place in history for Canada
and for his party.
It will all depend on access
to resources.
>> Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper:
All this potential development
reminds us that, as I said
before, the north is Canada's
call to greatness.
These developments will bring
growth, jobs and prosperity to
this territory across the
north and indeed across the
entire country.
>> Linden: Prosperity, the
upside of climate change.
A retreating icecap that
offers new opportunities to
hunt for oil and gas and
minerals at the top of the
planet.
Perhaps a quarter of the
world's undiscovered resource
wealth soon to be accessible
through newly-opened
waterways.
A political and economic
prospect not to be diminished
by alarmist scientists.
Like Dr. Tom Duck, who helped
to turn the high Arctic into a
climate lab and an alarming
window on the future.
>> What kind of economy do you
think you can have when climate
change is ravaging the planet?
All the projections for that
say it's going to be very,
very, very expensive, so,
again, it's not a question of
one -- of the economy or the
environment.
It's both or it's neither.
>> Linden: Dr. Duck of
Dalhousie University in
Halifax is one of the founders
of the polar environment
atmospheric research
laboratory, Pearl for short.
Monitoring the Arctic climate
since 2004, just a thousand
kilometres from the north pole,
the research station was
one-of-a-kind, and provided
scientific data on ozone
depletion and climate change
for scientists around the
world.
But in 2012, its budgets were
cut so drastically, Professor
Duck was forced to halt his
research there.
>> We know that climate change
is an enormous problem.
It is the problem for the next
century.
So if you want to get out your
oil, you have to get it out now.
If you want to get it out now,
you have to make sure
scientists aren't causing any
problems.
If you want to make sure
scientists aren't causing any
problems, you take away all
their funding.
>> It shows me that the
government of Canada, it
doesn't really want to know
about ocean pollution.
>> Linden: Dr. Peter Ross,
until mid-2013, was leading
world-class research into the
impact of pollution on mammals
in the oceans, whales, seals,
walrus.
He and his entire department,
55 people, were abruptly cut,
suddenly redundant, like a
thousand other environmental
watch dogs in the federal
department of fisheries and
oceans.
>> And what government manager
in Ottawa is going to want to
hear bad news that they're
going to have to do something
about when they've already got
enough on their desk?
>> Linden: He is now
considering a job offer in the
private sector.
But he'll find it hard to
recover the passion that
inspired his public service
science.
>> It really erodes your
self-esteem when the
government of Canada tells you
that your type of person is no
longer desirable, that what
you are a world expert in is
irrelevant to the government
of Canada.
>> Linden: So this whole
place was kind of like your
office.
>> The area that we studied --
>> Linden: Dr. Ross mourns his
lost engagement with public
policy but he worries that the
bigger losers in the long run
are future leaders who will
have responsibility for policy
development without the
benefit of independent
fact-based science.
>> By default, what we have
done in Canada is turn off the
radar.
We are flying along in an
airplane, and we've put
curtains over the windshield
of those pilots, of that
flight crew, and we've turned
off the instruments.
We don't know what is coming
tomorrow, let alone next year,
in terms of some of these
potentially-catastrophic
incidents in our oceans.
>> Linden: Even jobless, even
with the approach of another
Arctic winter, Pat Sutherland
keeps coming back to the place
that has consumed her time and
energy and expertise for 13
years.
>> Linden: Coming in here on
the boat, you were saying, I'm
home, so great to be back here.
>> Yeah.
>> Linden: What is main feeling?
>> Sadness.
And frustration.
Both, yeah.
It's not just the site but I've
established relationships in
this community.
I've had young people working
on these sites and the work
gives them a sense of pride
about their past.
>> Linden: It's abandoned now,
tantalizing questions left
unanswered.
A mystery unsolved.
A final chapter yet unwritten.
The dig that was the project
of a lifetime for
Dr. Sutherland, a potential
breakthrough for Canada and an
international community of
scholars, became a grave for
her career.
Since her dismissal, she's
been denied access to the
product of decades of
scholarly work for the museum.
She worries about what has
happened to artifacts and
documents, painstakingly
assembled over decades.
James Turk, Executive Director
at the Canadian Association of
University Teachers sees
a dangerous precedent in
what happened here.
>> What's even more troubling
is not only is she let go, but
she's denied access to
material she needs to continue
her work.
>> I think her case
illustrates, pretty
dramatically, some of the
problems with the
politicization of science and
the politicization of these
kinds of matters.
>> Linden: And then in Ottawa,
in late November 2013, just as
Pat Sutherland thought the
museum could no longer shock
her, the biggest shock of all,
a new creative partnership, a
financial sponsor.
>> That sponsor is the
Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers, which
represents one of the largest
sectors of the Canadian
economy.
>> Linden: It was a marriage
of convenience with a million
dollar dowry from the groom.
The Canadian Association of
Petroleum Producers, the
high-profile lobby group that
has been influential in
reshaping science, now a
partner in defining history.
For more than two years,
scientists have been pushing
back.
On this September day in 2013,
there were similar
demonstrations by private
sector and academic scientists
in 17 centres across Canada.
The worst consequences of what
they call the war on science
may well await future
generations, but they insist
real damage has already
started and might be
irreversible.
Professor Duck still has a job
because he's an academic.
But the lab in Halifax where
scientists processed data from
the Arctic station is now
abandoned, much of the
equipment closed down and
slated for storage.
>> It crippled my life's work,
my entire research group
disappeared, okay.
So I had people leave and take
up jobs in the U.K., others,
you know, took up work in the
U.S.
The kind of people I had
working in this group are not
the kind of people that you
can find just anywhere.
They were the best in the
world.
And you have to understand,
they deserved a better fate
than this, and for that
reason, they won't come back.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: Science will
continue with or without
government support,
in spite of politics.
( ♪♪ )
>> Linden: But for the public
sector scientist Pat
Sutherland, her scientific
mission, the project of a
lifetime on Baffin Island
is now history.
( ♪♪ )
