Kirsty Duncan, Canada’s first science minister, passed away from cancer on January 26. Her powerful words remind us how crucial it is for scientists to work freely and share vital information. In her 2018 TED Talk, she emphasized the importance of allowing scientists to collaborate and communicate openly with the media and the public. This message resonates deeply today, especially as new federal job cuts raise alarms about the future of environmental and climate science.
During Duncan’s tenure, many Canadian scientists faced restrictions. Max Bothwell, for example, researched a harmful algae called “rock snot.” His findings linked its growth to climate change, but when reporters sought to interview him in 2014, the request was blocked by then-Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office. Duncan questioned the motives behind stifling such crucial information, pointing to the widespread suppression of climate change discussions.
In 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, a significant step backward for environmental protections. The Harper government’s cuts had lasting consequences, and many believe we’ve yet to fully recover. This trend continued with the recent announcement of federal job cuts aimed at reducing costs by 15%. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s pledge to bolster defense funding has led to significant budget cuts, affecting Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) particularly hard.
These cuts will reduce ECCC’s budget by $43 million in 2024–25, escalating to $1.3 billion by 2030, the same year Canada aims to significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, ECCC confirmed around 1,000 employees would be affected, including frontline scientists crucial for environmental monitoring and research.
Andrea Kirkwood, a biology professor at Ontario Tech University, raised concerns about the lack of transparency in these cuts. Many affected employees have dedicated years to their work, yet the government hasn’t clarified how these cuts will impact services. The risks are real; frontline roles aren’t just entry-level. They encompass skilled technicians and research scientists who keep our environmental management on track.
Statistics show weather-related disasters have started to cost Canada about 5-6% of its GDP annually. By 2025, climate-related damages from events like wildfires exceeded $25 billion. With the ECCC forecasting that 2026 could be among the hottest years on record, cutting expertise in environmental science seems misguided.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) has highlighted that only 26% of federal scientists recommend a career in federal science. The past decade has seen serious strains in funding and support for scientists, eroding our capacity to handle present and future challenges. More than 200 PIPSC members have already felt the impact of these cuts.
Marie-France Noel, a wildlife biologist working for the Canadian Wildlife Service for over 15 years, shared her experience on social media after being identified as an affected employee. Knowledgeable experts like her are key in wildlife assessments. For example, her contributions were vital for a report on the Canada Warbler, highlighting species at risk due to habitat loss.
Experts express deep concern over the implications of cutting scientific roles. Sean O’Reilly, PIPSC President, stated that these experts are vital for environmental safety. They not only prevent disasters but ensure public confidence in crucial areas like weather forecasting and species protection.
Past cuts have shown that sacrificing scientific expertise compromises safety and environmental integrity. For instance, Fisheries and Oceans Canada scientists raised alarms about the risks of the Bay du Nord offshore oil project, highlighting flaws in its Environmental Impact Statement. However, the project received approval despite these serious warnings, raising questions about the effectiveness of oversight.
The growing reliance on artificial intelligence as a substitute for human expertise is also problematic. Conor Curtis, from Sierra Club Canada, argues that while AI can analyze large data sets, it cannot replace the nuanced understanding that scientists bring to complex environmental issues. Relying on technology might lead to significant gaps in oversight, undermining not just environmental protection but also Canada’s economic decisions.
These cuts come at a time when Canada’s environmental challenges are becoming increasingly urgent. The importance of a fully staffed, competent government department cannot be overstated. As Kirkwood pointed out, many positions being cut were created to address gaps from earlier layoffs. Further reductions could lead to a decline in our environmental and scientific capacity, which is essential for the well-being of Canadian communities and ecosystems.
