Public Record on Gatineau Park

The Government of Canada has recently continued its poor run of form in its environmental portfolio, by incensing the scientific community with the announcement of the laboratory closure at Ontario’s Experimental Lakes Area, and the dismissal of the scientists working at the facility, all in an effort to trim $1.7mn from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We have arrived at the “dark age” of science in Canada, as the ELA was a unique world class “living laboratory” used by international biological scientists. The ELA’s major contribution was the demonstration of effects of phosphate in lakes, which can cause destructive algae blooms, a study conducted by David Schindler at the University of Alberta.

Scientists were surprised by the recent move to close the ELA, but Jeremy Kerr links it to a broader government strategy that has seen substantial changes to Canadian environmental law, the weakening of environmental restrictions, and perhaps most significantly the stricter regulation of public consultation procedures, limiting public input on formal consultation processes (See also the changes made to ENGO’s charitable status). Kerr made the following dark suggestion about the Government’s unstated aims:

“I think they mean to eliminate the government’s capacity to measure anything that might stand in the way of unfettered resource extraction, while demonizing any who dare to speak out. How did we get to this position? It is amazing to have descended so far, so fast, and with barely a whimper” (cited in Spears 2012, The Ottawa Citizen, May 18^th).

One of the leading biologists in Canada, David Schindler gave the following opinion on the matter: “The kindest thing I can say is that these people don’t know enough about science to know the value of what they are cutting” (cited in Munro 2012, The Windsor Star, May 18^th).

The ELA laboratory was the only one of its kind, as scientists could manipulate entire lakes to determine the effects of different chemicals and pollutants. Their use the lakes has been compared to the way medical researchers use “white mice” (in Munro 2012). Schindler’s experiment on ELA Lake 226 had profound policy and public health implications and resulted in changes to the production of detergent. As explained on the scientific group’s website

ELA Lake 226 was the site of a visually spectacular experiment. The lake was divided into two approximately equal portions using a plastic divider curtain. Carbon and nitrogen were added to one half of the lake, while carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus were added to the other half. For eight consecutive years, the side receiving phosphorus developed eutrophic algal blooms, while the side receiving only carbon and nitrogen did not (see photo, below). However, after only two years, this experiment convinced even the skeptics that phosphorus is the key nutrient. A multi-billion dollar phosphate control program was soon instituted within the St. Lawrence Great Lakes Basin. Legislation to control phosphates in sewage, and to remove phosphates from laundry detergents, was part of this program. (http://sevenhillslake.com/technical.html)

In short, given Canada’s geopolitical importance, this bad governance could have indirect effects rest of the world as well; it definitely has already impacted the international scientific community. The ELA laboratory identified the problematic effects of different pollutants and chemicals on dozens of bodies of water. Future testing on new pollutants and chemicals will now have to be confined to smaller university laboratories. Recent work at the ELA laboratory showed “the ill effects of endocrine-disrupting compounds like synthetic estrogen, and led to better understanding of the impact of nitrogen in sewage effluent. In one international experiment called METAALICUS, mercury was added to one of the lakes and its watershed to try to figure out how the pollutant moves through ecosystems.” This is a sad day for those who believe in the production of scientific knowledge and evidence-based policy making. Queen’s University biologist John Smol put it like this: “The foundation of our ability to identify problems is being eliminated.” There are many ways to inform a public and scientific evidence is just one, but the value of scientific research resides in its status as a vital conduit in generating collective matters-of-concern through the verifiable production of truth.

As noted by Tom Spears (2012), “the journal Science singled it out as unique and valuable in the 1990s. Experimenting on an entire natural lakes creates real-world surprises that don’t occur in the limited setting of an aquarium, Science said.”
Is saving $1.7mn per year for tax-payers really worth the dissolution of one of Canada’s most renowned and respected scientific institutions? I don’t think so.

The formal date of closure is March 31, 2013.

Sources and Links

Schindler’s full study available at this link.

See also http://sevenhillslake.com/technical.html

Munro, Margaret (18 May 2012). Canada stops funding famed experimental lakes science program. The Windsor Star/Postmedia News. Available at:

http://www.canada.com/technology/Canada+stops+funding+famed+experimental+lakes+science+program/6640375/story.html#ixzz1vFbzPoOt

Spears, Tom (18 May 2012). .Federal cuts target living laboratory in Northern Ontario lakes’. Ottawa Citizen. Available at:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Federal+cuts+target+living+laboratory+Northern+Ontario+lakes/6644762/story.html#ixzz1vFZDWDo1

Hull-Aylmer MP Nycole Turmel spoke to a crowd of non-profit and conservation representatives on Earth Day to announce her plans for Gatineau Park legislation.

See video of her speech here.

Download and sign the petition here (English version,_PDF). (French version, PDF)

There is growing concern among opponents of the A5 expansion, as the MTQ has authorized clear-cutting of Gatineau Park, and has refused to consider alternate proposals of the A5X group. Consisting of local residents and environmentalists, the A5X group is organizing a peaceful demonstration this Saturday at 10AM. Full details can be found in this brochure. Please distribute widely and get the message out to help grow public opposition to this unnecessarily damaging and costly ($61m) highway design.

The A5X group is seeking the redesign of the highway expansion, not its complete abandonment. Surely, in an era of so-called “government accountability”, the MTQ and other planning officials should, at the very least, listen to what this public opposition group has to say before proceeding to devastate an entire section of Gatineau Park?

The time seems to be fast approaching when politicians will assemble to deliberate on the future of Gatineau Park. Nycole Turmel, the interim Leader of the Opposition, recently tabled a motion declaring that “the government should immediately take the necessary steps to provide Gatineau Park with the essential protections to safeguard its natural assets and to preserve it for future generations.”

Saturday’s Ottawa Citizen’s had the A5 highway extension on the front-page of the ‘City Section’, mentioning the contentious and unresolved issue of the Park’s official metes and bounds. CPAWS-OV and the GPPC have criticized the NCC for altering the boundaries without due process. That is, it breached protocol by changing the boundaries through administrative not legal procedures. This  is clearly problematic in and of itself, but added to this is the fact that the substitution of the so-called “official” administrative boundary for the 1960 one effectively “allowed” the extension of Autoroute A5 as it was no longer located inside the Park. This is the most recent illustration of the NCC simply doing what it wants, a sad insight that has been confirmed by several of my interviewees in addition to those interviewed by Maren Bradenburg (2003).

This problem, among so many others, indicates that change is needed. The prospect of legislation provides an opportunity to make the right changes: those that would close the ongoing controversies, not only of Gatineau Park’s administration but also surrounding the Park’s purpose. As is well known among the Outdoor Ottawa community, but less so elsewhere, Gatineau Park currently serves two purposes: public and private. Living at a time when the value of public spaces is so widely recognized, Mrs. Turmel will hopefully recognize the true public interest at stake here, for in this case, as in so many others, there are spokespersons claiming to speak on behalf of the public when they are really only representing local and sometimes even private interests. It seems a truism to say that the public interest is directly aligned with the protection of public spaces. Gatineau Park should be one such space, and conflict invariably arises because of the private properties which encroach Meech and Kingsmere lakes.

Nycole Turmel would long be remembered as the champion of the public and its Park if she manages to tackle this divisive political conflict over the Park’s purpose(s) head-on – that is, with legislation mandating the NCC to acquire the remaining private properties inside the Park. In this way, Gatineau Park in its entirety can be forever protected as a space for all future generations, and not just the privileged few with their luxury cottages on the Park’s lake shores. I applaud Mrs. Turmel’s movement on the “Gatineau Park file” and look forward to witnessing her future work on it. May she succeed where other great leaders have not.