By Sarah Laframboise
Canada is at a crossroads. As a federal election creeps closer, voters across the country are preparing to decide the direction we take on several grand challenges facing our nation — such as climate change, public health crises, and innovation. The sudden resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has prompted reflections on both the Liberals’ last decade in power and the possibility of a Conservative government in 2025.
At times like this, we can best learn by listening to and studying the past. What we find is troubling: a growing pattern of hostility towards experts, divisive rhetoric, and an ideology that clashes with sound science and evidence. What will this mean for the future of science and research in Canada?
A “war on expertise”
Government interference in science and research is nothing new. Under the current Liberal government, 92% of environmental researchers continue to experience interference in their ability to communicate their research. However, the previous Conservative government — led by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper — demonstrated a streak of marked hostility toward experts, a period known today as the “war on science” that saw environmental protections stripped away, scientists silenced, environmental research suppressed, and significant cuts in federal research funding.
With that history in mind, it’s worth asking: how do Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives view experts? While the party’s official policy declaration supports the use of experts (#159, #183), including establishment of an independent Chief Scientist (#42), there have been a number of concerning statements made against experts — by both party members and the official party itself.
A recent column in the Toronto Star outlined that we are currently experiencing a “war on expertise.” In July 2024, the Conservative Party publicly accused Dr. Andrea Sereda of lying to the Standing Committee on Health during a study on the opioid epidemic, calling for her medical licence to be revoked. This sparked shocking online hate and death threats.
Unfortunately, this incident isn’t an isolated case. Dr. Doris Grinspun, of the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO), reported that Poilievre’s office “recently mocked the expertise of myself and others with ‘too many letters after their names.’” Similarly, earlier in June 2024, Conservative MP Chris Warkentin called for an investigation into 11 economists who signed an open letter explaining the economic arguments for climate pricing.
These stories reveal two key themes: they centre on polarizing political topics and involve highly personal attacks. While online polarization undeniably plays a role, the Conservatives’ combative approach amplifies these issues. This effectively discourages expert participation in public policy, as noted by UBC economist Kevin Milligan: “You get attacked in such a personal and negative way that it just really discourages people from participating.”
Political ideology and research funding
This extends to provinces like Alberta, where Premier Danielle Smith claimed that federal research funding is biased toward “certain types of opinions” and “certain types of researchers,” despite clear evidence showing the contrary. Nevertheless, Bill 18, the Provincial Priorities Act, passed, empowering Alberta to control all aspects of research being conducted in the province, effectively limiting research that does not align with provincial ideology.
While federal research funding in Canada is overseen by independent, peer-reviewed processes, there is significant misinformation about these processes. For example, Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner proposed revising research funding eligibility criteria to require universities to enforce certain ideological rules, such as implementing freedom of speech policies, to qualify for research dollars. Such proposals raise concerns about the role of universities and the inclusion of equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) principles, as well as the independence of science and research from political influence.
These debates echo current trends in the U.S., where the Republican Party has called for crackdowns on EDI initiatives. In Canada, recent witness testimonies to the Standing Committee on Science and Research have raised concerns about the role of EDI in research funding, which may signal an alarming trend toward politicizing academic independence.
What’s at stake in an upcoming election?
We have already lived through the “war on science” era where ideology overruled evidence, and recent trends suggest we may be gearing up for a similar period. Today, escalating attacks on experts, political interference in research funding, and the divisive narrative about academic freedom pose serious risks to science and democracy.
Science thrives in environments that value collaboration, respect expertise, and remain open to diverse perspectives. Policymaking rooted in evidence is a vital element of our democracy, ensuring citizens and policymakers have a shared understanding of how we can address the challenges that define our future.
As Canadians prepare to cast their votes, they must consider the role science plays in shaping a healthier, more sustainable, and equitable society. The decisions we make now will set the tone for the relationship between science and policy for years to come.
Sarah Laframboise is the executive director of Evidence for Democracy.