I&#x27;m not sure why this is being downvoted, beyond the fact that it challenges the popular narrative.<p>The Harper government didn&#x27;t muzzle scientists because it had an inate hatred of scientists; it muzzled scientists because it was afraid of what they would say and the potential for lost votes.  Canada&#x27;s new government doesn&#x27;t have that fear, so they have no reason to muzzle government scientists -- but that doesn&#x27;t say anything about their principles.  A commitment to openness is only tested when there is something you want to avoid having said.<p>(Incidentally, I think the &quot;muzzled scientists&quot; issue is somewhat overblown.  Nobody complains about legal-advice privilege creating &quot;muzzled lawyers&quot;, and exactly the same rationale applies to government scientists: If governments avoid consulting scientists because they&#x27;re worried about the contents of their consultations becoming public, we&#x27;re all worse off for it.  This isn&#x27;t to say that I think government scientists should be completely muzzled, mind you; but I think there&#x27;s a reasonable middle ground between &quot;completely open&quot; and &quot;completely muzzled&quot; which nonetheless allows for governments to seek confidential advice from the scientists they employ.)