Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Minister, and welcome to the committee. I am going to pick up where my colleague, Mr. McGuinty left off.
We were indeed a little surprised to see that scientists at Environment Canada were muzzled and to read that your communications policy actually included a good scientist's guide.
But I was even more surprised yesterday when scientists sent me a note that appears not only on your parliamentary site, but also on your intranet. The communications policy includes an appendix entitled Environment Canada Standard for Scientific and Technical Publications, a guide for authors.
After the guide on media relations, there is now a good scientist's guide. That is quite something, what you are telling us.
On page 4 of the French version of this document, where it talks about the document approval process, it says that authors must ask themselves the following five questions, which are listed in the approval process for scientific documents.
The first question asks, “Who is the intended audience?” The second asks, “Is it a formal or complementary publication?” The fourth asks, “Is the publication significant and relevant to key policies, priorities or regulations of the government?”
After the communications guide, there is now a good scientist's guide. Is that not direct interference with scientific content? Is your department not attempting to control scientific research and content? Do you think that is acceptable? Do you see it as a good measure, something that represents the principles of scientific independence?