Thank you to our witnesses, including the civil servants who work so hard to support our ministers.
I think your appearance here is an important aspect of our democracy. I note that, because when the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2012—which was a gutting of the previous environmental assessment regime—was passed, I seem to recall that neither the Conservative environment minister nor the natural resources minister appeared before any committee to discuss this issue, so thank you for being here.
I would like to start by going into the issue of scientific integrity and the role of science in impact assessment. I think Canadians view this as being really important. The expert panel on environmental assessment processes concluded that, “stronger guidelines and standards are needed to ensure that [impact assessment] processes include rigorous scientific methods.” Clearly, science was a focus of the expert panel.
However, in clause 22 of the act, there a number of factors set out that are required to be considered in the context of conducting impact assessment. They include things like sustainability, traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples, etc., but science-based evidence isn't included as a factor.
I'm wondering if this is an oversight, and I'm wondering if there is not an intention to ensure that science is incorporated into the factors that are considered.