You sound quite optimistic about the potential to improve the system. You say the working parts are there.
What's concerning to me is that when Dr. Schindler or others raised concerns, those concerns were often dismissed, not just by oil companies but also by the current government, as being crackpot science or not legitimate. But in your report, and I'm quoting, it says that “a statistically sound decision-making process that can allow for adaptive management in a rapidly changing oil sands environment does not exist”. The report goes on to say, “It is not producing world-class scientific output in a transparent, peer-reviewed format and it is not adequately communicating its results to the scientific community or the public.”
You sound as if you confirmed that the monitoring of the projects was not sufficient, was not transparent, and was not statistically accurate. There is not just a perception of doubts; there are legitimate doubts over the numbers coming in over the water quality.
With respect to the pace of development, which you also recognized, your committee didn't make a recommendation on whether projects should continue to be approved without an adequate means of monitoring them. You say that projects are overrunning sites that are being set up to monitor the water quality. The sites are being destroyed by new projects that weren't even envisioned when you set up the site in the first place. Is that true?