Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment

Abstract

Since being elected in 2015, Canada's federal Liberal government has taken steps to overhaul major environment-related laws and policies, including federal environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes. During 2016-2017, a government-appointed panel toured Canada and received >1000 suggestions from diverse sectors of society regarding EA reform. Yet, different sectors of society may have different views concerning scientific components of EA. We analyzed written submissions during public consultation (categorized into five sectors) regarding five key scientific components of EA: (1) openly sharing information, (2) evaluating cumulative effects, (3) scientific rigour, (4) transparency in decision-making, and (5) independence between regulators and proponents. On the whole, submissions from Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals/academics supported strengthening all five components. In contrast, most contributions from industry/industry associations, and, to a lesser extent, government bodies or agencies, suggested that there was no need for increased scientific rigour or increased independence. These findings indicate that there is cross-sectoral support for strengthening some scientific aspects of EA. However, the degree to which the Government of Canada strengthens the scientific rigour and independence of EA will indicate whether environmental decision-making in Canada is aligned with preferences from industry or the rest of Canada.

Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

“…With these inherent constraints on government and industry employees, we suggest new authorities, independent of government and industry, are needed to ensure that expert knowledge properly informs government decision‐making and promotes public awareness. Similar conclusions have recently been drawn in Canada (Jacob et al., 2018; Westwood et al., 2019a).…”

Risks of mining to salmonid-bearing watersheds

“…A recent study on the role of science in Canada's impact assessment processes concluded that proponent-collected data for a single project do not and cannot capture systemic cumulative effects (123). These flaws can result in assessment reports that neither accurately weigh environmental risks nor provide realistic predictions of economic benefits, thus compromising decision-making and environmental protection (123,(129)(130)(131)(132). Although there have been recent efforts in Canada, for example, to provide more publicly available data related to cumulative effect estimation, data and impact prediction models associated with specific project assessments are consistently unavailable to the public.…”

“…There is general scientific concern that impact assessments do not always meet internationally accepted standards for environmental review and decision-making, including scientific rigor, open data and methods, and independent review ( 123 , 129 ). A recent study on the role of science in Canada’s impact assessment processes concluded that proponent-collected data for a single project do not and cannot capture systemic cumulative effects ( 123 ).…”

Horizon scan of conservation issues for inland waters in Canada

“…The changes made in 2012 to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Fisheries Act, and Navigable Waters Protection Act (now Navigation Protection Act), as well as the subsequent review and introduction of Bills C-68 and C-69, have attempted to address such problems by putting an emphasis on creating registries to improve public access to environmental information. The aim of these changes is to encourage meaningful public participation in environmental decision-making (Jacob et al 2018). Putting evidence-based decision-making into broader practice will require additional capacity within natural resource management agencies (Cooke et al 2017), open data efforts, and regional assessments.…”