2014 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Chapter 6—Environmental Petitions Annual Report

2014 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development Chapter 6—Environmental Petitions Annual Report

Introduction

Highlights

6.1 The highlights of this annual report include the following:

• Issues raised by petitioners. The report summarizes issues raised in the 16 environmental petitions that were received between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014. Key concerns raised by petitioners included the management of fisheries, and threats to environmental and human health posed by toxic substances.
• Departmental performance. This year, departments provided 86 percent of responses to petitions within the 120-day statutory deadline. The responses were complete and relevant.
• Relevance to other work of the Commissioner. The report also highlights recent petitions and responses related to fisheries, human and environmental health, and toxic substances—issues that are covered in greater detail in previous reports of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Focus of the annual report

6.2 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development administers the environmental petitions process on behalf of the Auditor General. In addition to a monitoring and reporting role, the Commissioner posts petitions and responses on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada’s website and carries out outreach activities. Further details about the environmental petitions process and the roles and responsibilities of the Commissioner and federal government departments can be found on our website. The purpose of this annual report is to inform Parliament and Canadians about the number, subject-matter, and status of petitions and responses received, as required by section 23 of the Auditor General Act. The report covers the period between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014.

6.3 More details are provided in About the Annual Report and the Petitions Process at the end of this chapter.

Petitions and Responses

Petitions received

6.4 The Office received 16 environmental petitions between 1 July 2013 and 30 June 2014, compared with 12 the previous reporting year and 23 the year before. The Appendix presents summaries of the petitions received this year. After presenting the petitions to Parliament and with the consent of the petitioners, the Office posts the full text of petitions in the petitions catalogue on the Office of the Auditor General website.

6.5 The Office’s petitions team continues to use a number of outreach approaches, including social media, to inform Canadians about the process.

6.6 This year, six petitions, about a third, originated in British Columbia, four were from Ontario, three from Nova Scotia, two from Alberta, and one from Newfoundland and Labrador (Exhibit 6.1).

Exhibit 6.1—Petitions came from five provinces (1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014)

[Exhibit 6.1 — text version]

British Columbia

353—Federal government action to deal with recommendations and commitments made in the Cohen Commission report into the decline of Fraser River salmon

354—Progress in implementing integrated management of Canada’s oceans

355—Federal government action to deal with recommendations and commitments made in the Cohen Commission report into the decline of Fraser River salmon

357—Federal government response to the 2012 Cohen Commission report into the decline of Fraser River salmon and concerns about the potential impact to fish habitat protection under the amended Fisheries Act

358—Federal government response to the 2012 Cohen Commission report into the decline of Fraser River salmon and concerns about funding for salmon stock monitoring and assessment

359—Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s response to the Wild Salmon Policy and salmon farming recommendations of the 2012 Cohen Commission report

Alberta

362—Federal role and action in response to the Obed Mountain Mine coal slurry spill into the Athabasca River watershed

366—Monitoring of human health in the oil sands region of Alberta

Ontario

351—Review of the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

352—Risk assessment for the production of genetically engineered salmon eggs

363—Federal government review of European Union decisions to ban substances for health and environmental reasons, in accordance with section 75(3) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

365—Scientific evidence supporting the statements made in Health Canada’s Fact Sheet on Safety Code 6, which recommends limits for safe exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic radiation

Nova Scotia

360—Interpreting and applying the 2012 changes to the habitat-protection provisions of the Fisheries Act

361—Potential consequences of a perceived relaxation of the habitat-protection provisions of the Fisheries Act

364—Testing and approval process for pesticides used on food and food crops

Newfoundland and Labrador

356—Cost-benefit analysis of offshore oil and gas development in Newfoundland and Labrador

Source: Petitions submitted to the Auditor General of Canada. Summaries are in the Appendix.

6.7 As required, all petitions received this year (16) were forwarded to the federal minister or ministers responsible for the issues being raised in the petition. In nine cases, the petition was forwarded to more than one minister. In total, 34 responses are required from federal ministers. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans received the highest number of petitions, followed by the Minister of the Environment, and the Minister of Health (Exhibit 6.2).

Exhibit 6.2—Federal departments and agencies that received petitions this year (1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014)

[Exhibit 6.2 — text version]

Legend

DFO: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

EC: Environment Canada

HC: Health Canada

PHAC: Public Health Agency of Canada

NRCan: Natural Resources Canada

AANDC: Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada

TC: Transport Canada

PC: Parks Canada

FIN: Department of Finance Canada

DFATD: Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada

* Note that the same petition may be sent to more than one department or agency.

Over half of the petitions were local or regional in scope

6.8 This year’s petitions addressed local, regional, and national issues. Nine petitions had a local or regional focus; that is, they focused on activities and events that took place in a particular region of the country. Six of the petitions concerned national environmental issues, and one petition pertained to both regional and national issues (Exhibit 6.3). Summaries of each petition are provided in the Appendix.

Organizations submitted over half of the petitions

6.9 Nine of the sixteen petitions received this year were from organizations. The remaining seven petitions came from individuals. One third of the petitioners used the process in the past. For example, Ecojustice has raised environmental concerns in several petitions (Exhibit 6.4).

Exhibit 6.4—Ecojustice has used petitions to raise concerns about environmental issues

Ecojustice is a national non-profit organization that provides legal services to charities and individuals, advocating for more effective environmental legislation and more stringent enforcement and compliance. In addition to these activities, Ecojustice conducts investigations, prepares reports, and is involved in outreach and public awareness campaigns.

Ecojustice has raised concerns in several environmental petitions, including a petition on the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and one on the potential environmental risks related to the increase in oil tankers in British Columbia. In 2013–14, Ecojustice submitted three petitions: two are related to toxic substances and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (petitions 351 and 363), and one is on the Obed Mountain Mine spill (Petition 362). The petitions process is one of the tools used by Ecojustice to call attention to issues that concern Canadians.

6.10 The Watershed Watch Salmon Society, the SOS (Save our Salmon) Marine Conservation Foundation, and the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable are non-governmental organizations that submitted environmental petitions this year, conveying their concerns about the government’s response to the recommendations made by the Cohen Commission (Exhibit 6.5).

Exhibit 6.5—The Cohen Commission investigated the decline in salmon stocks in the Fraser River

In November 2009, Justice Bruce Cohen was appointed to lead the Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River. The aim of the federal inquiry was to investigate and provide independent findings on the cause of the decline. It studied environmental changes, diseases, aquaculture, and other factors affecting the ability of sockeye salmon to reach spawning grounds and the ocean. The Commission was asked to assess the current state of salmon stocks and projections for their future sustainability. The report, which was tabled on 31 October 2012, included 75 recommendations, mainly to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, proposing changes to the Department’s programs, plans, and policies for improving the management of sockeye salmon stocks.

The full report is available from the catalogue of the Government of Canada Publications website.

6.11 The petitions process provides a way for these and other organizations and individuals to get answers from federal ministers to environmental questions that concern them. It is important to note that any resident of Canada may submit a petition.

The most common issues were fisheries management and risks to environmental and human health

6.12 This year, the most common concerns were related to fisheries management and the potential effects of toxic substances on environmental and human health. Only one petition, on offshore oil and gas development in Newfoundland and Labrador, did not fall into one of the above categories. To help web users with their searches, the petitions catalogue on the Office of the Auditor General website can be searched by issue.

6.13 Our analysis of legislation referenced in environmental petitions shows that the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, and their associated regulations, were the two pieces of legislation cited most frequently in the environmental petitions received this year (Exhibit 6.6).

6.14 Fisheries management. The challenges facing the sustainability of Canada’s fisheries and oceans have motivated some Canadians to express their concerns using the petitions process. Of the 16 petitions received in the 2013 to 2014 reporting period, eight concerned the management and sustainability of fisheries. Five of these petitions raised questions about the government’s response to the Cohen Commission (Exhibit 6.5).

6.15 Petitions 353, 355, 357, 358, and 359 asked similar questions about the government’s response to the recommendations made in the Cohen Commission report, its compliance with the timelines that were set for certain actions, and the funding allocated to fulfilling the recommendations (see Appendix for petition summaries). The Watershed Watch Salmon Society was an active petitioner on this topic (Exhibit 6.7). Petition 358, submitted jointly by this society and SOS (Save our Salmon) Marine Conservation Foundation, included questions about the funding provisions made for each Commission recommendation. Specific questions were asked about funding for monitoring and assessing stocks of sockeye salmon populations.

Exhibit 6.7—The Watershed Watch Salmon Society raised concerns about the sustainable management of wild salmon

The Watershed Watch Salmon Society (WWSS) is a British Columbia–based registered charity that advocates the sustainable management of British Columbia’s wild salmon. The Watershed Watch Salmon Society relies on scientific expertise, key partnerships, and outreach programs to highlight issues affecting wild salmon viability and to prompt action to resolve these issues.

This organization used the petition process twice in 2013–2014 to gain insight into the response of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the Cohen Commission’s recommendations. In 2005, the WWSS had submitted a petition about Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s stance on sea lice and aquaculture.

6.16 The most recent fisheries-related petitions (petitions 360 and 361) raised concerns about the changes to the Fisheries Act under Bill C-38. Petition 354 asked questions about the government’s progress in integrating sustainable development principles into the management of the Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area. This area (Exhibit 6.8) is one of the five national Large Ocean Management Areas identified in Canada’s Oceans Action Plan (2005).

Exhibit 6.8—The Pacific North Coast Integrated Management Area in British Columbia

[Exhibit 6.8 — text version]

Source: Living Oceans Society

6.17 Past petitions and audits. Canada’s fisheries has been a recurring topic in environmental petitions (Exhibit 6.9). A 2009 petition questioned the management of salmon and other fisheries on the West Coast. Other past petitions have questioned the conservation and recovery of wild Atlantic salmon and the environmental impacts of salmon aquaculture in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Infectious salmon anemia was a subject of concern for a 2012 petition.

6.18 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has also addressed the issue of the sustainability of fisheries in several performance audits. In the 2009 Spring Report, Chapter 1—Protecting Fish Habitat, the Commissioner audited Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada about their responsibilities for protecting fish habitat and pollution prevention under the Fisheries Act. A study on the sustainable management of fisheries was undertaken and reported in the 2011 December Report, Chapter 4—A Study of Managing Fisheries for Sustainability. This study was followed by the 2012 Fall Report, Chapter 3—Marine Protected Areas.

6.19 Human and environmental health and toxic substances. Petitions 351, 352, 362, 363, and 364 inquired about toxic or potentially toxic substances in Canada (see Appendix for petition summaries). Three of these petitions raised questions about the government’s ongoing oversight and review of substances that are in use in Canada. These three petitions dealt with

• review of the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Petition 351),
• review under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 of substances banned by the European Union (Petition 363), and
• cancer risks of pesticides on food and food crops (Petition 364).

6.20 Petition 364 is related to the potential cancer risks posed by the cumulative effects of chemicals and pesticides on human health. The petition, submitted by an organization called Getting to Know Cancer, raised concerns about pesticides that Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency approved for use in Canada (Exhibit 6.10).

Exhibit 6.10—The Getting to Know Cancer organization focuses on the relationship between cancer and chemicals in the environment

Getting to Know Cancer is a non-profit organization dedicated to exploring the relationship between chemical agents in the environment and cancer. Based in Nova Scotia, this organization works with scientists, physicians, other non-governmental organizations, and health agencies to promote research and stewardship practices.

Getting to Know Cancer used the environmental petitions process this year (Petition 364) to question the government about cancer risks posed by the combined effects of pesticides. This organization was concerned about the possibility that the combined effects of chemicals in the food supply may contribute to the incidence of cancer. Of particular concern was the ongoing use in Canada of the fungicide called chlorothalonil, which contains hexachlorobenzene, a substance that is prohibited globally under the Stockholm Convention.

6.21 Petition 352 on genetically engineered salmon eggs is included in this section because new genetically modified organisms need to be assessed for their potential toxicity under the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms), pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. This petition raised the potential environmental and health risks related to the production of genetically engineered salmon eggs in Prince Edward Island.

6.22 Two other petitions referred directly to potential impacts on human health: Petition 365, on the safety of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation, and Petition 366, on the monitoring of human health in the oil sands region of Alberta.

6.23 Past petitions and audits. The issue of toxic substances is also one that has been frequently raised by petitioners over the last few years (Exhibit 6.11). In the Fall 2009 report, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development published Chapter 2—Risks of Toxic Substances, and Chapter 3—National Pollutant Release Inventory.

The most prevalent theme this year was the use of science in decision making

6.24 The most prevalent theme in the petitions received this year was the use of science in decision making. For instance, Petition 364 on potential cancer risks raised questions about how the cumulative effects of known carcinogens have been factored into government decision making. Petition 357 on the Cohen Commission raised questions about recent changes to the habitat protection provisions of the Fisheries Act and how they will enhance protection of habitat and wild fish. The petitioner asked for the scientific evidence that protections will be enhanced with these changes.

6.25 Another underlying theme in petitions this year was the precautionary principle. One example is Petition 352, on the approval of the production of genetically engineered salmon eggs in Canada. The petition indicated that genetically modified fish have the potential to cause serious damage to ecosystems if they escape. The petitioner asked how Environment Canada is applying a “precautionary approach” to manage risks posed by genetically engineered salmon eggs.

Responses due in this reporting period

6.26 The Auditor General Act requires responsible ministers to reply in writing to each petition within 120 calendar days after it is received. As a result, some of the responses covered in this report were for petitions received at the end of the previous reporting period. This accounts for the difference between the number of petitions submitted this year (16) and the number of petitions for which responses were due this year (8, which includes 6 petitions received this year and 2 petitions received last year—petitions 349 and 350). Responses for the 10 petitions received toward the end of this reporting period will be covered in next year’s report.

6.27 Most of the 8 petitions for which responses were due this year were directed to more than one responsible minister. As a result, nine departments provided a total of 21 responses. Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada were called upon the most often to respond to petitions this year, with each responding to 5 of the 8 petitions. Natural Resources Canada responded to 4 petitions and Health Canada responded to 2.

Not all departments responded on time

6.28 Departments provided 86 percent of petition responses this year within the 120-day period prescribed by the Auditor General Act. This is the same response rate as that recorded the previous year. Although departments and agencies have a statutory obligation to respond within 120 days, a response is not considered late if the responsible minister sends a written notification of delay within that period. This year, three departments did not provide written notification that their responses would be delayed. These responses are therefore considered late (Exhibit 6.12).

Responses were complete and relevant

6.29 As part of its monitoring role, the Office routinely reviews each petition response for the following:

• Completeness: Is every question addressed?
• Relevance: Are the responses relevant to the questions?

We found that the responses due this year were complete and relevant.

6.30 The eight petitions that departments responded to this year contained 64 questions. The questions and responses varied considerably in length and level of detail. Some responses were concise while others provided more details on the government’s approaches and policies.

6.31 For example, in its response to Petition 351, related to regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, Environment Canada offered a clear and concise response. The petitioners asked if the Department had decided whether to make revisions to the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Regulations. The petitioners’ question followed up on the Department’s response to a petition in 2008. In that response, the Department stated that it was considering revisions to these regulations. In this year’s petition, the petitioners wanted to know if a review had been undertaken, and its outcome. In response, Environment Canada stated that “A specific review of the Regulations has not been undertaken nor is one planned.”

6.32 Petition 349 (see petitions catalogue) provides more detailed explanations regarding how the precautionary principle is considered in relation to a number of Canada’s international environmental commitments. For instance, in response to question 5 (Section A) in this petition, Health Canada provided a detailed answer related to bovine growth hormone use. Another example is question 1 in Petition 354 on what progress has been made implementing integrated management of Canada’s oceans. In its answer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada explained how sustainable development is integrated in decision making among the full range of marine users and uses.

Conclusion

6.33 The environmental petitions process remains a unique way for Canadian residents to bring their concerns and questions about environmental issues to the attention of responsible federal ministers and to obtain responses from them. Through this process, they can also request information and ask for commitments to action.

6.34 The Office of the Auditor General of Canada received 16 petitions this year, compared with 12 last year and 23 the year before. There continues to be a wide range of important environmental topics and questions raised in the petitions submitted.

6.35 Departments provided 86 percent of petition responses this year within the 120-day statutory deadline. This represents the same percentage as last year.

About the Annual Report and the Petitions Process

Objective

The objective of this annual report is to inform Parliament and Canadians about the use of the environmental petitions process. In accordance with section 23 of the Auditor General Act, the report describes the number, subject-matter, and status of petitions received and the timeliness of responses from ministers.

Scope and approach

The annual report on environmental petitions summarizes the monitoring of the petitions process by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development within the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

Period covered by the report

This annual report on environmental petitions covers the period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014. The Appendix includes summaries of the petitions received during the reporting period. The work for this report was completed on 15 July 2014.

The environmental petitions process

The environmental petitions process was created in 1995 through an amendment to the Auditor General Act. The process is a formal yet simple way for Canadians to obtain responses from federal ministers to their questions, concerns, and requests related to environmental issues that are within the federal government’s mandate. There were 26 departments and agencies subject to the process during the period covered by this report. Under the Act, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development administers the process on behalf of the Auditor General, and is required to present to Parliament an annual report on petitions and their status.

Any Canadian resident may submit an environmental petition, acting alone or on behalf of an organization, business, or municipality. Since the launch of the process in 1995, the Office has received 425 petitions. Topics have varied widely, from the impact of a development on a local stream to the right of all Canadians to a healthy environment. Petitioners have used the petitions process to ask for information, investigations, specific actions, and policy changes.

When a petition is received by the Office, the petition is forwarded to the federal ministers responsible for the issues raised. The ministers must reply in writing to the petition within 120 calendar days. Ministers are required to notify the petitioner before the end of this period if they do not expect to be able to meet the timeline. These requirements are clearly specified in the Auditor General Act, which states that ministers must respond to each petition. While ministers must answer a petitioner’s questions in a timely manner, they have discretion with respect to taking action on the issues raised. The following table outlines the petitions process.

We also suggest a maximum of 5,000 words and no more than 20 questions or requests. While petitions exceeding those limits are acceptable and will be sent to departments and agencies for response, the Office reserves the right not to publish petitions exceeding those limits on its website. Because petitions remain the property of petitioners, they are free to publish their petitions and the government responses in any manner they see fit. However, we recommend that they wait until the petition has been formally accepted and sent to the departments and agencies for response.

Petitions team

Principal: Andrew Ferguson

Makeddah John
Carolle Mathieu
Adrienne Scott
Mary-Lynne Weightman
Claire Whalen

For information, please contact Communications at 613-995-3708 or 1-888-761-5953 (toll-free).
Hearing impaired only TTY: 613-954-8042

Appendix—Petitions activity (1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014)

This appendix includes a summary of the petitions received during the activity period noted above. To access the full text of petitions and responses from the creation of the environmental petitions process in 1995 to 30 June 2014, go to the petitions catalogue on our website. If necessary, paper copies of the catalogue can be obtained on request.