The environmental petitions process and the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Petition 377B: Follow-up petition on the interpretation and application of Canada’s Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy

Date received: 17 March 2016

Petitioner: Above Ground

Summary: This petition is a follow-up to petition 377. The earlier petition identified Canada as a leading country in the global extractive sector and highlighted environmental concerns about foreign operations of Canadian mining companies. The follow-up petition considers the responses to petition 377 and raises new questions about Canada’s enhanced Corporate Social Responsibility Strategy to strengthen Canada’s extractive sector abroad. The petition asks about non-compliance with corporate social responsibility best practices, widely recognized guidance related to corporate social responsibility, and enhanced economic diplomacy.

The petition refers to the Government of Canada’s two dialogue facilitation processes, which help to resolve differences between communities and companies in Canada’s extractive sector abroad. These processes are those of the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor and Canada’s National Contact Point. The petition asks whether the assessments of companies carried out through either of these two processes adhere to corporate social responsibility best practices. The petition expresses concerns about the monitoring activities undertaken under each process.

The petition emphasizes and seeks clarification on non-compliance with corporate social responsibility best practices. The petition refers to the “economic diplomacy” approach and requests information on enhanced economic diplomacy offered by the government to companies engaged in either of Canada’s two dialogue facilitation processes.

Issues: Compliance and enforcement, governance, human/environmental health, natural resources

Federal department responsible for reply: Global Affairs Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 382: Public consultation process for the re-evaluation of the herbicide glyphosate

Date received: 14 July 2015

Petitioner: Josette Weir

Summary: This petition describes attempts to participate in the public consultation about a re-evaluation decision of the herbicide glyphosate. The re-evaluation was conducted by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency. The petition asserts that it was difficult for the public to participate in the consultation, because of the restrictive format of the Agency’s comment form and because of unclear instructions. The petition states that the public could not get help from the Agency during the consultation period, because the Agency did not provide contact information online. The petition asks the Agency to address these concerns.

The petition also questions the value of the public consultation, since it happened after the Agency had concluded that products containing glyphosate do not present unacceptable risks. The petition asks the Agency to explain why it sought public comments after it had completed the evaluation. The petition also asks the Agency to explain the evidence supporting the conclusion, and how the public’s input could have affected the conclusion, especially if the input contradicted it. Finally, the petition asks whether the Agency has evaluated the public consultation process and, if so, whether findings are available to the public.

Issues: Human/environmental health, pesticides, toxic substances

Federal department responsible for reply: Health Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 383: Port Metro Vancouver’s expansion and its environmental impact on migratory birds and their feeding ground at Roberts Bank

Date received: 7 August 2015

Petitioner: Roger Emsley

Summary: The petition raises concerns about past and future port development at Roberts Bank in Delta, British Columbia, as proposed in the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project. The petition asserts that Roberts Bank is an ecologically important area that contains a unique biofilm feeding ground essential to a migratory bird known as the western sandpiper (Calidris mauri). According to the petition, this information was omitted from the environmental impact statement issued for the project. The petition states that both Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada have advised against further development in this area, and asks why they have failed to enforce previous recommendations. The petition also asks if Transport Canada will require Port Metro Vancouver to assess all alternatives and to identify a full list of species located at Roberts Bank.

Issues: Biological diversity, environmental assessment, transport, water

Federal departments responsible for reply: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 384: Relocation of the 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron—Deficiencies in environmental assessment and need for public consultation

Date received: 26 August 2015

Petitioners: Benjamin H. Casson, Chief Tanya Jimmy, John Kafka, Chief Rebecca Harris

Summary: The petition explains that the 443 Maritime Helicopter Squadron is a Canadian Armed Forces helicopter unit based on Victoria International Airport land. The unit currently flies a fleet of six Sea King helicopters and performs maritime operations day and night. The petition notes that since nine new Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone helicopters are scheduled to replace and increase the fleet, National Defence moved its base of operations to a new hangar facility constructed on an adjacent airport property.

The petition asks whether the environmental assessment of this construction project, done as a Screening Assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (1992), included the anticipated noise of helicopter operations at the facility. The petition states that a 2010 Supreme Court decision listed operational noise as a factor to include in the scope of a project’s environmental assessment. The petition therefore asks National Defence to clarify why it decided to exclude helicopter flights from the scope. The petition states that there are indications that Cyclone helicopters may be noisier than the current Sea King helicopters. It also states that many residents have been complaining for years about the noise related to low-flying Sea King helicopters.

According to the petition, the Screening Assessment concluded that facility operations were not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects. However, the petition notes that the Screening Assessment process did not include consultations with the public or input from federal or provincial entities other than National Defence and the Victoria Airport Authority. The petition asks National Defence to explain its policy or regulatory rationale for deciding not to consult with the public and asks whether it will consult with interested parties affected by noise in the future.

The petition also requests information on the obligations that National Defence has under its lease agreement with the Victoria Airport Authority, including how it complies with environmental noise bylaws. The petition states that the Screening Assessment identified such compliance as a mitigation measure. The petition also asks whether National Defence intends to commit to a “good neighbour” policy to reduce helicopter noise in surrounding residential areas, as well as to address related public concerns.

Issues: Aboriginal affairs, environmental assessment, human/environmental health, transport

Federal department responsible for reply: National Defence

Status: Completed

Petition 385: Adequacy of environmental risk assessment of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in Delta, British Columbia

Date received: 1 September 2015

Petitioner: Roger Emsley

Summary: The petition explains that the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project is a proposal by Port Metro Vancouver to construct a new container terminal at Roberts Bank in Delta, British Columbia. Roberts Bank is part of the Fraser River estuary and an important part of the Pacific flyway migratory bird corridor. The petition highlights environmental concerns over potential impacts to migratory birds and their stopover habitat in the estuary. In particular, the petition highlights the impacts to the biofilm layer of the mud flats, which is the main food source for the entire population of western sandpipers.

The petition notes that although Port Metro Vancouver is the proponent of the project, the Minister of Transport is responsible for port authorities in Canada, including Port Metro Vancouver. The petition therefore asks for the Minister’s assurance that the Department has assessed the ecological risks to the estuary habitat and migratory birds. The petition also asks why the Minister decided to proceed with the construction and location of the proposed terminal, in light of the international significance of this ecosystem.

The petition requests whether the Minister has considered Environment Canada’s concerns about further development on Roberts Bank. The petition also requests the Minister of Transport to confirm that an environmental assessment has taken these risks into account and that the Department has addressed the risk of future damage and degradation to ecosystems as a result of the project.

Issues: Biological diversity, environmental assessment, governance, science and technology, transport

Federal department responsible for reply: Transport Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 386: Regulatory requirements and due process for transporting hazardous waste into Canada for disposal

Date received: 14 September 2015

Petitioner: Anthony Bratschitsch

Summary: The petition raises questions about the federal requirements and regulatory due process for importing hazardous material into Canada for disposal, following the import of toxic waste at a facility near Sarnia, Ontario, from the Wheatfield landfill, a US site associated with the Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York. The petition asks for clarification of the processes for the federal assessment and approval of applications to import hazardous waste, and asks about the decisions made regarding the disposal method used for the waste (that is, thermal desorption instead of incineration). The petition also requests a description of the chemical nature of the toxic waste from the Wheatfield site, a list of toxic substances contained in the waste, and information about the amount of waste imported into Ontario. In addition, the petition expresses concerns that residents potentially exposed to this waste, and the various levels of government involved, were not fully informed of the receipt of this shipment. The petition asks about the federal oversight of hazardous waste shipments to ensure accurate reporting, and whether there has been any monitoring of potential health or environmental impacts to the area near Sarnia since the receipt of the toxic waste from the Wheatfield site.

Issues: Compliance and enforcement, federal provincial relations, toxic substances, transport, waste management

Federal departments and agency responsible for reply: Canada Border Services Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 387: Concerns about Canada’s continued use and import of asbestos

Date received: 17 December 2015

Petitioners: Canadian Environmental Law Association and Canadian Association of University Teachers

Summary: The petition asserts that Canada’s “controlled use” approach regarding asbestos does not adequately prevent harm to human health. The petition states that Canada’s approach is out of line with current practices and notes inconsistencies in the scope of regulatory measures across provinces and territories. The petition also seeks to clarify Canada’s position on its continued use of asbestos despite a growing body of evidence demonstrating harm due to exposure to asbestos.

The petition states that Canada’s current approach does not coincide with the precautionary principle, given that mesothelioma and other diseases resulting from asbestos exposure would constitute irreversible damages for hundreds of Canadians every year. The petition asks whether the government has applied the precautionary principle in developing regulatory and non-regulatory measures regarding consumer products that contain asbestos. It requests an outline of regulatory and non-regulatory measures undertaken in Canada for all types of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, and other legislation.

Finally, the petition asks whether the government is considering modifications to current regulations in light of recent international changes. Such modifications would include a prohibition of asbestos from all consumer products, including children’s toys.

Issues: Human/environmental health, toxic substances

Federal departments responsible for reply: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Health Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 388: Protection of the Central Experimental Farm as a research facility and a national historic site of Canada

Date received: 28 January 2016

Petitioner: Coalition to Protect the Central Experimental Farm National Historic Site of Canada

Summary: The petition asks for information about the transfer of 60 acres of the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa from the control of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to the National Capital Commission. It also addresses concerns about the negotiations to lease that land to the Ottawa Hospital Corporation for a 99-year period.

The Central Experimental Farm is a national historic site where various environmental scientific experiments are conducted. For instance, the Farm conducts experiments on the impact of climate change on agriculture, and studies crop yields and soil biodiversity. The petition asserts that the proposed severance of some of the most significant acreage will have negative impacts on the Farm in its role as both research facility and national historic site.

The petition asks, among other things, why the transfer has not been subjected to an environmental assessment, what other sites were considered, and why no public hearings have been held on the transfer. The petition also asks to make available to the general public the basis of the decisions that led to the transfer.

Issues: Agriculture, environmental assessment, governance, science and technology

Federal departments and agency responsible for reply: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Parks Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 389: Legal protection of Gatineau Park, National Capital Region

Date received: 5 February 2016

Petitioner: Ottawa Valley Chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society

Summary: The petition requests the legal protection of Gatineau Park. The petition asserts that the park has no legislated protection and that it does not have the same protection that Canadian national parks have under the Canada National Parks Act.

The petition states that the boundaries of the park need to be accurately defined in federal legislation. It also demands the establishment of a legislative framework and policies appropriate to a nationally important protected area. The petition points out that without legal protection, the biodiversity of the park and its different rare and endangered species will continue to be at risk.

The petition asks when legislation will be introduced to assure the protection of Gatineau Park’s ecosystems.

Issues: Biological diversity, governance

Federal department responsible for reply: Environment and Climate Change Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 390: Quantification of Canada’s total carbon dioxide emissions from exported fossil fuels

Date received: 19 February 2016

Petitioners: Voters Taking Action on Climate Change and Ecojustice

Summary: The petition inquires about Canada’s exported fossil fuels from 2012 to 2015 and the aggregate amount of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from the combustion of these fossil fuels.

The petition states that Canada’s total domestic CO₂ emissions exceeded 565 megatonnes in 2013, but this number allegedly does not present the full picture of Canada’s contribution to the global rise of atmospheric CO₂. The petition points out that Canada exports a large quantity of fossil fuels every year, and that while these exported fossil fuels are not directly burned inside the country, they represent a massive outflow of planet-warming carbon.

In addition, the petition states that, with the recent Paris Agreement, Canada pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The Paris Agreement recognizes the need for parties to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases. According to the petition, Canada’s obligation to preserve greenhouse gas reservoirs must consider the greenhouse gases stored in the country’s vast reservoirs of coal, oil, and natural gas.

The petition indicates that there is no official government inventory of CO₂ emissions from Canada’s exported fossil fuels, and it requests a quantification of the carbon footprint of these fossil fuels. It asks whether the Government of Canada has any accounting, inventory, or other assessment of the CO₂ emissions from their combustion. It also asks, among other things, what the aggregate amounts were for exported fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids) from 2012 to 2015 and how these fossil fuels were transported out of the country (by rail, pipeline, or ocean vessel).

Issues: Climate change, governance, natural resources

Federal departments responsible for reply: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada

Status: Replies received but not yet posted

Petition 391: Changing nature of protected areas in Canada

Date received: 23 February 2016

Petitioners: Jessica Dempsey and Philip Dearden

Summary: The petition asserts that nature conservation in Canada is changing, particularly in the national parks system. The petition raises concerns about the underfunding, the loss of capacity, and the changing of priorities within Parks Canada, resulting in a decline in environmental protection in national parks.

The petition expresses concerns that Parks Canada is underfunded to manage the ecological integrity functions at its parks. The petition asks about the amount that Parks Canada has spent on different programs, such as the Heritage Places Establishment, and on elements such as ecological integrity monitoring and resource management, from 2005 to 2015.

The petition references the 2000 Panel on the Ecological Integrity of Canada’s National Parks, which concluded that Parks Canada lacked the capacity for maintaining ecological integrity. The petition asks how many scientists were employed and how many employees were terminated at national parks, at both regional and national offices, from 2000 to 2015.

The Canada National Parks Act stipulates that ecological integrity is the main priority for park management. The petition raises concerns about how Parks Canada has changed its priorities and become more focused on the visitor experience than on the ecological integrity of Canada’s national parks.

The petition also discusses the accountability and governance framework of Parks Canada since it became an agency in 1998.

Finally, the petition states that there is an increasing emphasis on private land conservation. Programs such as the Ecological Gifts Program (managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada) and the Natural Areas Conservation Program have allowed private land trust organizations to acquire ecologically sensitive lands. The petition questions the purpose of the Natural Areas Conservation Program and asks about the impact of the Ecological Gifts Program, its participants, and the cost to taxpayers.

Issues: Biological diversity, governance, human/environmental health

Federal department and agency responsible for reply: Environment and Climate Change Canada, Parks Canada

Status: Completed

Petition 392: Concerns over crude oil shipping and oil spills on the Great Lakes

Date received: 24 February 2016

Petitioners: The Council of Canadians and Ecojustice

Summary: The Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin is one of the greatest freshwater ecosystems on earth. People rely on it for their livelihoods, recreation, and drinking water. This petition states that the Basin is threatened by growing economic pressures to transport Alberta’s crude oil through the Basin to Great Lakes refineries in the United States, to Canada, and beyond. A spill of crude oil would be particularly harmful because the oil, which is heavier than water, would sink to the lake bottom and be difficult to remove. The petition asserts that the capacity of US and Canadian agencies to manage a major spill on the Great Lakes has been repeatedly called into question.

The petition also states that the companies began shipping crude oil in 2014 and seeking permits for new oil terminals around the Basin in recent years. The petition asserts that the reduction in oil prices has halted some shipping plans, but that these plans could restart when shipping becomes economically viable again. The petition seeks to establish a thorough understanding of oil spills in the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin, and the regulatory gaps, to shed light on the next steps the federal government must take to protect the Basin from oil shipments.

In addition, the petition expresses concerns over the pollutants discharged, or likely to be discharged, by the vessels or oil-handling facilities. The petition asks information about the number of oil tankers operating annually in the Great Lakes, and the number of oil spills occurring there. The petition also demands information on the oil-handling inspections for the vessels and oil-handling facilities on the Great Lakes. The petition references the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and its relevant regulations, under which the petition requests information related to the oil-handling facilities and the plans and procedures for oil pollution emergencies.

The petition concludes by asking questions regarding the application of the legislation, namely whether there are any penalties for violating specific regulations, practices, and procedures under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and the Canada Marine Act.

Issues: Compliance and enforcement, human/environmental health, international cooperation, toxic substances, transport

Federal departments responsible for reply: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, National Defence, Transport Canada

Status: Replies received but not yet posted

Petition 393: Concerns about the spraying of pesticides close to a school in a rural area

Date received: 31 March 2016

Petitioner: Werner Ostermann

Summary: This petition expresses concerns about the spraying of pesticides on the agricultural field adjacent to an Advocate Harbour school in Nova Scotia. The school is at the bottom of a slope made of coarse gravel and sand. The petition emphasizes the potential health risk to children of spraying pesticides on the agricultural field, where wild blueberries grow.

The petition states that the school’s water source is a well. The petition points out that the well’s water was tested and showed the presence of hexazinone, a pesticide banned in the European Union. The petition seeks clarification on the use of hexazinone on coarse gravel and sand, as the pesticide’s label mentions that the pesticide should not be used on this kind of soil. As only one pesticide was tested, the petition indicates that other pesticides might be present.

Referencing the Toxic Substances Management Policy, the petition questions the acceptable level of Track 1 substances being used on the agricultural field adjacent to the school. The petition expresses concerns about the cumulative effects of pesticides on children’s health, questioning whether the children in rural areas are given the same level of protection from pesticides as children attending schools in urban areas.

Finally, the petition suggests implementing around the school a zone free of agricultural pesticides to ensure that the children can learn and play in a safe, healthy environment.

Issues: Agriculture, compliance and enforcement, human/environmental health, pesticides, water

Federal department responsible for reply: Health Canada

Status: Completed