This Web page has been archived on the Web.

2002 October Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Main Points

6.1 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is convinced that the environmental petitions process offers great promise. In response to recent petitions, government organizations have changed or clarified their policies, undertaken site inspections, and even launched a new project. As the guardian of the process, the Commissioner is committed to ensuring that the opportunities afforded by the process are realized.

6.2 While a number of petitions received to date are from established national or international environmental groups, most continue to come from individual Canadians, local volunteer lobby groups, regional and provincial organizations, and parliamentarians.

6.3 Protecting fish and fish habitat remains a significant concern for Canadians. Fisheries and Oceans Canada continues to be one of the most petitioned departments.

6.4 Of the 13 responses required from Fisheries and Oceans Canada during the past year, only two responses were within the time limit stipulated under the Auditor General Act.

6.5 Environmental petitions and the responses provided by federal ministers are now part of the public record. For full details on environmental petitions and their responses, you can access our petitions catalogue on our Web site.

Background and other observations

6.6 Canadians have a right to know whether the government is taking environmental and sustainable development issues seriously. The environmental petitions process, under the Auditor General Act, provides parliamentarians and Canadians with a unique vehicle for pursuing environmental concerns that involve the federal government. The issue may be something that affects all Canadians, such as biotechnology, or it could be something happening in a local community. With a petition, which can be a simple letter, it is possible to raise questions and concerns and to get answers and action from federal departments and agencies.

6.7 Through the petitions process, federal departments and agencies may be asked to explain federal policy, investigate an environmental infraction, or examine their enforcement of federal environmental legislation.

6.8 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Johanne Gélinas, is committed to making the petitions process work for Canadians. Charged with overseeing petitions on behalf of the Auditor General, the Commissioner is responsible for petitions from the beginning of the process right through to the end. She receives petitions and ensures that they are forwarded to the appropriate federal ministers. She monitors the responses and is required to report annually on petitions to the House of Commons.

6.9 It is evident that many departments and agencies are putting a lot of time and effort into their responses. Responses that do not adequately address the petitioners' requests may be sent back to federal ministers. In the coming year, the Commissioner intends to scrutinize responses more closely and selectively follow up on petition commitments made by departments and agencies.

6.10 The process is gaining momentum. In the past year (16 July 2001 to 15 July 2002), we received 28 petitions, considerably more than in previous years and close to one half of the total of all petitions received to date (60 in total).

Introduction

6.11 For over a decade, Myles Kehoe, a resident of Cape Breton, has been gathering evidence about the dumping of mustard gas and other chemical warfare agents in the Atlantic Ocean by the Canadian military following World War II. While he has often wondered whether these dump sites have been affecting the health of fish and other marine species, he became alarmed when he heard that proposed oil and gas exploration might be taking place off the coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland in areas where these sites are located. This prospect prompted him to submit an environmental petition to the Commissioner. In his petition, Kehoe requested that the location of these dump sites be confirmed and a moratorium be placed on future exploration immediately. The Commissioner asked National Defence and five other federal departments to respond to his petition requests.

6.12 In some other petitions received by the Commissioner, petitioners have posed questions about the Canadian International Development Agency`s involvement in a hydro dam proposal for Belize, Central America and asked for an accounting of federal funds spent to engage First Nations in activities to address and adapt to climate change.

6.13 The environmental petitions process provides parliamentarians and Canadians with a unique vehicle for pursuing their environmental concerns. A petition could address something happening in a local community or on the other side of the world. It could also cover an issue that affects all Canadians, such as biotechnology. The key factor, and a prerequisite for using the process, is whether the federal government is involved.

6.14 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is the guardian of the process and is committed to making it work for parliamentarians and all Canadians.

The Environmental Petitions Process Under the Auditor General Act

A positive force for Canadians

Petitions offer unique opportunities

6.15 Environmental petitions empower Canadians. They allow them to pose questions; they open doors and inspire dialogue between concerned citizens and the federal government on environmental issues.

6.16 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is convinced that the environmental petitions process offers great promise. By launching an environmental petition, Canadians bring facts and issues to the attention of departments and agencies, parliamentarians, and the Commissioner.

"Canadians have a fundamental right to know what their government is doing to protect the environment and promote sustainable development. Petitions can provide them with this information."
Commissioner Johanne Gélinas

6.17 The process also provides a platform for departments and agencies to explain their environmental and sustainable development policies to Canadians. Depending on the issue, a petition may provide the impetus for several government organizations to work together on a specific concern. It may also lead to a clarification of or change in policy. Recent petitions have produced these and other results (paragraph 6.43).

6.18 There are various ways to get information from the federal government, but the petitions process is unique. While documents can be obtained through the federal Access to Information Act, the petitions process is a way to get specific answers to questions. In addition, federal ministers must reply to petitions and do so within 120 days. In this way, an environmental petition offers advantages beyond a regular letter or e-mail to a federal minister or departmental official (see "The basics of the environmental petitions process").

"I am very excited by the potential of petitions to make a difference. My job is to be the federal environmental watchdog. By using the process, Canadians too can play a watchdog role over the federal government."
Commissioner Johanne Gélinas

Petitions provide important information to our Office

6.19 Petitions, and the responses they generate, provide a valuable resource when staff of the Auditor General and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development plan and conduct audits. Petitions can have an impact on how auditors look at an issue. Many recent and upcoming audits are addressing issues that have been raised in petitions.

Making the petitions process more effective

6.20 Over the past two years, we have been striving to make the petitions process a more effective instrument for addressing Canadians' concerns about the environment. Following are some of the ways in which the Commissioner is working to make the most of this process.

Monitoring ministers' responses is a priority

6.21 Environmental petitions provide a way for Canadians to bring new information to light, make recommendations, or probe for an explanation of federal policy. Individuals and organizations that use this process have a right to expect federal departments and ministers to treat their petitions seriously. The Commissioner has similar expectations.

6.22 In her role as Commissioner, Ms. Gélinas is responsible for petitions from the beginning of the process right through to the end. She receives petitions and ensures that they are forwarded to the appropriate federal ministers. They must respond to petitions on behalf of departments and agencies within 120 days. The Commissioner monitors the progress of replies to ensure that ministers are complying with this obligation.

6.23 The Commissioner also examines replies carefully to determine whether ministers have provided considered responses that address petitioners' concerns and requests. Replies that do not adequately address the petitioners' requests may be sent back to federal ministers. In the coming year, the Commissioner intends to scrutinize replies more closely and selectively follow up on commitments made by departments and agencies in their departmental responses.

Making petitions and responses accessible on the Web

6.24 Making petitions and ministers' responses a part of the public record is a key priority of the Commissioner. We encourage you to consult our new on-line petitions catalogue. This is an electronic listing that forms part of the "environmental petitions corner" on the Office's Web site (www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/environment). The catalogue contains, verbatim, the petitions and their responses, subject to consent of the petitioners. They are a valuable source of information, and by making them public we hope to encourage government accountability. A full list of petitions received since the start of the process (December 1995) is also provided in Appendix B of this chapter.

I am launching the on-line petitions catalogue because the issues covered in petitions, and the replies that are provided by federal ministers and departments, are relevant to many Canadians and should be seen by everyone, not just my office and the petitioners."
Commissioner Johanne Gélinas

6.25 A paper version of the full catalogue is being published to accompany copies of the Report tabled in the House of Commons. Given that the petitions and replies are available on our Web site, paper copies will be available only on request. The Commissioner is adopting this approach for reasons of environmental conservation and economy.

The year in review (16 July 2001 to 15 July 2002)

6.26 Last year we reported that the number of environmental petitions received since the start of the process had been limited. We are pleased to report that the number of petitions increased dramatically during the past year and the issues being addressed continue to cover a broad range of environmental concerns. Following is a review of petitions received from 16 July 2001 to 15 July 2002 (petitions No. 33A to No. 54).

The petitions process is gaining momentum

6.27 In the past year, the Commissioner received 28 petitions. This represents close to one half of the total of all petitions received to date (60 in total). More federal departments are now being asked to respond to petitions, further evidence that the petitions process is gaining momentum and a higher profile among Canadians. In the past year, departments and agencies such as the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Department of Finance Canada, National Defence, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the Department of Justice Canada, and Western Economic Diversification Canada were called upon to respond to petitions for the first time.

6.28 The issues being addressed in petitions are diverse. They range from local issues such as a golf course development that threatens a neighbourhood park or destruction of fish habitat from timber harvesting, to a global problem such as climate change.

"I can see from the wide range of issues being brought to my attention that Canadians are increasingly well-informed about environmental issues and they are asking tough questions."
Commissioner Johanne Gélinas

6.29 The wide range of issues in petitions demonstrates the significant role played by the federal government in safeguarding the environment and promoting sustainable development across the country. The scope of the issues also illustrates the extent to which the federal government exerts an influence on the environment and sustainable development at all levels—local, regional, national, and international.

Protecting fish and fish habitat remains a significant concern for Canadians

6.30 Protecting fish and fish habitat was the most dominant concern of petitioners during the first five and a half years of the petitions process. This year, the trend continues. Close to one half of the petitions touch on this concern or related issues. Therefore, it is not surprising that Fisheries and Oceans Canada continues to be one of the most petitioned federal departments. (See photograph)

6.31 Issues addressed in petitions forwarded to Fisheries and Oceans Canada included the following:

• loss of fish habitat—in some cases resulting from timber harvesting, residential development, work on highways, and intensive livestock operations;
• marine dump sites in the Atlantic Ocean resulting from the disposal of chemical weapons by the Canadian military after World War II;
• fish farms, including negative effects on wild fish stocks; and
• genetically engineered fish and the risks they pose.

Other concerns raised in petitions

6.32 Other significant issues that were the subject of more than one environmental petition during our reporting period included the following:

• biotechnology—specifically risks posed by genetically modified corn, soya, and fish, and federal regulatory programs and policies on these genetically modified organisms;
• deteriorating water quality (several petitions related to large hog operations);
• delivering on Canada's international commitments to address climate change and protect biological diversity;
• environmental assessment;
• air quality (in particular, emissions resulting from proposed electricity generating stations);
• safeguarding of important wetlands and watersheds;
• protected areas—protecting the ecological integrity of historic waterways, provincial parks, and urban protected spaces; and
• enforcement of federal laws and regulations.

Other issues touched upon include sustainable energy and ecologically friendly housing, citizen participation, information and reporting on federal funding for infrastructure development and renewal, shared jurisdiction for the environment, and the scientific capacity of the federal government. We provide more information on the kinds of issues addressed in recent petitions in the following section.

Who is using the environmental petitions process?

6.33 In the past year, the Commissioner has heard from a number of high-profile, established organizations on a variety of issues. They include the following:

• the Assembly of First Nations—on climate change and environmental stewardship;
• Greenpeace Canada—on genetically engineered fish, soya, and corn;
• Probe International—on CIDA's involvement in a proposed hydro dam in Belize, Central America that could threaten valuable habitat for endangered species.

6.34 However, our statistics show the petitions process is not dominated by established national, political, or environmental organizations. In fact, many petitions have come from small, grass-roots coalitions and volunteer groups, including the following:

• the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Huron-Kinloss based in Kincardine, Ontario, which is witnessing the effects of huge hog operations on water quality and fish habitat in Lake Huron and surrounding watersheds; and
• SOS Leamy, a coalition of 31 groups in Ottawa-Gatineau opposing the encroachment of a golf course into a public park managed by the National Capital Commission.

A number of regional and provincially-based groups are also using the petitions process. These include the following:

• Mouvement Au Courant in Montreal, which is concerned about protecting fish habitat from the effects of timber harvesting in the province of Quebec; and
• the Citizens Environment Alliance of southwestern Ontario and southeast Michigan, which is opposing a 580-megawatt natural gas electricity-generating plant slated for the Windsor side of the Detroit River.

6.35 At the same time, a growing number of individuals from cities, towns, villages, and rural areas across Canada, including members of Parliament, are coming forward to ask incisive questions on a broad range of issues:

• Bob Mills, Member of Parliament for Red Deer posed questions to the Minister of the Environment about air emissions that could result from a proposal to establish a power-generating plant in Washington State, close to the Canada-U.S. border.
• David Elderton of Burnaby, British Columbia is concerned about the fact that the moratorium on new fish farm licences is no longer in effect in British Columbia.
• Peter Weygang who lives on Pigeon Lake, part of the historic
  Trent-Severn Waterway in Ontario, wants to know why the Parks Canada Agency is allowing a boat launch to be constructed on the waterway in an area regarded as sensitive fish habitat.

How the federal government is responding

The response time is key to the effectiveness of the petitions process

6.36 Federal departments and agencies must respond to petitions and do so within 120 days. This turn-around time of 120 days is a legal requirement set out in section 22 of the Auditor General Act. It is also one of the cornerstones of the petitions process. If this time limit is not met, the integrity of the entire process suffers. The Commissioner monitors this deadline very closely and follows up with departments if problems emerge.

6.37 Fisheries and Oceans Canada is late more often than not. Fisheries and Oceans Canada failed to meet the deadline most of the time. Of the 13 responses required from the Department during the past year (16 July 2001 to 15 July 2002), only two of the responses were within the time limit stipulated under the Auditor General Act. Six responses were late by more than 25 days, including one that exceeded the time limit by over 75 days. (See photograph)

6.38 If it is not possible to meet the 120-day deadline, the Auditor General Act stipulates that a minister must notify the petitioner and the Commissioner before the deadline has passed. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has never provided such a notification, another breach of the provisions of the Auditor General Act.

6.39 How are other federal departments and agencies doing? Until recently, Environment Canada was meeting the deadline on a regular basis. However, problems have cropped up during the past year. In the last six months it missed the deadline four times. In the case of most other departments and agencies, late responses were the exception rather than the rule (Exhibit 6.1).

6.40 Fisheries Oceans Canada, Environment Canada, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have indicated that they are taking steps to improve their compliance with the statutory time limits.

Assuring Canadians that the federal government is addressing their concerns

6.41 As we noted earlier, Canadians who use the petitions process are within their right to expect their petitions to be treated seriously. Federal departments and ministers bound by the process have a responsibility to the Auditor General, the Commissioner, and all Canadians to provide considered replies to petitions—replies that respond directly to the questions and concerns raised in petitions in language that is clear and comprehensible.

6.42 It is evident that many departments and agencies are putting a lot of time and effort into their responses and this is worth noting. Nevertheless, responses that do not adequately address petitioners' requests may be sent back to federal ministers. An example is a petition launched by Algonquin Eco Watch, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, and the Wildlands League on the decommissioning of the Canadian National main railway line through Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario (petition No. 27). Following a review of the response provided by the Minister of Transport to this petition, the Commissioner asked the Minister to revisit his response because it did not clearly answer the petitioners' specific questions.

"From my perspective, one of the key benefits of the petitions process is that it provides a way to get the federal government to articulate and clarify its policies on the environment and sustainable development. This is one benefit that cannot be emphasized too strongly."
Commissioner Johanne Gélinas

Departmental responses provide insights into key areas of federal policy

6.43 Petitioners often use the petitions process to obtain clarification of federal policies and positions. Our Office regards this as an important benefit flowing from the petitions process because departments are asked to "lay their cards on the table." Several examples follow:

• The federal government clarified its position on the rearing of genetically engineered (GE) fish. In a recent petition, Greenpeace Canada wanted confirmation of Canada's position on the rearing of genetically engineered fish (petition No. 38). Greenpeace is opposed to the environmental release of GE organisms, including GE fish, and their commercialization for food. It argues that the risks associated with rearing GE fish in open net pens in oceans, lakes, and rivers are too high. Accidental releases of GE fish from open net pens could lead to potentially devastating effects because GE fish (engineered to grow faster and bigger) would compete, interact, and possibly breed with their wild counterparts. In its petition, Greenpeace pointed out that a moratorium on the rearing of GE fish in aquatic net pens was called for in the Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology. According to the organization, a federal government representative during meetings of the parties to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) stated: "There is absolutely no probability at all that we will be considering the use of transgenics in sea pens in the foreseeable future." Greenpeace wanted confirmation that this is indeed Canada's position on this issue. The joint departmental reply to this petition request (prepared by Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO], Environment Canada, Health Canada, and six other federal departments) contains the following statement: "DFO supports the NASCO policy statement that the use of transgenic salmon is to be confined to secure, self-contained, land-based facilities." (See photograph)
• Getting information on CIDA-funded environmental assessments. In another case, Probe International sought information from the Canadian International Development Agency about its involvement in an environmental assessment that was conducted for a proposed hydroelectric dam project in Belize (petition No. 41A). One of the questions asked in the petition was whether the Agency would post information about all CIDA-funded environmental assessments on a CIDA public registry. CIDA's reply was categorical: Unless a project is covered under federal environmental assessment legislation (Canadian Environmental Assessment Act) and therefore subject to the registry requirements stipulated in that legislation, the only available way to obtain information on CIDA-funded environmental impact assessments is through a request under the Access to Information Act. (See photograph)
• Health Canada explained its position on the toxicity of MMT. Concern about poor air quality in southwestern Ontario during the spring of 2001 prompted a number of Canadians to launch a petition (petition No. 32). The focus of the petition was the gasoline additive MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl). The petitioners asked Health Canada to describe what steps it had taken to re-examine the use of MMT since the release of the Department's 1994 risk assessment that reviewed the scientific literature on the direct health effects of manganese and MMT. The petitioners also suggested that Health Canada continues to "support the use of MMT in Canadian gasoline." In his reply on behalf of Health Canada, the Minister of Health described the steps that the Department has taken to re-examine this product since 1994. Some of these steps include the following:
  • Health Canada is maintaining a watching-brief on MMT, following the science that has been published on the health effects of manganese and exposure to manganese through diet or inhalation, including studies prepared by Canadian researchers.
  • Health Canada plans to update the 1994 risk assessment. As part of that update, the Department plans to contract a review of the toxicokinetics of manganese and results of an epidemiology study of manganese neurotoxicity.
  • Health Canada has developed a protocol for the study of personal exposure to manganese and other metals in a city with industrial emissions, and it is seeking funding for such a study. Although the Department concluded in its 1994 risk assessment that manganese levels in air in most urban centres did not pose a threat to the health of Canadians, cities with manganese-emitting industries can have levels above the reference concentration.

  The Minister of Health also stated that it was important to correct the statement in the petition that "Health Canada continues to support the use of MMT in Canadian gasoline." According to the Minister, the Department's 1994 risk assessment concluded that "airborne manganese resulting from the combustion of MMT in gasoline-powered vehicles is not entering the Canadian environment in quantities or under conditions that may constitute a health risk." Based on the 1994 risk assessment, the Minister stated that Health Canada has no objection to the use of MMT in gasoline. (See photograph)

Other benefits flowing from environmental petitions

6.44 Some environmental petitions have led to specific action by federal departments and agencies, including prompt changes in policy and/or procedure or investigations into the issue being raised. These are encouraging responses. They indicate the desire of some departments and agencies to resolve problems that are brought to their attention as well as the potential effectiveness of the environmental petitions process. The following examples illustrate how departments and agencies responded positively to petitions:

• Petition prompts meeting between Parks Canada Agency and petitioner to discuss concerns about Elk Island National Park. Parks Canada Agency responded quickly to the concerns raised in a petition from the Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA). Within days of receiving the petition, the AWA met with Park officials. The discussions resolved the petitioner's concerns. (See photograph)
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada deals with concerns about restricted access to environmental assessment reports. A petition on a proposed 1,200-acre mussel farm in Nova Scotia prompted Fisheries and Oceans Canada to re-evaluate the way that it treats environmental impact reports (petition No. 28). In his petition, Dr. William Fitzgerald alleged that the proponent of the mussel farm was attempting to limit the public's right to access the environmental assessment report prepared for the project. According to him, the company "went to the extreme of copyrighting the assessment, limiting its availability and even monitoring those who accessed the document." In his response to this petition, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirmed that Fisheries and Oceans Canada had not been able to provide the environmental impact report to all parties who requested it. He informed the petitioner that "DFO has re-evaluated its procedure for dealing with such documents by notifying proponents that documents needed to conduct an environmental assessment will not be accepted by the Department if they cannot be shared with interested parties." (See photograph)
• Petition on railway decommissioning leads to a site visit by federal environmental officials. A petition launched by Algonquin Eco Watch and two other organizations prompted a site visit by officials from Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada who examined environmental problems arising from decommissioning of the Canadian National main railway line through Algonquin Provincial Park (petition No. 27A and related petitions No. 27B and No. 27C). (See photograph)
• Buying transit passes through payroll deduction is now an option for some federal public servants in the National Capital Region. Environment Canada, Transport Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat were asked to respond to a petition launched by several federal public servants from the National Capital Region (petition No. 29). The petitioners wanted the federal government to take advantage of an offer by local transit authorities that would allow riders to purchase yearly transit passes through payroll deduction. According to the petitioners, this kind of program would provide substantial savings for riders and could generate significant environmental benefits due to increased use of public transit and thus less road congestion and lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The petitioners claimed that the federal government, specifically the Treasury Board, had refused to implement this program for federal public servants.

  The petition prompted a meeting of representatives from all three of the responding departments to discuss the petition request. The three departments were working closely together to develop a pilot program for transit in the National Capital Region and expected to make an announcement about the launch of the program in February 2002.

  The formal announcement about the one-year pilot project was made in June 2002. Effective November 2002, employees of the three departments as well as those of Natural Resources Canada will be able to purchase an annual discounted transit pass through monthly payroll deduction.

  If the program is successful, it may be made available to other federal departments in the National Capital Region and across Canada, where the option exists. (See photograph)

Conclusion

6.45 Parliamentarians and all Canadians have a right to know whether the government is taking environmental and sustainable development issues seriously. The environmental petitions process under the Auditor General Act provides them with a forum to hold the federal government accountable. With a simple letter, Canadians can raise questions and concerns, and get answers and action from the federal government.

6.46 Awareness and use of the process are growing. Recent petitions show the benefits that can result from using the environmental petitions process. For example, government organizations have changed or clarified their policies, undertaken site inspections, and launched a new project.

6.47 The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development is convinced that the petitions process offers great promise and intends to make sure it realizes that potential.