Follow-up petition on environmental concerns regarding the Cacouna marsh

Petition

[OAG Translation]

Cacouna
28 February 2011

Mr. Scott Vaughan
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Office of the Auditor General of Canada
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario  K1A 0G6

SUBJECT: Follow-up of petitions #240, #240A and #240C. Conservation and Protection of the Cacouna Marsh.

Mr. Vaughan:

Since petition #240 was filed on February 4, 2008, and the follow-ups to date on the conservation and protection of the Cacouna marsh, we have witnessed an ongoing and worrying degradation in environmental management. It is also deplorable to note the lack of a big-picture vision, the lack of care given to prevention and certain inconsistencies encountered in the various responses to follow-ups to our petitions, and in the impact assessments supporting these responses. The purpose of this letter is to detail this background, some of the inconsistencies, and to include the new questions that they raise.

Disappointing background

- 2010, International Year of Biodiversity. A great opportunity for Canada to demonstrate its tremendous potential, but...

That same year, the federal government announced its intention to prioritize an approach focusing on hot spots in the matter of renewing the Canada-Quebec framework agreement pertaining to the St. Lawrence, excluding, among other areas, the riparian zone of Berthier-sur-Mer/Cacouna, which is nevertheless recognized for its high biodiversity. This approach abandons the integrated management approach begun previously, which is the only approach capable of ensuring sustainable development. This new approach focusing on hot spots is strongly denounced by many regional and local bodies, including the municipality of Cacouna. (See copy of the resolution, Appendix 1*.)

- The Web site of the Canadian Wildlife Service, which offered a wealth of detail and useful, relevant information on National Wildlife Areas, shed content in 2010, dropping all of this information and presenting only a simplistic and unattractive picture.

- Loss of structure and demobilization. For the past few years, uncertainty has reigned, persisting from one year to the next, in terms of the (minimal) amounts of funding allocated to land management, as well as the very identity of the National Wildlife Area managers. This situation also applied to the Baie de L’Isle-Verte National Wildlife Area and the adjacent ornithological site of Gros-Cacouna, which is recognized as an area that is very rich in biodiversity and important to conserve. This resulted in a loss of structure and a demobilization of the volunteer collaborators, partners and teams that had formed over the years and supplemented the work of under-funded managers.

- Setting aside the St. Lawrence Estuary Marine Protected Area (MPA) project, begun in 2004 by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Canada, now shows an obvious lack of political interest. However, this project showed a real concern for long-term protection and conservation.

- And this general finding, the responses given to our petition #240 and follow-ups #240A and #240C remain unsatisfactory because of lack of relevant scientific data, and because they show several inconsistencies and a flagrant lack of coordination between the departments concerned. These weaknesses raise new questions and concerns, about which we will now inform you.

Federal laws and legal directives

We are concerned about the conservation and protection of the Cacouna marsh. Nine (9) federal laws touch on wetland conservation in Canada. These laws have many legal directives that, in our opinion, obligate the government to apply the procedures set out in these acts and regulations.

The required procedures, to be effective and credible, should normally include the following:

• A survey and an analysis of the condition of the site being studied and of the direct and indirect effects on the ecological balance of the site environment, as well as a full site visit;
• An imperative to protect the wildlife, land and water environment in accordance with the principles of sustainable development;
• A willingness to solve problems.

Inconsistencies and questions

DREDGING AND IMPACTS, PORT OF GROS-CACOUNA
Ref.: Responses from Transport Canada to petition no. 240C. Letter dated 22 January 2010.

In particular
Response 3
The dredging projects in the port of Gros-Cacouna have undergone an environmental assessment pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The expert advice received by the federal authorities during the environmental assessment process has been followed. The dredged sediment is being managed in accordance with the recommended method. Everything seems to hinge on “The expert advice received by the federal authorities during the environmental assessment process”, including the management of the dredged sediment, which was conducted in accordance with this advice.

However, if we refer to File 68-P01 1019-100EI-0100, June 2007, of Transport Canada, it states, [Translation] “No site visit was conducted as part of the pre-environmental assessment”...

And, in file 9520-002-35-016-2007 dated April 10, Fisheries and Oceans Canada states [Translation] “AUTHORIZATION GRANTED”.

Similarly, file 4191-15-997, dated April 11, from Environment Canada, makes the same statement of [Translation] “AUTHORIZATION GRANTED”.

With no site visit!

QUESTION (1) What is being done with the principles set out in the procedural guides of the departments concerned, regarding the assessment, the choice of technologies for processing the contaminated sediments, the environmental monitoring and follow-up of the dredging projects?

Ref: Response of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to petition no. 240C. Letter dated 1 February 2010.

Question 4b: Will the drainage of the dredged sediment basin be overseen with an environmental follow-up (water management, algae control, revegetation) over the next few years? DFO’s response includes the words, “...To date, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has not been consulted on this assessment, but we are prepared to contribute to it.”

In the letter from Transport Canada dated 22 January 2010 (referred to previously), paragraph 2 of the letter states, “We have held discussions with the aim of co-ordinating actions in respect to issues raised in your petition.”

QUESTION (2) What administrative authority of Transport Canada is responsible for the management of the ports in eastern Quebec?
QUESTION (3) Who is responsible for coordination between the departments involved in an environmental assessment?

Regarding the sediment disposal basin drainage work to be followed by environmental monitoring (including revegetation buffer zone) (Request 4b of petition no. 240C), Transport Canada’s response, still in the same letter dated 22 January 2010, was as follows, “This project is currently ‘on hold’ on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry.”

However, in a document from Transport Canada, in Appendix B of Transport Canada’s Environmental Management System Framework, Sustainable Development Strategy 2007-2009, on page 57, it mentions “To risk manage/ remediate Transport Canada’s known contaminated sites, by 2010/2011” ...

CURRENTLY, at the port of Gros-Cacouna, there are completely untreated dredging sediments contaminated with heavy metals being stored in a non-secure location.

In this regard, we refer you to the report of engineering and construction firm Deassau Soprin entitled Partial dredging project at the port of Gros Cacouna. June 2007. Reference: 68-P011019-100-EI-0100.
[Translation] “It appears that 28 sediment sampling stations out of the 35 samples in the port of Gros Cacouna show metal concentrations slightly higher than the minimal effect level.”
[Translation] “(Station S4 of Dessau Soprin, 2005) ... shows concentrations of total PCBs that exceed the minimal effect level for Aroclor 1260.”
[Translation] “Station S4, located in the northwest portion of the port, also shows higher chromium concentrations.
Sediments and soil in the western basin: [Translation] “It appears that seven stations out of eight samples show contamination levels above the minimal effect level for Cr, Ni and Pb.”

This finding of heavy metals in the dredged sediments, in addition to the poor management of these sediments and the obvious absence of environmental monitoring, raise serious concerns, particularly following the observation of a phenomenon that is a direct result of the effects of the dredging: a sudden re-growth of marsh samphire on the sites of the embankment of polluted dredging sediments.

Marsh samphire is a highly sought-after edible plant in Quebec’s lower St. Lawrence area by lovers of wild herbs. The Cacouna and L’Isle-Verte areas allow free harvesting of this plant annually. Marsh samphire is increasingly recognized in gastronomic circles; witness its use by chef Jean Soulard, of Château Frontenac, on his program Cuisinez avec Jean Soulard. (See Appendix 2)*. We are also including, in Appendix 3*, information on the habitat and biology of marsh samphire, and photos showing this developing growth on the polluted dredging sediment dump site in Gros-Cacouna (photos taken on October 10, 2009 - beginning of the establishment; and September 26, 2010 - spread/growth of the marsh samphire.)

QUESTION (4) (PUBLIC HEALTH)

1. In soil polluted by the dredging sediments (heavy metals, etc.), does the marsh samphire incorporate the pollutants into its roots? Or does the plant immobilize the pollutants around its roots? (Phytostabilization)
2. In soil polluted by the dredging sediments, does the plant concentrate the pollutants in its above-ground growth? Does harvesting the above-ground portions eliminate the pollutants? (Phytoextraction)
3. Does eating the marsh samphire from the site of the dredging sediments from the port of Gros-Cacouna pose a danger to public health?

Ref.: Responses from Environment Canada dated 16 April 2010, and 4 May 2010.

In Environment Canada’s responses dated April 16, 2010, and May 4, 2010, concerning the dredging of the Port of Gros-Cacouna and further to our request for detailed information about the site sampling conducted on September 1, 2009, we note that the water sample, taken at the exit of the third sedimentation basin located on Transport Canada land, was used in a test to determine acute lethality to the stickleback. The result of the test was non-lethal. Consequently, there is no infraction of the Fisheries Act for this sample.

In the eyes of the average citizen (and we could observe the effect when the overall results of this analysis were mentioned during a regular public session of the municipal council), this conclusion was easily interpreted as proof that the sediment deposits were non-toxic, when in fact the test had been conducted only to show that there had been no violation of the Fisheries Act (one of the few laws to which one can refer in cases such as these to demand that analyses be carried out...). This test is far from serious environmental monitoring, and even further from a willingness to prevent environmental damage.

Subsequent to these responses from Environment Canada, we witnessed die-offs in the fish habitat in the northeast sector of the marsh (see photos in Appendix 4*). Are these deaths linked to the dredged sediments? We are unable to confirm this. The inventory of the fish in the Gros-Cacouna marsh conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service (Fall 2006. File 6211-04-005, 7 pages) identifies the banded killifish, the three-spined stickleback, the nine-spined stickleback and the sand shrimp.

In our opinion, the samples collected on 1 September 2009, are not representative of the area’s wetlands in the context of the nearby bodies of water (east basin, west basin and pond).

QUESTION (5) Would it not be justified to plan for an environmental assessment or monitoring on the foreseeable long-term effects of the presence of these contaminated dredging deposits?

Departments concerned

Transport Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada.

Conclusion

Mr. Commissioner, we are of the opinion that, further to the above-mentioned petitions, this additional information and these questions deserve your attention.

We hope that they will show

• the necessity for greater intra- and inter-departmental coordination;
• the importance of environmental monitoring in projects carried out in areas of high biodiversity and in projects that pose a potential threat to human health;
• the relevance of supporting and valuing partnerships with the community in site management;
• the urgency of putting more emphasis on prevention and greater value on our exceptional natural sites.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Gérard Michaud]

Gérard Michaud
285 rue Michaud
Cacouna, Quebec G0L 1G0

Tel.: 418-605-1044
E-mail: michaud.gerard@videotron.ca

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister’s Response: Environment Canada

4 July 2011

Mr. Gérard Michaud
285 Michaud Street
Cacouna QC  G0L 1G0

Dear Mr. Michaud:

I am responding to your environmental petition no. 240-D, sent to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, concerning the conservation and protection of the Cacouna Marsh. I understand that this new petition is a request for additional information in relation to the responses you received from Environment Canada following previous petitions (numbers 240, 240A and 240C). Your petition was received in the Department on March 15. 

Please note that in preparing the following responses, Environment Canada participated in discussions with the other federal departments involved (Fisheries and Oceans; Health; and Transport, Infrastructure and Communities) to properly determine your concerns and to provide you with responses to the questions that fall under the Department’s mandate.

Thank you for your interest in the conservation and protection of the Cacouna Marsh.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment]

The Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P.

Enclosure

c.c.:  The Honourable Keith Ashfield, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P.
Mr. Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and
Sustainable Development

Environment Canada’s response to environmental petition no. 240-D, concerning the conservation and protection of the Cacouna Marsh

Context

Before responding to your questions, we would like to mention that it is important to keep in mind that the Port of Gros-Cacouna is the property of Transport Canada and, as such, that department is fully responsible for its management and operation.

With specific regard to the dredging project that was carried out in 2007, Transport Canada was responsible for the environmental assessment of this project under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It is in this context that it asked Environment Canada to act as an Expert Support department, particularly for the assessment and management of dredged sediment, as well as the protection of migratory birds and their habitat.  Environment Canada did not have any authorization to give or permits to issue for this project’s implementation.

On October 19, 2007, at the start of the dredging and disposal, we visited the site with Transport Canada representatives. Observations from Environment Canada representatives revealed that the settling ponds (three cells) had been constructed, that the dredging equipment had been installed, and that the contractor had done a number of tests.

In addition, following the concerns that you expressed in an earlier petition (no. 240), Environment Canada’s Enforcement Branch verified compliance with subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act concerning the potential release of deleterious substances from the settling pond into the Port of Gros-Cacouna. The results of this inspection were mailed to you on April 2, 2009, and February 25, 2010.

Question 1: How are the principles discussed in the methodological guides of the departments concerned being applied to the assessment, choice of contaminated sediment treatment technologies, and environmental surveillance and monitoring of dredging projects?

Answer: Over the past few years, the governments of Canada and Quebec have jointly developed a number of guidelines to orient and assist project managers and other authorities in assessing and selecting approaches and methods for dredging and for the management of dredged materials. These various guidelines are not enforceable, but they cover several aspects of dredging and disposal. They offer a wide array of methods and considerations that must be taken into account and adapted based on the nature of the projects.

Therefore, when Environment Canada was consulted for an environmental assessment, our expert opinions on sediment evaluation and management were based on the current methodological guidelines, particularly the Criteria for the Assessment of Sediment Quality in Quebec and Application Frameworks: Prevention, Dredging and Remediation, which was the cornerstone of our analysis. This document, which underwent an extensive revision in 2007, presents the quality criteria used in Quebec for dredged sediment management. These criteria were developed with the Government of Quebec as part of the work of the committees established for the St. Lawrence Plan.  This document can be accessed online at the following address: www.planstlaurent.qc.ca/centre_ref/publications/diverses/Qualite_criteres_sediments_e.pdf

Question 4:

1. In soil polluted by dredged sediment (heavy metals, etc.), does Glasswort take pollutants into its roots? Or does the plant immobilize the pollutants around its roots (phytostabilization)?
2. In soil polluted by dredged sediment, do plants build up the pollutants in their aerial tissues?  Or does harvesting the aerial parts eliminate the pollutants (phytoextraction)?

Response: Environment Canada does not conduct any specific research on the Glasswort. Therefore, the Department has no particular expertise or knowledge of this species and its ability to bind or absorb pollutants in its tissues.

It is important to reiterate that Environment Canada collaborated with Transport Canada in assessing the quality of sediment in the Port of Gros-Cacouna in 2007, before its dredging and disposal. The characterization work done at this time was in accordance with relevant guides. A sufficient number of samples were taken over the entire surface area and the entire depth of the zone to be dredged in the harbour.

Upon analyzing the data, we concluded that the sediment quality met the applicable quality criteria for the management method in place, which was to deposit the sediment in the western pool, in a diked area. The assessment of the sediment quality and management method was made in consideration of, among other things, the risk of contaminant transfer into adjacent surface water. The measured concentrations of the various contaminants in the sediment were analyzed in relation to the wilderness values (background) of the region’s soils (A criteria of the Soil Protection and Contaminated Sites Rehabilitation Policy from the Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs du Québec – Appalachian geologic province) and in relation to the acceptable limits for agricultural soils (Soil Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Environmental and Human Health, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, http://st-ts.ccme.ca/?lang=en).

Question 5: Would it not be justified to plan an environmental assessment, or monitoring, in relation to the anticipated long-term effects of the presence of these contaminated disposal sites?

Response: Transport Canada carries out environmental assessments for development and planning projects in the Port of Gros-Cacouna in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The responsible authorities are obligated to assess the necessity of implementing a monitoring program. Such monitoring must be planned when the magnitude of the anticipated impact or new technologies or mitigation measures justifies it in order to verify the soundness of the project’s environmental assessment and to judge the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

As mentioned in two previous pieces of correspondence (April 2, 2009, and February 25, 2010), as well as in the response to the previous question, given the management method employed, the quality of sediment dredged and disposed in the western pool complies with the site’s industrial usage and orientation. The presence of contaminants in disposed sediment was detected and measured, but the observed levels met the applicable quality criteria. Therefore, considering this disposal method, the implementation of a monitoring program on the effects of the sediment’s presence in this location was not required or justified.

[top of page]

Minister’s Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

28 June 2011

Gérard Michaud
285 Michaud Street
Cacouna, Quebec
G0L 1G0

Dear Mr. Michaud:

Please find attached Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s response to question 5 of your petition No. 240D regarding the conservation and protection of the Cacouna marsh, received on March 15, 2011, which you submitted to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Question 5: Is there not a justification for an environmental assessment or follow-up of the foreseeable long-term effects of the presence of these contaminated dredging deposits?

Under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Transport Canada is the responsible authority for the environmental assessment of the maintenance dredging project at the Port of Gros-Cacouna. We were consulted by Transport Canada on the project and we provided expert advice to avoid possible risk to fish and fish habitat to both the Department and the proponent. The maintenance dredging conducted at the Port of Gros-Cacouna was found to be a low-risk activity that was not likely to result in the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, provided appropriate mitigation measures were taken. An authorization under subsection 35(2) of the Fisheries Act was not required for that project. 

We have not been consulted on the dredged sediment disposal basin drainage project, as the issues associated with that project do not fall under our mandate. The pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act, prohibiting the deposit of harmful substances into waters frequented by fish, unless authorized by regulations under this Act, are administered by Environment Canada.

If an authorization is required under the Fisheries Act, the Department would be responsible for ensuring that an environmental assessment is conducted before issuing the authorization, which could include conditions and require a monitoring and follow-up program, where appropriate.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your petition and trust that you will find this information helpful. I understand that my colleagues will be responding separately to the questions that fall under their respective mandates.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Keith Ashfield, P.C., M.P.

c.c.:  The Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P.
Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

[top of page]

Minister’s Response: Health Canada

7 July 2011

Monsieur Gérard Michaud
285 Michaud Street
Cacouana, Quebec  G0L 1G0

Dear Mr. Michaud:

This is in response to your environmental petition no. 240 D of February 28, 2011, addressed to Mr. Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD).

In your petition you raised concerns about the conservation and protection of the Cacouna Marsh.

I am pleased to provide you with the enclosed Health Canada response to your petition. I understand that the ministers of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, and Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, will be responding separately to questions that come under the purview of their respective department or agency.

I appreciate your interest in this important matter, and I hope that you will find the information provided useful.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health]

Leona Aglukkaq

c.c. Mr. Scott Vaughan, CESD
The Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Keith Ashfield, P.C., M.P.
The Honourable Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P.

Government of Canada Response to
Environmental Petition No. 240 D filed by Gérard Michaud
under Section 22 of the Auditor General Act
Received March 3, 2011

Petition asking for a response to five questions
 on the Conservation and Preservation of Cacouna Marsh

July 13, 2011

Minister of Health

Response to Petition No. 240 D, Question 4 c
 Conservation and Preservation of Cacouna Marsh

Question 4 c:

Does consumption of samphire from the Gros-Cacouna site represent a hazard to public health?

Response to Question 4 c:

Health Canada is responsible for establishing standards for the safety and nutritional quality of all foods sold in Canada. The department exercises this mandate under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act and pursues its regulatory mandate under the Food and Drug Regulations.

Samphire, as described in the petition, is not offered for sale to the public as a food. Upon request, the Food Directorate will provide opinions on the health risks associated with the consumption of non-commercial foods, for example, country or traditional foods. However, the final determination of risk to human health from the consumption of non-commercial foods and the subsequent risk management decisions do not fall within the responsibilities of Health Canada’s Food Directorate.

[top of page]

Minister’s Response: Transport Canada

13 July 2011

Gérard Michaud
285 Michaud Street
Cacouna, Quebec
G0L 1G0

Dear Mr. Michaud:

I am pleased to send you Transport Canada’s response to petition No. 0240-D on the conservation and protection of the Cacouna Marsh located on federal land adjacent to the port of Gros-Cacouna, which you submitted to the Office of the Auditor General under the Auditor General Act.

Environment Canada, Health Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada are the four federal departments concerned by your petition. This letter includes responses to the questions that fall within the mandate of Transport Canada and was drafted in cooperation with the other departments, which will provide separate responses related to their respective mandates.

Question 1
What is being done with the principles set out in the procedural guides of the departments concerned, regarding the assessment, the choice of technologies for processing the contaminated sediments, the environmental monitoring and follow-up of the dredging projects?

Response 1
As the manager and operator of the port of Gros-Cacouna, Transport Canada is responsible for ensuring that the facilities comply with acts and regulations and regularly visits are made as part of its operations.

The environmental assessment of the dredging project was carried out in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEA Act). In accordance with the Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements made pursuant to the CEA Act, Transport Canada issued a written notice to other federal authorities likely to exercise a power in respect of the project or to possess knowledge necessary to the conduct of the project’s environmental assessment. This applied to two other departments: Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Although there was no visit to the site during the environmental assessment, there were a few visits during the pre-project phase. In addition, the data used in the environmental assessment had been gathered during a number of field visits as part of earlier projects (e.g., various soil and sediment characterization campaigns in 2005, 2006, and 2007).

As regards the management of dredged sediment, considering the quality of the sediment and characteristics of the site, the experts agreed that land-based management of the sediment was a suitable option. In addition to the presence of a supervisor on the site, Transport Canada representatives carried out a number of environmental monitoring visits during the dredging to ensure the work did not have a major negative impact on the environment.

The environmental analysis was therefore carried out with all the required information in order to ensure that the dredging project was assessed appropriately, the sediment was treated properly and the environmental monitoring and follow-up was carried out.

Question 2
What administrative authority of Transport Canada is responsible for the management of the ports in eastern Quebec?

Response 2
The Programs Directorate at Transport Canada’s Quebec Regional Office is responsible, under the Canada Marine Act, for monitoring the operations of Transport Canada’s 31 port facilities in Quebec, including the port of Gros-Cacouna. The Directorate carries out its mandate in accordance with acts and regulations to provide safe, secure and environmentally sound facilities.

Question 3
Who is responsible for coordination between the departments involved in an environmental assessment?

Response 3
The role of the federal environmental assessment coordinator is established by the CEA Act  (section 12.1). Under the terms of the Regulations Respecting the Coordination by Federal Authorities of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Requirements, a federal authority receiving a project description and determining that the project may require an environmental assessment must issue a written notice to other federal authorities likely to exercise a power in respect of the project or to possess knowledge necessary to the conduct of the project’s environmental assessment.

In the case of the project involving the drainage of the sediment disposal basin, Transport Canada made the coordination and Environment Canada is the expert department with regard to water quality (including application of subsection 36(3) of the Fisheries Act).

Question 4c
Does eating the marsh samphire from the site of the dredging sediments from the port of Gros-Cacouna pose a danger to public health?

Response 4c
To ensure public safety, access to the Transport Canada site is restricted to authorized personnel only, and any activities must receive prior authorization. Health Canada and Environment Canada will provide additional information in this regard, in keeping with their respective mandates.

As indicated earlier, the other federal departments concerned will provide you with separate responses to your questions related to their respective mandates.

Thank you for your interest in environmental conservation and protection.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by Denis Lebel, Minister of Transport Infrastructure and Communities]

Denis Lebel, P.C., M.P.

cc: Scott Vaughan, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
The Honourable Peter Kent, P.C., M.P. and Minister of the Environment
The Honourable Keith Ashfield, P.C., M.P. and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P. and Minister of Health