Environmental Petitions

Main Points

6.1 In most cases, departments have responded to complaints raised in petitions about alleged violations of federal environmental laws by promising to launch investigations. However, petitioners are seldom informed of the outcome of these actions and the end result of their petition.

6.2 The audits we conducted of strategic environmental assessment and the management of salmon, which are discussed in chapters  4 and 5 of this report, provided an opportunity to verify departmental claims in selected petition responses. We found that in these cases, some departments portrayed a more positive situation in their petition response than was warranted.

6.3 Our audits of commitments from past petition responses concerning historic military dumpsites off Canada's Atlantic Coast and a pilot project to encourage federal public servants to use urban transit found that progress had been made in translating commitments into concrete action. However, our audit of a commitment stated in a petition response by Fisheries and Oceans Canada revealed that the Department had made limited progress toward developing regulations on genetically engineered fish.

Background and other observations

6.4 This is our annual report to Parliament on the environmental petitions process as required by the Auditor General Act. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development co-ordinates the petitions process on behalf of the Auditor General.

6.5 Our Office received a total of 40 petitions this year (compared with 38 last year). They came from most parts of the country, with the majority from individuals and local groups and some from national organizations. The petitions covered issues such as trawler dragging on the ocean floor, biotechnology, and pesticide advertising. New issues included the quality of drinking water and other environmental problems on an Aboriginal reserve, environmental fines under the federal tax system, and a hazardous waste incinerator project. The full text of petitions and responses can be found in the petitions catalogue on our Web site (www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english).

The departments have responded. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada have accepted our recommendations. Their responses, which follow the recommendations in the chapter, indicate the actions they intend to take and when these will be completed.

Introduction

6.6 During the past five years, British Columbia resident Kevin Sinclair and his family have witnessed the deaths of over 1,000 migratory trumpeter swans in or near the lake that borders their property. Judson Lake, which straddles the Canada–United States border, has been a popular site for hunters. The petitioner says that the lake is contaminated with lead shot as a result. In an effort to get the lake cleaned up, Kevin Sinclair submitted an environmental petition to our Office (Petition No. 99). (See photograph)

6.7 We forwarded the petition to the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada. In its response, the Department stated that it was not convinced that Judson Lake is the source of the lead shot that is killing swans found in the area. However, the Department stated that it is working with many partners in Canada and the United States to, among other things, determine the primary source(s) of the problem.

6.8 This is just one example of an environmental petition submitted by a Canadian through the environmental petitions process. Any Canadian resident, whether an individual, an organization, a business, or a municipality, has the right to submit an environmental petition to the Auditor General of Canada. Petitions must address environmental issues involving the federal government. Exhibit 6.1 provides more information on the petitions process and the role of the Commissioner, who oversees the petitions process on behalf of the Auditor General.

6.9 This chapter has the following three parts:

• our annual report to Parliament on new petitions received between July 2003 and June 2004, which also highlights some important issues that arose from petition responses;
• our findings from audits that verified the claims made in two petition responses; and
• our findings from audits of action taken by federal departments to fulfill commitments made in responses to petitions. The petitions concerned military dumpsites off Canada's Atlantic coast (Petition No. 50A), genetically engineered fish (Petition No. 38A), and a pilot project to encourage greater use of urban transit by federal public servants (Petition No. 29).

Annual report on petitions (19 July 2003 to 30 June 2004)

Use of the petitions process

6.10 We received 40 petitions this year (compared with 38 last year). The petitions came from most parts of the country (Exhibit 6.2), with the exception of the territories. Most continue to come from individual Canadians as well as small local or regional organizations and grass-roots coalitions. Some were submitted by national organizations, such as the Canadian Wildlife Federation. For the first time, we received a petition from a private sector company. The petition (Petition No. 93) concerns a micro-organism, Bacta-Pur®, and the application of New Substances Notification Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

6.11 An overview of petitions activity during our reporting period (19 July 2003 to 30 June 2004) is in the Appendix. It covers new petitions received since July 2003 as well as earlier petitions where a ministerial response was pending.

6.12 Petitions and responses are included in our petitions catalogue on our Web site (www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english). Some federal organizations are also posting their responses on their Web sites.

The range of issues is expanding

6.13 New types of issues involving the federal government are being raised in petitions. Examples include the following:

• hazardous waste incineration—specifically a project in New Brunswick and possible impacts on the Baie des Chaleurs, Quebec's Gaspé region, and areas south of the Canada–United States border (Petitions No. 102 and 107);
• environmental problems on an Aboriginal reserve located in Manitoba (Petition No. 91); and
• the federal tax system—specifically, the writing off of environmental fines and other penalties as a business expense under the Income Tax Act (Petition No. 98).

6.14 Issues concerning the marine environment and marine biodiversity figure more prominently in petitions received during the past year. One example is a petition from the Georgia Strait Alliance and the United Fisherman and Allied Workers Union-Canadian Auto Workers Union. Their petition calls on the federal government to put in place a regulation to prevent municipalities from discharging untreated or partially treated sewage into the ocean (Petition No. 112).

6.15 Over the past year, we have heard from petitioners looking for progress reports, updates, or additional information on issues they covered in their previous petitions. In one case, Algonquin Eco Watch submitted a follow-up petition (Petition No. 27E) when a department failed to provide a report it had promised in response to an earlier petition.

Departmental responses to petitions

Monitoring of petition responses

6.16 It is the Commissioner's responsibility to monitor petition responses from departments and agencies. To do so, we consider the following questions:

• Are departments responding to petitioners on time?
• Are departments providing a considered response that clearly addresses the questions and other requests made in petitions?

6.17 We are pleased to report that departments are generally meeting the 120-day deadline for responding to petitions. However, there are some exceptions (Exhibit 6.3). Indian and Northern Affairs Canada was late responding to three of four petitions. As of August 2004, two of these were over 180 days late. The Department has informed us that it is taking steps to improve its compliance with the legislated time frame.

6.18 As part of our monitoring of departmental responses to petitions, we review the responses to see if they address the petitioners' concerns and requests in a manner that is clear, comprehensive, and understandable. Most departments met these minimum requirements; however, in a few cases departments' responses did not address petitioners' requests or questions and/or were vague and conveyed little meaningful information.

Some petitioners do not know the outcome of their petition

6.19 Some petitioners are continuing to use the petitions process as a way to draw attention to alleged violations of federal environmental laws. These laws involve pesticides, fish habitat, and pollution. In these cases, petitioners asked the responsible departments to investigate their complaints.

6.20 One example is a petition submitted by Earth Action, an organization based in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Earth Action maintained that several companies were contravening advertising rules set out under federal pesticide legislation and asked Health Canada to investigate (Petition No. 87). In its response, the Department announced that its Pest Management Regulatory Agency had initiated investigations of five different companies.

6.21 An official with Health Canada informed Earth Action that the investigations had determined that the federal Pest Control Products Act and Regulations had been contravened in all cases. The companies in question were ordered to initiate corrective action, and the Department told the petitioner that it intended to monitor action taken by the companies.

6.22 In this case, Health Canada followed up with Earth Action to let it know that the concerns it had raised in its petition were addressed. However, this is the exception. While departments are continuing to state their intention to investigate the allegations raised in a petition, we noted that some did not provide petitioners with timelines for concluding their investigation; nor did they provide a departmental contact for follow-up. As a result, some petitioners do not know the final actions undertaken by departments on their petition. In such cases where follow-up action has been promised, petitioners sometimes approach our Office or submit a follow-up petition looking for answers. Departments need to do a better job of closing the loop with petitioners.

Highlights of selected petitions and responses

6.23 In this section, we draw attention to some of the petitions and responses we have received during the past year. They highlight issues dealing with biotechnology, the legacy of environmental problems from an abandoned mine, and the transmission of disease from game ranches.

Five petitions focussed on government policy and action on biotechnology

6.24 In 2003–04, Greenpeace submitted five petitions on biotechnology to our Office (Petitions No. 38B, 84, 85, 88, and 94). The petition responses prepared by departments and agencies are substantial documents that reflect the detailed petition questions and requests posed by Greenpeace. We have highlighted selected departments' responses.

6.25 Information on the economic, financial, and trade impacts of cultivating genetically modified crops is limited. Greenpeace asked the federal government for information on the impact of what the organization regards as international consumer rejection of products that contain or are made from genetically engineered organisms in Canadian farming and agricultural sectors. In their joint response, federal departments stated that information on this issue is limited and that it is difficult to isolate the possible effects of biotechnology on farm economics and international trade. The departments did state that there were impacts on Canadian canola producers arising from restricted access to certain world markets; however, they also stated that Canadian producers were generally able to offset them by redirecting their shipments to other markets (Petitions No. 85 and 88).

6.26 Aid to developing countries is not tied to accepting genetically modified products. Greenpeace received assurance from the Canadian International Development Agency that Canadian food aid (or other humanitarian aid, including medical assistance) is not contingent upon a country's acceptance of genetically engineered commodities. The Agency also stated that it is providing funds for promoting organic and agro-ecological farming practices and for protecting and preserving biodiversity (Petition No. 85).

6.27 The federal government clarified its labelling requirements for the international trade of genetically engineered agricultural products. As part of the government's response to Petition No. 85, departments provided a copy of an agreement on genetically engineered organisms, signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States in October 2003. The agreement applies to all shipments of agricultural products destined for food, feed, or for processing. Under the agreement, exporters are exempt from documentation requirements if an exporter and importer have defined the shipment as not containing genetically engineered organisms. This means that the parties can exempt shipments from these requirements if they contain no more than five percent genetically engineered organisms.

Acid rock drainage continues at the Tulsequah Chief mine in northern British Columbia

6.28 In September 2003, the Society for Atlin's Sustainable Economic Initiatives sent a petition to our Office (Petition No. 95). The petition focussed on toxic runoff from the Tulsequah Chief mine in northwestern British Columbia and the impact on the health of salmon and other aquatic species in waterways around the mine.

6.29 According to the petitioner, the mine opened in 1951 and closed six years later. The property was later purchased by Redfern Resources Ltd. Redfern wants to re-open the mine; however, the proposal is subject to a federal environmental assessment. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is the lead federal department for this assessment. In its response to the petitioners, the Department indicated that it cannot complete the environmental assessment until Redfern addresses concerns raised by several federal departments and others. Since the petition response, we were informed that the environmental assessment has started again.

6.30 Environment Canada is responsible for the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act and responded to the petitioner's questions about acid rock drainage at the mine site. The Department confirmed that it has issued warning letters and an inspector's direction requiring the company to deal with the problem. An inspection done in October 2003 confirmed that none of the measures taken by the company had significantly reduced the acutely lethal toxicity of the acid rock discharge. The Department stated that it would determine the next steps in accordance with its compliance and enforcement policy for pollution prevention under the Fisheries Act.

Concerns expressed about chronic wasting disease on game farms

6.31 In October 2003, the Canadian Wildlife Federation submitted a petition to our Office (Petition No. 96) about game farming in Canada. One of the petitioner's concerns was about chronic wasting disease on game farms and transmission of this disease to wild populations of deer and other cervids (an animal in the deer family such as deer, elk, moose, and caribou). Chronic wasting disease is a similar disease to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). According to the petitioner, game farming of elk and deer began in Canada in the mid-1980s and is permitted in all provinces except Newfoundland and Labrador and the territory of Nunavut.

6.32 Our Office forwarded this petition to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada (now two departments: Foreign Affairs Canada and International Trade Canada) and Health Canada. In its response, Health Canada indicated that it had recently completed two reviews on chronic wasting disease. The first one, published in January 2003, was a compilation of Canadian information on this disease. The second review, published in March 2003, concluded that there is no compelling evidence that this disease can result in human illness. Nevertheless, at the end of its response, Health Canada did note two incidents that suggest that chronic wasting disease has the potential to be a human pathogen.

6.33 Environment Canada has recognized that, although the source of chronic wasting disease is not known, the disease appears to be increasing in prevalence in wild cervids in Western Canada. The Department has been working through a federal/provincial/territorial committee to develop the National Wildlife Disease Strategy, which covers chronic wasting disease and other wildlife diseases. The Department reported that the strategy, which will be implemented across all jurisdictions, will minimize the negative impacts of emerging wildlife diseases on the health of humans, livestock, and wildlife.

Audit of Claims Made in Petition Responses

6.34 For the first time, we verified the claims made in departmental responses to two petitions. This work was done during our audits of strategic environmental assessment by the federal government (see Chapter 4 of this report) and the management of salmon (Chapter 5). The following highlights our audit findings.

6.35 Deficient petition responses on strategic environmental assessment. Since 1990, strategic environmental assessment has been in place through a federal Cabinet directive. Under that directive, departments and agencies are required to consider environmental implications and effects when they are developing federal plans, programs, and policies. A doctoral student, Rachel McCormick, petitioned 10 federal departments through our process in 2003 (Petition No. 64). She asked departments to describe how they were integrating strategic environmental assessment into their planning and whether it was making a difference.

6.36 In our audit of strategic environmental assessments, generally we found that information in the petition responses we examined agreed with our related audit evidence. However, information in some responses was at odds with our audit work.

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada stated in its petition response that the Department "determines whether environmental considerations are likely to arise from implementing the proposed policy, plan, or program by conducting a preliminary scan. The scan enables the analyst to identify the potential for direct or indirect outcomes associated with implementing the proposal. If the scan determines that there are no potential outcomes, there is no further analysis required." The Department did not provide evidence that preliminary scans and screening with regard to the Cabinet directive were being done.
• Health Canada indicated that strategic environmental assessment considerations are holistically integrated into its development of new proposals. However, the Department has limited processes in place that can ensure compliance with the directive.
• Finance Canada indicated that it had launched an "enhanced strategic environmental assessment process" in May 2003. Yet, the Department could not show that before then it had any process in place. The Department stated that two informal strategic environmental assessments were conducted prior to May 2003, but it was unable to provide evidence that these assessments had been undertaken.

6.37 Despite Fisheries and Oceans Canada's response, questions remain about dramatic decline of wild salmon in the Broughton Archipelago. A suspected outbreak of sea lice (a marine parasite) in wild pink salmon in the Broughton Archipelago off the British Columbia coast in 2001 prompted the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council to submit a petition to our Office in 2002. The petition suggested that the sea lice came from the numerous salmon farms in the area and questioned how Fisheries and Oceans Canada dealt with the problem in the spring of 2001.

6.38 In its response to the petition, the Department stated that it had assessed the presence of sea lice as part of its annual survey of juvenile salmon. It reported that the salmon sampled were in generally good health, with low levels of infestation by sea lice. Based on that survey, there was no evidence of an epidemic or of a mass mortality of juvenile salmon.

6.39 As part of the Office's follow-up audit on wild salmon (see Chapter 5), we examined the Department's action in the wake of the suspected outbreak of sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago in 2001. We found that it had not done sufficient research to explore the potential impacts of aquaculture and sea lice prior to the alleged outbreak. The Department's report cited in the petition response was based on very limited research and was not peer-reviewed. Beyond the annual survey mentioned earlier, the Department did no further work in 2002 to examine the situation.

6.40 While the number of pink salmon returning to the Broughton Archipelago has fluctuated over the years, there was a dramatic decline in 2002, when an estimated 147,000 returned to the area (compared with 3.6 million in 2000). In 2003, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Province of British Columbia responded with action plans, which included monitoring sea lice in the Broughton Archipelago. In May 2004, the Department released results from the 2003 study and specific plans for 2004 that would begin to address the main research gaps identified from the analysis of 2003 data. As we report in Chapter 5, the Department has still not provided clear answers about the potential effect of sea lice on wild salmon stocks and its relation to salmon aquaculture.

Audits of Petition Response Commitments

6.41 In their responses over the years, federal ministers have made commitments to act on the environmental concerns raised by petitioners. To determine whether departments have taken meaningful action, we have audited selected commitments.

6.42 This year we audited commitments in response to three petitions. They were selected on the basis of several criteria. Our audits focussed on the measures taken by departments to carry out commitments made in their petition responses. We expected that each department would have

• clearly identified the commitment and what it means for the department;
• planned its implementation;
• carried out the planned implementation, including communicating any changes as required; and
• determined that it had met the commitment and, where appropriate, evaluated the degree to which it addressed the issue(s) raised in the petition.

For more information, see About the Audit at the end of the chapter.

Military dumpsites off Canada's Atlantic coast

An unwanted legacy

6.43 Over the past century, especially as a result of the two world wars, there have been an estimated 2,800 shipwrecks (some containing munitions) off Canada's Atlantic coast. In addition, at the end of World War II, Canada and other countries disposed of conventional munitions, such as bombs and shells, and chemical/biological warfare agents, such as mustard gas, by dumping them at sea. This was considered an acceptable practice at that time. Ocean disposal of warfare agents and munitions has been prohibited by Canadian law since 1975. (See photograph)

6.44 Unexploded munitions and chemical/biological warfare agents in the marine environment may present a potential risk to human safety and environmental health if disturbed by activities such as dredging, bottom-trawling fishing, shipping, or gas and oil exploration. Conventional munitions have washed ashore on the Atlantic coast. Even if undisturbed, dumped munitions and containers holding chemical warfare agents can be expected to corrode and leak. These sites may pose risks that need to be better understood.

6.45 In 1984, Transport Canada raised the issue of off-shore disposal of mustard gas and unexploded munitions with the Department of National Defence. However, after considering the issue, National Defence did not consider action necessary at that time. It stated, "There is no evidence of a major problem in Canadian waters." The Department recently acknowledged that this issue may have potential human health and environmental concerns due to the increased use of the marine environment.

Petition expressed concern about offshore activities on military dumpsites

6.46 In a petition submitted in March 2002, Myles Kehoe posed a number of questions about the presence of chemical warfare agents and munitions in military dumpsites off Canada's east coast (Petition No. 50A). He expressed concerns about the extent to which such sites had been identified and the potential risks assessed, and whether known sites were adequately marked on charts. Among other things, he requested a moratorium on all gas and oil exploration in the near-shore and offshore areas off Canada's Atlantic coast and that all dumpsites be declared exclusion zones for commercial ground fishing.

6.47 The petition was forwarded to six departments:

• National Defence has assumed the role of lead department as these sites tend to be military-oriented.
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada has the mandate to protect fish and the marine environment. Its Canadian Hydrographic Service is responsible for nautical charting.
• Natural Resources Canada has major responsibilities for offshore oil and gas activities. It also provides technical advice, for example, on underwater mapping.
• Environment Canada has technical expertise in identifying and assessing the environmental risks associated with disposal at sea and contaminated sites.
• The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (now two departments: Foreign Affairs Canada and International Trade Canada) is responsible for dealing with the international obligations and activities related to these sites.
• Health Canada has the mandate to protect human health.

Departmental commitments for action

6.48 In its response to Petition No. 50A, National Defence committed to carrying out projects that would continue to identify conventional munitions and begin to identify military dumpsites. It also committed to assessing the risk to human health and the environment and to setting priorities for subsequent cleanup or other appropriate action. Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada committed to providing technical and scientific expertise to the project. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, through the Canadian Hydrographic Service, committed to charting military dumpsites, based on information provided to it by National Defence.

Focus of the audit

6.49 We concentrated on the actions of National Defence, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada, and Environment Canada. We excluded Health Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade as they had less involvement in implementing these commitments.

6.50 The objective of the audit was to assess the extent to which these four departments implemented certain commitments made in their responses to Petition No. 50A. Overall, their commitments fell into the following categories:

• identifying and assessing the risks of underwater military dumpsites containing chemical/biological warfare agents and conventional munitions;
• communicating known information about sites and risks to relevant stakeholders; and
• preparing a contingency plan in the event of an ecological disaster.

Observations

Departments are identifying and assessing risks

6.51 National Defence has initiated two major projects that are intended to fulfill its commitments to identify sites and assess their risks. These are:

• the Warfare Agent Disposal project, which deals with marine and land-based sites that contain chemical and biological agents, including mustard gas; and
• the Underwater Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) project, which deals with underwater sites that contain conventional munitions, including mines and shells.

Exhibit 6.4 provides a timeline of activities related to historic underwater military dumpsites.

6.52 The Warfare Agent Disposal project is scheduled for completion in 2008. The main focus of the Warfare Agent Disposal project is to identify marine and land-based sites containing chemical and biological warfare agents and to assess their risks. The project includes a review of scientific literature and historical research to locate possible sites.

6.53 Work on the project began early in 2002. A formal review of scientific literature and the development of risk assessment models began in 2004. It is too early to predict whether the project will be completed by 2008 as scheduled.

6.54 About $14.4 million has been committed for this project. This amount does not cover any site cleanup or remediation that may be required. National Defence has indicated that it will seek funding if these sites require further action. Departmental officials have indicated that the potential cost of deep ocean surveys (over 1,000 metres) may be over $1 million per site.

6.55 High-risk sites requiring surveys are currently being identified as part of the project. To date, two underwater sites that may contain warfare agents have been found. The first is south of Sable Island, and the second is south of the Grand Banks. Five land-based sites that possibly contain warfare agents have also been identified.

6.56 The Underwater Unexploded Ordnance project is scheduled for completion in 2006. The Underwater Unexploded Ordnance project was initiated in mid-2002 to investigate marine sites that may contain conventional munitions and to set priorities for work on them. Prior to the launch of this project, National Defence had already started to identify underwater unexploded ordnance wrecks and sites. (See photograph)

6.57 The Department compiled a list of 509 suspected and known underwater sites. Of these, 48 were considered high-priority, while the remaining 461 were considered to be of relatively little risk. The Department assessed the risk of these sites based on proximity and accessibility to the public, the type and quantity of the munitions they contain, and the risk to the environment. No further investigation or cleanup is planned for these 461 low-risk sites at this time, but the Department stated that this may change if new information arises.

6.58 By 31 March 2004, the Department had done an initial survey of 25 of the 48 high-risk sites. Departmental officials indicated that their goal is to assess about 10 sites a year, depending on the availability of equipment and on weather conditions.

6.59 The total funding for the Underwater Unexploded Ordnance project is about $1.1 million. As with the Warfare Agent Disposal project, the budget does not include funds for cleanup or other remediation.

Departments are communicating and sharing information

6.60 The departments have committed to communicating and sharing information about underwater military dumpsites to stakeholders, including the public, media, fishers, and petroleum industry workers. Providing information on underwater military dumpsites is an ongoing activity.

6.61 National Defence has developed communication plans for both projects. It has also published a pamphlet entitled Dealing with the Legacy of Warfare Agent Disposal and has posted project information on the Internet at www.wadproject.forces.gc.ca. A pamphlet entitled Understanding the Underwater UXO Survey Project has also been published. In addition, National Defence provided information to the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board for offshore oil and gas exploration projects. It issued public notices on the cleanup of particular sites, such as the HMS  Raleigh, a British cruiser sunk in 1922 off the coast of Labrador.

6.62 The Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) of Fisheries and Oceans Canada committed to marking dumpsites on navigation charts. It has already charted about 20 sites containing conventional munitions. National Defence provided information to the CHS on the two underwater military dumpsites containing warfare agents. The Canadian Coast Guard issued a Notice to Shipping about these two sites in February 2004.

Contingency plan—departments are taking steps to meet their commitments

6.63 There are a number of unknowns regarding the hazards that these underwater sites may pose. Departments recognized the need for a plan to deal with potential incidents and committed to doing so in their responses to Petition No. 50A.

6.64 National Defence has documented procedures to deal with the discovery of munitions. Other federal departments have emergency preparedness programs in place to address, for instance, oil spills and gas emergencies. However, none specifically addresses chemical and biological warfare agents.

6.65 In April 2004, members of the Warfare Agent Disposal Working Group began to discuss the need for an overall government-wide contingency plan. The group indicated that such a plan would identify critical components to consider, including hazards of munitions and warfare agents, marine incidents and spills, public safety responses, and likely exposure scenarios. The plan would also identify the key organizations and their roles.

Genetically engineered fish

Introduction

6.66 Research on genetically engineered (GE) aquatic organisms, such as GE fish, started in the early 1980s and has increased rapidly around the world in the past few years. GE fish are being developed with biotechnology to use in medical applications, to detect pollution, and as aquarium pets. They are also being developed for the aquaculture industry—for example, to grow faster and tolerate cold temperatures.

6.67 At present, no GE fish are being farmed commercially in Canada but research is being done toward that end. For example, in Prince Edward Island, a U.S-based company is conducting research on GE salmon. That company has submitted an application to U.S. regulators for commercialization of faster-growing salmon, and Canadian regulators believe that a similar application could be made in Canada.

6.68 Scientists, regulators, and the public are concerned about the potential ecological impacts if GE fish accidentally escape into natural ecosystems. For example, faster growing GE fish could out-compete wild fish for food and territory. Scientists are just beginning to understand the effects of GE fish on the natural environment.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada made a commitment to act

6.69 Greenpeace Canada submitted a petition on GE fish in November 2001 (Petition No. 38A). The organization was seeking information on the regulation of GE fish and a confirmation of the federal government's policy on the rearing of them in Canada.

6.70 Fisheries and Oceans Canada and several other federal departments provided a joint response to this petition in April 2002. Fisheries and Oceans Canada was asked to respond because the Department's mandate is to manage and protect fish and fish habitat. We selected three commitments in the Department's petition response to audit:

• Fisheries and Oceans Canada is developing regulations under the Fisheries Act for aquatic organisms with novel traits, including genetically engineered fish.
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to conduct research studies to strengthen risk assessment protocols in support of regulatory requirements and enhance understanding of the potential impacts of aquatic organisms with novel traits.
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada supports the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) in its efforts to ensure that aquatic organisms with novel traits, in this case salmon, cannot have an impact on wild fish stocks by, among other actions, ensuring that the use of transgenic salmon is confined to secure, self-contained, land-based facilities.

Focus of the audit

6.71 Based on the commitments above, we set out to verify whether Fisheries and Oceans Canada was making progress in developing the regulations and conducting research to strengthen risk assessment in support of the regulations. We also looked at whether the Department was ensuring adherence to the NASCO guidelines on the rearing of GE salmon.

Observations and Recommendations

Fisheries and Oceans Canada has committed to developing regulations on GE fish

6.72 GE fish are currently regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA, 1999). Environment Canada administers CEPA, 1999 and its associated regulations. These, along with the acts and regulations listed in CEPA schedules, cover all new substances intended for sale, manufacture, or import in Canada. New substances include everything from new commercial chemicals to living organisms that are products of biotechnology, such as GE plants, micro-organisms, animals, and fish (see CEPA, 1999).

6.73 While CEPA, 1999 and its associated regulations address the basic need for regulating all new substances, the federal government has recognized that it needs a specific regulation for GE fish and other novel aquatic organisms. Two of the core principles underlying Canada's approach to the regulation of the products of biotechnology are the following:

• Departments are responsible for regulating biotechnology products that fall within their area of expertise.
• The regulatory system is to build on existing legislation and institutions.

6.74 Fisheries and Oceans Canada's commitment to develop regulations on GE fish and other aquatic organisms with novel traits is in line with these principles. The Department has the expertise to deal with fish and other aquatic organisms and is therefore seen by the government as best placed to manage a regulatory system geared specifically to meeting the complex challenges associated with GE fish.

6.75 All timelines for completing the regulations were missed. Fisheries and Oceans Canada first signalled its intention to develop regulations on GE fish in 1992. Since then, the Department has stated repeatedly that it is in the process of developing the regulations (see Timelines set by Fisheries and Oceans Canada for completing regulations on GE fish). Completion dates for the regulations have been set several times but not met. For example, a parliamentary committee reported in 1996 that the regulations were being drafted. Completion dates of 1998–99, 2001, and 2002 have also not been met.

6.76 The Department developed a first draft of the regulations in 1997, but it was never finalized. Another version was developed in 2001 with the intention of listing it in CEPA, 1999. However, the regulations did not meet the listing criteria and were not finished.

6.77 Fisheries and Oceans Canada has yet to determine when the regulations will be completed. The Department has not revised the draft regulations since 2001. While research is being conducted to solidify the science base required for the regulations, the Department is only now laying the groundwork for other action needed to develop the regulations. This includes defining a clear vision of what the Department wants the regulations to achieve. Others measures the Department needs to complete are the following:

• Establish a sound policy base for the regulations.
• Determine if any changes to the Fisheries Act are required.
• Develop an implementation plan that includes a cost estimate and a clear definition of roles and responsibilities.
• Determine the full scope and components of the regulations, including the extent to which they will regulate research.
• Consult with the provinces and other stakeholders.
• Allocate a departmental budget for operational needs.

6.78 In 1992, Fisheries and Oceans Canada began to develop a policy on the research and rearing of GE fish. While it has never been finalized, the Department stated that portions of the policy will form the basis for some aspects of the regulations, particularly risk assessment.

6.79 Until the regulations are completed and listed under CEPA, 1999, Environment Canada retains overall responsibility for GE fish and other aquatic organisms with novel traits. In the interim, Environment Canada, Health Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada signed an agreement in May 2004. Under this agreement, Fisheries and Oceans Canada will provide advice and conduct risk assessments on behalf of Environment Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada also committed to developing a work plan and completing the regulations expeditiously.

6.80 Recommendation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada should determine whether or not it will develop regulations on genetically engineered (GE) fish. If it decides to proceed with regulations, it should identify a clear timeline for completing the regulations, establish a work plan, and report publicly on its progress.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada's response. The Department accepts the recommendation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada continues to respond to developments emerging in the field of GE fish. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) currently regulates the import or manufacture of these species. Under a Memorandum of Understanding signed between Environment Canada, Health Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada in May 2004, Fisheries and Oceans Canada has committed to administering the New Substances Notification Regulations under CEPA for aquatic organisms with novel traits. Along with our continued efforts to develop the scientific and risk assessment knowledge base for GE fish, the Department will regulate aquatic organisms with novel traits using existing CEPA authorities.

The Department has begun the development of internal processes for notification and risk assessment and will publish these processes on its Web site by the end of 2005.

The Department will review regulatory options, decide on a regulatory strategy, and develop appropriate timelines for regulatory action—by the end of 2005.

The Department will revise and finalize its policy on transgenic aquatic organisms by the end of 2005, incorporating regulatory requirements and current scientific assessment frameworks.

Research to support the regulations is underway

6.81 Fisheries and Oceans Canada is meeting its commitment to conduct research. The Department has a research laboratory in Vancouver where scientists have been producing faster-growing GE fish since the early 1990s to understand some of the environmental and indirect human health risks associated with them. Research at the laboratory has continued unabated over the last decade in order to determine the risks of GE fish and conduct risk assessments. Scientists say that funding for staff positions, which had been uneven over the years, is now fairly stable. (See photograph)

6.82 Fisheries and Oceans Canada has assessed its research needs and determined that it has limited knowledge of how a GE aquatic organism would interact in the natural environment. To date, research has been limited to the laboratory. Among other activities, scientists have identified the need to construct a contained artificial stream to study the way GE fish and wild fish interact in a more natural setting. The Department has stated that the kind of research needed to study the impact of GE fish on the natural environment would take more resources than presently allocated. The Department is working with Environment Canada and other federal departments to launch a research network to study the effects of novel organisms on the environment. Senior management at Fisheries and Oceans Canada has identified this research network as a priority.

6.83 The Department has also been working with other researchers in Canada and abroad. In March 2004, it held a meeting of scientific experts from several countries to discuss information gaps and areas of uncertainty related to GE fish. The Department informed us that this meeting helped to establish the state of science on examining the risks of GE fish, including the need for containment.

Ensuring secure, land-based containment of genetically engineered salmon

6.84 Given scientific uncertainty about the risks of GE salmon, Canada and other parties to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) agreed to guidelines on Transgenic Salmon in 1997. These guidelines direct member parties to take all possible action to contain transgenic salmon in secure, land-based facilities.

6.85 There are currently no GE fish being farmed commercially in Canada. However, in addition to Fisheries and Oceans Canada researchers, scientists with private companies, medical institutions, and universities are conducting research on GE fish or other aquatic organisms in Canada. At the time of our audit, eight facilities were involved in this kind of research. Three of them, aside from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's laboratory, are working with GE salmon. As a result, our audit examined the Department's action to ensure that these facilities are rearing GE salmon in secure, land-based facilities in keeping with the NASCO guidelines.

6.86 Fisheries and Oceans Canada has inspected the three GE salmon research facilities that it is aware of and is satisfied that the salmon are adequately contained. Existing regulations under the Fisheries Act require researchers to obtain a permit to transfer fish into their laboratories. Quarantine measures are required and the Department has stated that these satisfy the containment requirements under NASCO. Environment Canada has also inspected these research facilities, including Fisheries and Ocean Canada's research facility in Vancouver.

6.87 Fisheries and Oceans Canada needs to be aware of GE fish research being undertaken here. The Department has stated that it does not systematically monitor GE fish research in Canada. Nevertheless, it claims that it is aware of all research on GE fish being conducted in Canada.

6.88 Fisheries and Oceans Canada says that it depends on informal contacts within the research community to keep abreast of research developments for GE fish. The Department states that it keeps track of GE fish research activity because of requirements under its regulations that researchers obtain permits from the Department prior to all transfer or release of fish. However it says that it relies on researchers to be aware of regulatory requirements to obtain a permit for the transfer or release of fish. We noted that information about the Department's permit requirements is not posted on its Web site or otherwise systematically communicated to the public.

6.89 There are no specific provisions under Fisheries and Oceans Canada's regulations that require researchers to inform the Department that they are working with GE fish in their laboratory. In addition, research and development on GE fish and other aquatic organisms with novel traits is exempt from notification requirements under CEPA, 1999 and its associated regulations as long as there is no release of the organisms into the environment. Environment Canada has recognized that amendments may be needed to CEPA to include notification on research and development of genetically engineered organisms in order to be able to monitor research activities.

6.90 Fisheries and Oceans Canada is not effectively communicating the need for containment. The Department informed us that it communicated the need for containment to the research community during a series of consultations on its draft policy during the 1990s. We noted that it has not conducted any recent consultations.

6.91 The Department stated that it uses the draft policy on research and rearing of GE fish to inform the research community about the need for containment. However, none of this information is available on Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Web site. In addition, the policy sends mixed messages to researchers. For example, it contains references to situations where the rearing of GE fish in open net pens might be allowed and does not clearly state that all GE fish must be contained in secure, land-based facilities.

6.92 Recommendation. To minimize the risk of GE fish being released into the environment, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in consultation with Environment Canada, should ensure that requirements for containment of GE fish are clearly communicated to researchers. It should also address the gaps in notification of research activity involving GE fish and other aquatic organisms in Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada's response. The Department accepts the recommendation. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, in consultation with Environment Canada, will develop a comprehensive list of facilities undertaking research with GE fish by the end of 2004. This list will be used to update researchers on regulatory requirements and for consultations as we develop our policy on transgenic aquatic organisms.

The Department will update its Web site by the end of 2005 to ensure that access to relevant information for researchers involved with transgenic aquatic organisms is more user-friendly.

The exemption for notification of research activities involving transgenic organisms will be addressed as part of the upcoming review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, being led by Environment Canada with Fisheries and Oceans Canada's involvement. In addition, the Department will include consideration of notification issues in the development of policy and regulatory options for transgenic aquatic organisms.

The Department is appraised of issues related to notification of research and will continue to include these issues for consideration while developing policy and regulatory tools on an ongoing basis.

The Transit Pass Pilot Project

Getting on board with local initiatives

6.93 Payroll deduction transit pass programs are available in some urban centres across Canada. In return for a commitment to purchase a transit pass for a minimum length of time, customers receive a discount as well as a convenient means to pay for the pass. This type of transit pass program was launched in 2000 in the National Capital Region (NCR) by OC Transpo and the Société de Transport de l'Outaouais (STO). In January 2004, local transit authorities reported to us that over 65 companies and 6,800 people were participating in payroll deduction transit pass programs in the NCR. (See photograph)

6.94 The Treasury Board Secretariat was first approached by OC Transpo in 1999 to see if the federal government would participate in a payroll deduction transit pass program for federal employees (the ECOPASS Program). The government refused because it did not want to grant access to its payroll system for items other than work-related benefits or the government's United Way charity campaign.

6.95 The Government of Canada is one of the country's largest employers, with over 360,000 employees. Transport Canada recognizes that travel choices made by its employees can have an impact on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. In leading by example, the government can also have an impact on public awareness about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

6.96 After the government's refusal to sign on to a payroll deduction program, Arun Thangaraj joined with 75 other Canadians and sent a petition to our Office in June 2001. The petition asked the government to reconsider its decision. According to the petitioners, this kind of program would provide substantial savings for riders, increase the use of urban transit, and generate significant benefits such as reduced traffic congestion and lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

6.97 Our Office forwarded the petition to Environment Canada, Transport Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat, which have specific responsibilities related to this matter, as follows:

• Environment Canada is responsible for preserving and enhancing the quality of the natural environment, including air, and shares the lead responsibility for climate change with Natural Resources Canada.
• Transport Canada works to ensure safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly transportation.
• The Treasury Board Secretariat manages the government's financial, personnel, and administrative responsibilities.

6.98 In their October 2001 responses to the petition, the three departments committed to a pilot project to assess the effectiveness of a payroll deduction program to increase the number of federal employees using urban transit. The government saw this project as a way to address greenhouse gas and other air emissions that are a result of government business and employee commuting.

Focus of the audit

6.99 We set out to determine whether Environment Canada, Transport Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat had fulfilled their commitment to implement the pilot project and assess its effectiveness in increasing the number of federal employees using urban transit.

Observations

A trial project

6.100 The government met its commitment to develop a pilot project. In June 2002, it announced a year-long Transit Pass Pilot Project starting in November 2002. Under the project, federal employees in the National Capital Region who work for Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Transport Canada, and the Treasury Board Secretariat could purchase an annual transit pass at a reduced rate through monthly payroll deductions.

6.101 The main objective of the pilot project was to increase the number of public servants using urban transit. Other objectives were to

• demonstrate the Government of Canada's leadership on climate change through concrete visible action,
• reduce greenhouse gas and other air emissions, and
• increase awareness about climate change and air issues among employees in the four participating federal departments.

6.102 The pilot project was organized and managed by a working group of staff from the four departments and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). The four departments signed separate service agreements with the local transit authorities. Prior to launching the project, the PWGSC payroll system had to be modified. Departments actively communicated with eligible employees, and the working group took steps to monitor employee uptake.

Important steps taken to measure results

6.103 Two surveys were taken to provide the federal government with information on whether the objectives were met and whether the program should be extended. According to departmental officials, about 8,800 people were eligible to participate in the project. Transit authorities indicated that about 880 or 10 percent of all eligible employees could be expected to sign on to the project. A total of 915 employees chose to participate; 54 of them were new users of urban transit.

6.104 These results are consistent with a study by the Canadian Urban Transit Association, which found that, on their own, payroll deduction programs do not always attract significant numbers of new transit riders in the short term. A key impact of these programs is rider retention. When asked under what circumstances they would consider using urban transit more frequently, the majority of employees eligible to participate in the pilot project indicated that they would do so if transit service was faster, more frequent, or more reliable.

6.105 We noted that federal ministers supported the launch of the pilot project. The project was promoted through e-mails, posters, and press releases. Staff felt that their employer was showing leadership.

6.106 Federal employees indicated that they became more aware of air and climate change issues as a result of the project. Employees who participated in the project appreciated the opportunity to purchase a transit pass through payroll deduction. They cited convenience and the modest discount as reasons for their support of the project.

Administrative costs not fully assessed

6.107 Instituting the pilot project through the federal payroll system had an administration cost. Federal pay personnel became actively involved in issuing transit passes, reconciling numbers of staff enrolled each month with payments to the transit companies, and keeping track of employees who were cancelling their passes. The total cost to set up and administer the project was estimated at 405 person-days and an additional $225,000, much of which were one-time costs. These included costs to reprogram and modify its payroll system, promote the project, and evaluate the results. Departmental officials stated that the project represented good value for money.

6.108 In fall 2003, the government decided to expand the payroll deduction program to all federal departments and agencies in the National Capital Region. A project office has been established at Transport Canada to co-ordinate this roll-out. The government has also asked the Canadian Urban Transit Association to consult with its member transit systems and evaluate their readiness to move ahead with a national program for federal employees.

6.109 As the transit pass program is rolled out in the National Capital Region, the government will be assuming additional administrative duties on behalf of the transit authorities. The associated costs may not be significant, but they remain uncertain because the administrative costs were not estimated prior to this decision. In order to ensure that the government uses the most cost-effective tools available to accomplish its environmental objectives, any decision to expand the program further should be based on a clear assessment of costs and benefits.

6.110 Recommendation. Transport Canada, which will administer the project office for the payroll deduction program, should evaluate the costs relative to the benefits achieved before further expanding the program.

Transport Canada's response. The Department accepts the recommendation. Transport Canada, as the project lead for the transit pass program will continue to ensure that the cost benefits of the program are reviewed prior to full implementation.

As part of the pilot project evaluation, Transport Canada and the working group evaluated the costs and benefits of the project. The decision to move forward and expand the pilot project to the National Capital Region was based on a careful review of the costs with Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Once the transit pass program is implemented in the National Capital Region, Transport Canada will undertake a full cost-benefit analysis by fall 2005 before expanding such a program across Canada.

Conclusion

6.111 The environmental petitions process was established in 1995 as a tool for Canadians to get timely and substantive answers on environmental and sustainable development issues. Departments have a duty to maintain the integrity of the process.

6.112 We were generally pleased that most departments are responding in a timely and substantive manner to petitioners. However, petitioners are seldom informed of the outcome of actions promised and the end result of their petition. Departments need to do a better job of closing the loop with petitioners.

6.113 Through two audits (chapters 4 and 5), we verified facts contained in previous petition responses. Our audits found that some departments portrayed a more positive situation than was warranted. Departments should provide reliable information in their responses to petitions.

6.114 In their petition responses over the years, federal ministers have made commitments to act on the environmental concerns raised by petitioners. To determine whether these commitments have generated effective action by departments, we audited commitments in three petition responses. Our audits of commitments from past petition responses indicate the following:

• Petition No. 50A. Departments are taking action to implement their commitments concerning historic military dumpsites off Canada's Atlantic coast. Given the relatively short period since the start of the Underwater Unexploded Ordnance and Warfare Agent Disposal projects, it is too early to determine whether the departments will meet the timelines they have set. They have indicated that they are on target to complete their work on the projects by 2006 and 2008 respectively. Departments are taking steps to fulfill their commitments to communicate with stakeholders. However, departments have only just begun to take action on their commitment to develop a contingency plan.
• Petition No. 38A. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is meeting its commitment to conduct research to strengthen the risk assessment protocols, but there are still gaps in knowledge. The Department recognized the need for regulations in the early 1990s. However, 12 years have elapsed since it began work on the regulations and it has made little, if any, progress on them since the 2002 petition response. Fisheries and Oceans Canada has ensured that the facilities conducting research on GE salmon in Canada, of which it is aware, have been inspected and that the salmon are securely contained. However, the Department does not systematically monitor research on GE fish in Canada and is not effectively communicating containment and regulatory requirements to researchers.
• Petition No. 29. The federal government met its commitment to implement a transit pass pilot project. It measured the impact of the project and found there was a modest increase in ridership. The government needs to ensure that it is using the most cost-effective tools to accomplish its objectives as further expansion of the transit pass program is considered.

About the Audits

Objective

As part of audits conducted of strategic environmental assessment and the management of salmon (see chapters 4 and 5 of this report), claims made in petition responses were verified.

The objective of our three audits of commitments made in past petition responses (military dumpsites off Canada's Atlantic coast, genetically engineered fish, and encouraging greater use of urban transit by federal public servants) was to determine whether departments had implemented commitments made in their responses to selected petitions.

Criteria

It is expected that in order to implement a petition commitment, the entity would have

• clearly identified the commitment and what it means for the entity;
• planned its implementation;
• carried out the planned implementation, including communicating any changes as required; and
• determined that the commitment had been met and, where appropriate, evaluated the degree to which it addressed the overall issues raised in the petition.

Scope and approach

To determine which petition responses to audit, we reviewed all petitions and responses received by 18 July 2003. We selected the three petitions for audit using the following criteria:

• materiality/significance of the issue;
• risk that Canadians were not getting value for money and potential risk to the environment;
• sensitivity of the issue;
• federal mandate;
• availability of evidence/objectivity of information about the issue and the commitment made;
• auditability; and
• timeliness.

The audit work focussed solely on the commitments contained in petition responses. We conducted interviews and field work to determine whether and how well the commitments were being met. We collected data and evidence of implementation of the commitments, along with appropriate documentation. Some quantitative information in this chapter is based on data drawn from various federal and other sources indicated in the text. We are satisfied with the reasonableness of the data, given their use in our chapter. However, the data have not been audited, unless otherwise indicated in the chapter.

Audit team

Principal: Neil Maxwell
Directors: Steven Morgan, Jim McKenzie

Christine Allen
Elissa Cohen
Peter MacInnis
Adrienne Scott

For information, please contact Communications at (613) 995-3708 or
1-888-761-5953 (toll-free).

Definitions:

Acid rock drainage—The result of a reaction of sulphur-containing minerals exposed to air and water, producing toxic run-off that can potentially cause damage to ecosystems downstream. Acid rock drainage is associated mainly with the mining of coal, copper, and other base and precious metals. (Back)

Genetically engineered organism—An organism whose genes have been altered in a way that does not happen in nature.
Source: Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Back)

Transgenic organism—a type of genetically engineered organism that has had genes from the same or another organism added to it. For example, genes from a cold-tolerant fish can be put into Atlantic salmon so the salmon are able endure cold temperatures. (Back)