Environmental Petitions

Main Points

What we examined

This is the annual report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to Parliament on the environmental petitions process as required by the Auditor General Act. It reports on new petitions received between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2005.

We audited selected responses to previous environmental petitions to determine whether action had been taken by Natural Resources Canada to update the Nuclear Liability Act, by Environment Canada to establish guidelines for designating a species at risk, and by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada to reduce the environmental impacts of hog farming.

Why it's important

The environmental petitions process allows Canadians to formally present their concerns about environmental issues to federal ministers and obtain a response. The process allows both citizens and organizations to ask that ministers investigate environmental problems, explain federal policy, or examine the enforcement of environmental legislation.

Petitions have resulted in commitments by ministers and action by departments on environmental issues. For the petitions process to work effectively for Canadians, petitioners need to clearly present the issues and questions that concern them and make sure their facts are correct. Departments must respond to petitions within 120 days and ensure that the responses clearly address all issues raised in the petitions.

Monitoring and auditing petition responses allows us to further examine issues that Canadians have raised and that may not have otherwise been brought to our attention. Through these audits, we assess whether federal ministers are meeting commitments to act on issues raised in petitions.

What we found

• Report on petitions process. Statements and commitments made by federal ministers address important issues raised by Canadians through the petitions process. However, in those responses we audited this year, we found that progress on addressing the issues has been slow.
• Insurance for nuclear operators. In his response to two petitions, the Minister of Natural Resources committed to updating the Nuclear Liability Act to increase the mandatory amount of insurance carried by operators of nuclear facilities to compensate those who may suffer injury or damage in the event of an accident. However, the Act has not yet been revised. As a result, insurance coverage in Canada remains at a level established almost 30 years ago and is considerably lower than the coverage in other major industrialized nations.
• Guidelines for listing species at risk. The Species at Risk Act was introduced in 2002 to protect and recover species at risk. In response to a petition, the Minister of the Environment committed to establishing guidelines for deciding which species to protect by designating them at risk. Environment Canada has indicated that these guidelines will not be in place until 2006. In the meantime, decisions are being made without the benefit of guidelines intended to make the government's decision-making process more consistent and transparent.
• Impacts of hog farming. As a result of two petitions, we audited actions by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada to reduce the environmental impacts of hog farming. We found that the departments do not know if their programs and activities are reducing those impacts. For example, Environment Canada cannot yet demonstrate that its efforts have increased compliance with the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has yet to clarify its strategic approach to address the environmental impacts of hog farming. Although the Department has made progress in measuring the impacts of agriculture on the environment, it is not effectively communicating or monitoring the implementation of its beneficial management practices for hog farming.

The departments have responded. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, and Natural Resources Canada have accepted our recommendations. Their responses, which follow the recommendations in the chapter, indicate the actions departments will take and when they will be undertaken.

Introduction

8.1 In his environmental petition, Ontario resident Tom Edwards claims that he has been unable to work since 18 May 2001. On that day, while working in a shipping department of a private company, he cut the packing tape securing a pallet that had arrived from Hong Kong. According to Mr. Edwards, he was covered by Dinex, a toxic pesticide not registered for use in Canada, and it affected his health. He stated that the container holding the pallet was not properly marked. This incident prompted Mr. Edwards to submit a petition to our Office (petition 126A) to examine whether chemicals not registered for use in Canada were shipped in a container that was not properly marked. We forwarded his petition to Transport Canada and Health Canada. (See photograph)

8.2 In its response, Transport Canada stated, among other things, that if a container is fumigated with dangerous goods, entryways through which a person can enter a container must be marked with a fumigation sign. The Department informed Mr. Edwards that to conduct an investigation into the issue, it would need positive identification of the powder in question. The Minister of Health acknowledged the seriousness of the incident and informed the petitioner that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or the Office of the Worker Adviser in Ontario may have additional information and advice.

8.3 On 4 March 2005, Mr. Edwards submitted a follow-up petition (petition 126B) with a laboratory report indicating that the chemical that he was exposed to was Dinex. In this petition, Mr. Edwards further questioned the procedures in place to prevent a similar incident from occurring and requested other actions from departments. We forwarded his petition to the Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and Transport Canada. Their responses will be available on our Web site once we receive them (www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english).

8.4 This is just one example of an issue raised in an environmental petition. Any Canadian resident, organization, business, or municipality can submit an environmental petition to the Auditor General of Canada and receive a response from the responsible federal minister(s). Petitions must address environmental issues involving the federal government. Exhibit 8.1 provides more information on the petitions process and the role of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

Focus of the chapter

8.5 The purpose of this chapter is to report to Parliament and Canadians on the use of the petitions process and on our monitoring of petitions received between 1 July 2004 and 30 June 2005. We also report on findings from three audits that we conducted based on selected petition responses.

Annual report on petitions received

Using the petitions process

8.6 We received 37 petitions this year. The petitions came from most parts of the country (Exhibit 8.2), and this is the first year that we received a petition from Nunavut (petition 131). This petitioner claims that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has not established a general environmental monitoring program in Nunavut, as required under the terms of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Most petitions continue to come from individual Canadians, as well as small local or regional organizations and grass-roots coalitions. We noted an increase in petitions dealing with Aboriginal issues over the last two years.

8.7 An overview of petitions activity during our reporting period (1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005) is in Appendix A. It includes summaries of all new petitions received since July 2004. Petitions and responses are posted in our Petitions Catalogue on our Web site (www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/petitions.nsf/english) after they are tabled in Parliament.

Maintaining the integrity of the process

8.8 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 substantive response that clearly addresses the questions and other requests made in petitions?

8.9 Most departments are responding on time. Departments are generally meeting the requirements of the Auditor General Act and responding to petitions within the mandatory timeline of 120 days (Exhibit 8.3). However, there are some exceptions, including Health Canada, which was late in responding to three out of seven petitions this year. Last year we reported that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada was not meeting the deadlines. The Department has since responded to all outstanding petitions from last year and set in place an internal protocol for ensuring timely responses to petitions. We are pleased to note that this year, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has responded to all petitions on time.

8.10 Departments need to address petitioners' requests. Departments can ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the petitions process by providing substantive responses that clearly address all matters raised by the petitioners. As part of our monitoring role, we review responses to petitions 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 they were vague and conveyed little meaningful information. This year a number of petitioners have contacted our Office, concerned that issues raised in their petitions have not been sufficiently addressed by departments.

8.11 For example, in our assessment of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's response to a petition on the protection of fish habitat in British Columbia (petition 127), submitted by West Coast Environmental Law, we noted that the Department's response did not explicitly address all questions posed by the petitioner. As a result of follow-up discussions with our Office and the petitioner, the Department agreed to review its response and provide additional information, where appropriate, to the petitioner.

8.12 Where more than one department has provided a separate response to a petition, it is not always evident that all questions have been addressed. When departments choose to respond separately, it would be helpful if they consulted with each other to ensure that all issues and questions have been addressed appropriately.

8.13 The response of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, and Health Canada to petition 125, which dealt with the regulation of genetically modified plants, is a good example of a clear and succinct joint response. In the response, the departments repeated the questions or issues from the petition and addressed each of them in turn. The departments clearly stated where further action is being taken and also where they would be taking no further action.

8.14 Some departments are providing a point of contact in their responses. This can help petitioners follow up, if required, in a more timely manner, and may avoid the need for another petition on the same subject. Fisheries and Oceans Canada informed us that it has put in place a procedure to follow up with petitioners when it promises action in its response.

8.15 Petitioners' requests for action or information need to be clear. We commonly receive petitions in which the request or issue that the petitioner is trying to convey is not clear. In these cases, it is difficult for departments to determine what the petitioners would like to know or what results they are looking for. Petitioners can obtain the best results if their requests are clear, and if they provide relevant background and ensure that the facts in their petition are accurate.

8.16 Our Office reviews petitions prior to forwarding them to departments in order to ensure that they meet legislative requirements and that they are clear and understandable. However, if a petition meets the basic requirements of our Act, but it is neither clear nor understandable and the petitioner does not wish to clarify the contents, we forward the petition as is. Departments have indicated to us that dealing with petitions that are not clear is frustrating. We have noted that unclear petitions have resulted in responses that were vague, and petitioners have subsequently submitted follow-up petitions. The need for a follow-up petition can often be avoided if the original petition request is clear.

8.17 This year we noted that, in their responses, departments have corrected information in petitions. It is the petitioner's responsibility to check the facts prior to submitting a petition to our Office.

8.18 The petitions process is a valuable tool for Canadians to draw attention to particular areas of concern and be entitled to a response from the relevant federal ministers and departments. In order for this process to be efficient and effective, both departments and petitioners need to do their share to maintain the integrity of the process.

Audits of petition responses

8.19 In their responses over the years, federal ministers have made statements or commitments to act on the environmental concerns raised by petitioners. Reporting on the status of selected commitments is part of our monitoring role. This year, we followed up on findings from our 2003 audit of a commitment made by Health Canada to update the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality for trichloroethylene (TCE) (see 2003 Report, Chapter 4—Environmental Petitions). The findings from this follow-up are included in this year's report, Chapter 4, Safety of Drinking Water: Federal Responsibilities (paragraph 4.24).

8.20 We also conducted the following three audits based on selected petition responses:

• First, we examined whether Natural Resources Canada took action to revise the insurance requirements of the Nuclear Liability Act (petitions 60A and 60B).
• Second, we examined whether Environment Canada put in place guidelines to accept or reject recommendations to protect species at risk (petition 61).
• Third, we examined whether Environment Canada's enforcement and compliance promotion activities have reduced the impacts of hog farming on the environment and whether Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada knows if mitigation technologies and beneficial management practices that it supports are being adopted by farmers. This audit stemmed from departmental commitments and statements made in response to concerns raised in petitions 37 and 46.

8.21 For more information on the objectives, criteria, scope, and approach of our audits, see About the Chapter.

Insurance for nuclear operators

Accident insurance requirements at nuclear facilities are not in keeping with international standards

8.22 The Nuclear Liability Act came into force in 1976. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that funds are available to provide compensation to people who may have been injured or suffered damage as a result of an accident at a nuclear facility. Natural Resources Canada is responsible for federal policy relating to liability for nuclear damages and for the Nuclear Liability Act in particular.

8.23 The Nuclear Liability Act holds the nuclear operator responsible for assuming liability for any accidents, even in the event that they may have been caused by a third party. However, the Act limits an operator's liability to a maximum of $75 million. To put the liability limit into perspective: If, for example, there was an accident at a nuclear facility located in an urban area that affected one million people and an evacuation was required, each person would receive only $75 in compensation from the operator's insurance. If the amount of damage resulting from an accident exceeded $75 million, it is understood that the federal government and ultimately the taxpayer would be responsible for the balance.

8.24 In 2002 and 2003, Mr. Siegfried Kleinau submitted environmental petitions 60A and 60B to our Office. In his petitions, Mr. Kleinau stated, among other things, that the amount of insurance coverage required under the Nuclear Liability Act is insufficient. In his response of March 2003, the Minister of Natural Resources stated that "it is time to bring forward revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act to update it and bring it up to international standards." The objective of our audit was to provide an update on the Minister's commitment to revise the Act. (See photograph)

8.25 Insurance requirements in Canada have not changed or been adjusted for inflation since the Act came into force almost 30 years ago. If the Act required the liability coverage to be adjusted for current inflation rates, in 2005 Canadian nuclear operators would be required to carry $260 million of insurance. Canada's nuclear liability limits are lower than 12 other major industrialized nations with nuclear facilities (Exhibit 8.4). These countries have some combination of operator insurance, public funds, and/or industry pool that substantially exceeds what is required of Canadian operators.

8.26 In June 2001, the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources recommended that the government take immediate action to amend the Nuclear Liability Act and maintain the mandatory insurance coverage at a minimum of $600 million in order to be in line with international conventions. Natural Resources Canada did not formally respond to this recommendation.

8.27 Since 1976, when the Act came into force, a number of proposals from parliamentarians, including private members' bills and Senate recommendations, have been brought forward to improve the Act. According to departmental officials, the delay in revising this legislation is due to lengthy consultations, staff turnover, other federal priorities, and a lawsuit challenging the legality of the legislation.

8.28 The Nuclear Liability Act is almost 30 years old, and Canadian nuclear liability requirements are not in keeping with international standards. Although Natural Resources Canada has recognized that revisions to the Act are necessary, officials at the Department were unable to provide a timeline for when the Act would be revised.

8.29 Recommendation. Natural Resources Canada should begin preparatory work on revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act and submit policy proposals to the Minister by the end of 2005, in order to advance the commitment to bring forward revisions to the Act.

Natural Resources Canada's response. Natural Resources Canada agrees with the recommendation. The Department is undertaking significant policy work to ensure that the revisions required to the Nuclear Liability Act are addressed. The Department commits to completing its work on developing policy proposals for revisions to the Act by the end of 2005. The timeframe for bringing forward any revisions will be established by the government once the policy work is completed.

Guidelines for listing species at risk

Environment Canada expects guidelines to be in place in 2006

8.30 The Species at Risk Act was passed in December 2002, with most of the Act's provisions coming into force in June 2003. The purpose of the Act is to protect and recover species considered to be at risk that are found on federal lands or under federal jurisdiction and to protect their critical habitat.

8.31 Once certain species are put on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk, it is an offence to kill, harm, harass, or capture that species. The Act enables the federal government to protect species that are not being effectively protected by other jurisdictions. As of January 2005, there were 306 species designated at risk. Listed species are protected with a number of tools, including recovery strategies, action plans, and emergency orders. The Species at Risk Act is one part of a larger three-part federal strategy to protect species at risk. The Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk also form part of the strategy.

8.32 The Species at Risk Act calls on an expert scientific body—the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)—to inform Environment Canada on the biological status of species in Canada. The committee's assessments do not consider the social or economic implications of listing species. The status is determined based on the best available scientific knowledge, community knowledge, and Aboriginal traditional knowledge.

8.33 Environment Canada is the lead federal department for administering the Species at Risk Act, and one of its responsibilities is to post information on the public registry (www.sararegistry.gc.ca). If the species in question falls within its areas of expertise, Environment Canada must consult with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Parks Canada Agency before advising the Governor in Council which species to list as being at risk (Exhibit 8.5). The Act encourages the consideration of the socio-economic needs of Canadians while providing for the ecological needs of vulnerable species.

8.34 In November 2002, Ms. Heather Mills and Ms. Dorrie Wiwcharuk sent a petition to our Office requesting information about the criteria used to determine which species would be placed on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. In his response, the Minister of the Environment stated that the federal government was developing guidelines for dealing with those rare cases where he would not follow a COSEWIC recommendation to list a species as being at risk under the Act; however, he did not provide a timeframe for finalizing the new guidelines.

8.35 Since fall 2003, Environment Canada, with input from the Parks Canada Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and other stakeholders, has been drafting guidelines for listing species that COSEWIC has deemed to be at risk. The guidelines are intended to be a set of decision-making criteria that ministers should consider when recommending to the Governor in Council inclusion of a species on the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. These guidelines are intended to provide greater transparency to Canadians and consistency when advising on whether a species should be listed following a COSEWIC recommendation. (See photograph)

8.36 In November 2004, Environment Canada presented a draft copy of the guidelines to the Species at Risk Advisory Committee for review and comment. The Department told us that getting consensus from the various stakeholders will be quite difficult. It indicated that these guidelines will be finalized in 2006.

8.37 In the absence of these guidelines, the first set of listing decisions under the Species at Risk Act was made in October 2004. Out of the 79 species recommended for listing by COSEWIC, the Minister of the Environment recommended that COSEWIC further assess one species of fish. The Minister also recommended that Cultus Lake and Sakinaw Lake sockeye salmon not be added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk because of unacceptably high social and economic costs and difficulty in differentiating members of these two populations from the larger population of sockeye salmon species.

8.38 As a result, the Minister of the Environment recommended to the Governor in Council that 76 of the 79 species identified by COSEWIC be added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. In January 2005, the Governor in Council listed 73 of the species recommended by the Minister but did not list the polar bear, the northwestern population of the grizzly bear, and the western population of the wolverine because additional consultation was required.

8.39 In May 2005, the Minister of the Environment recommended that 43 additional species be added to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. One species, the plains bison, was not recommended for listing because of potential economic implications. At the time of our audit, the Governor in Council had not yet made a final decision on whether or not to list these species.

8.40 In 2006, Environment Canada plans to have final guidelines in place for dealing with cases where the Minister would not follow a COSEWIC recommendation to add a species to the List of Wildlife Species at Risk. In the meantime, listing decisions are being made. However, until these guidelines are in place, Environment Canada cannot ensure that decisions being made to list or not to list a species at risk are transparent or consistent.

Impacts of hog farming

8.41 Hog farming is an important agricultural activity in Canada. In 2004, Canadian farmers received $4.3 billion from the sale of hogs, according to Statistics Canada. This represents about 12 percent of total farm sales in Canada for that year. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reports that in 2004, Canada was the fifth largest producer and the third largest exporter of pork in the world. Canada exports over half the pork it produces, mainly to the United States and Japan, according to Statistics Canada.

8.42 Based on hog inventories prepared by Statistics Canada in 2005, the hog industry has expanded by almost 50 percent since 1981. The production of hogs is shifting from "farm to factory"—there has been a reduction in farms producing hogs and an increase in hogs on farms (Exhibit 8.6). In 1991, the average hog farm had 345 animals; in 2001, the number had increased to around 900. Some hog farms in Canada have reported as many as 10,000 hogs.

8.43 Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba lead Canada in hog production. In 2001, over half of all hogs in Canada were produced in Quebec and Ontario. Between 1991 and 2001, the number of hogs produced in Manitoba increased by 97 percent (Exhibit 8.7).

8.44 According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, a hog produces an average of about one tonne of manure per year. Hog manure contains nutrients that are valuable for crop production and that enhance soil properties when properly applied. However, some hog farms do not have enough land on which to spread the manure produced by their hogs or are located away from areas where field crops are produced. If manure is not properly stored or disposed of, it can contaminate the water, soil, and air. Potential impacts include the following:

• Contamination of water bodies by bacteria, such as E. coli, giardia, and others, can make water unfit for human use.
• Excess nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorus in water bodies, can result in algae growth, eutrophication, and fish kills.
• High concentrations of nutrients and heavy metals building up in the soils can be toxic to crops.
• Odours can result from manure storage facilities and field application.

As the concentration of intensive hog operations increases, so does the potential for negative impacts to human health and the environment.

8.45 Canadian scientists are still unsure of the effects that manure from hog farms has on water quality and human health. In May 2002, Quebec responded to the growth of the hog farming industry and citizens' concerns by putting in place a moratorium on the expansion of existing hog farms and on the development of new hog farm operations. Research is currently under way at Lake Huron and Lake Winnipeg to find out whether the eutrophication and bacterial contamination observed are related to the proximity of intensive agricultural activities.

8.46 Governing hog farms is a shared responsibility. Both federal and provincial governments have regulations and initiatives that deal with agricultural activities and the environment. Federal efforts by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada focus on research and development to reduce the environmental impacts from agriculture in general, and on compliance with and enforcement of the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. Provincial involvement includes, but is not limited to, issuing permits, licensing, enforcing laws and regulations on hog operations, specifying separation distances to wells, and placing restrictions on manure spreading. Local governments regulate building permits and zoning provisions.

8.47 Since 2002, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has received three environmental petitions from Canadians concerned about the potential impacts of hog farming on the environment and on their communities (petitions 37, 39, and 46). Based on statements made in petition responses 37 and 46, we audited Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's actions to reduce the impacts of hog farming on the environment.

Environment Canada cannot yet demonstrate that its compliance promotion and enforcement efforts at hog farms are effective

8.48 The Fisheries Act prohibits the direct or indirect deposit of deleterious substances into water frequented by fish. It is the primary federal statutory instrument for enforcement activities related to hog farming. Environment Canada administers and enforces the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. For the last three years, Environment Canada has identified the enforcement of these provisions as a priority. In its 1999 Business Case, Environment Canada noted that agriculture posed a risk to the environment and established it as a priority for enforcement under the Fisheries Act. The Department further stated that enforcement activities for this sector would focus on large feed lots. (See photograph)

8.49 Given the growth of the industry, the potential for environmental impacts, Environment Canada's enforcement priorities regarding the Fisheries Act, and the Minister's responses to petitions 37 and 46, we looked at Environment Canada's enforcement activities at hog farms. Our audit determined that it is typically the provinces that receive and deal with complaints about hog farming. Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have agreements with the federal government to co-operatively administer the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. Provinces can also use their own environmental legislation to enforce activities at hog farms. For example, the Province of Ontario received 62 complaints related to hog farming from April 2004 to February 2005, for such issues as manure spills, nuisance odours, and improper spreading practices. The Province convicted three hog farmers for discharging manure into the environment.

8.50 Environment Canada's enforcement activities at hog farms are mostly reactive. The Department initiates investigations of Fisheries Act violations only if it has received a complaint. According to Environment Canada's enforcement database, out of the approximate 7,600 Fisheries Act complaints the Department received from across the country between 2000 and 2004, about 37 complaints involved hog farming. Department officials told us that all complaints were investigated, and Environment Canada had prosecuted one hog farm for violating the Fisheries Act.

8.51 Compliance promotion is a priority for Environment Canada. Although Environment Canada's role in enforcement for hog farms is limited, the Department plays an important role in promoting compliance with the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. In 2003, Environment Canada created a new Compliance Assurance Branch. The goals of the branch are to improve the planning of compliance promotion and enforcement efforts and the effectiveness of analysis and reporting of compliance activities. This branch is tasked with determining priorities and fostering links between enforcement and compliance promotion. The Department promotes compliance by preparing and distributing guidelines and policies, consulting with industry associations and working groups, and preparing and presenting educational and training materials.

8.52 In its 2002 response to petition 37, Environment Canada stated that it will likely work on further compliance promotion and enforcement in the Lake Huron watershed, due to the large concentration of intensive livestock operations. It further committed to gathering data on watersheds with the greatest agricultural impacts. In our view, this will help the Department better direct some of its resources toward issues of highest priority.

8.53 The Department met its commitment in the context of the Ontario region. It has undertaken further compliance promotion and enforcement activities in the Lake Huron area. However, we found that the Department does not gather data on a national basis in order to direct resources toward issues of highest priority.

8.54 Environment Canada's compliance promotion activities yield mixed results. Environment Canada informed us that compliance promotion can be more efficient than enforcement. However, the Department has seen mixed results in its efforts to increase farmers' compliance with the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. In 2004, the Ontario region of the Department conducted a study at a watershed and found that its compliance promotion activities did not result in any significant new action or improved practices by farmers.

8.55 Environment Canada is working to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of its compliance promotion activities. The Department is developing indicators that will help determine if its actions are having an impact. For example, a pilot study on cattle access to water, conducted in a watershed in the Ontario region, indicated that compliance promotion and enforcement activities increased compliance by 20 percent in the study area. In addition, the Department is in the preliminary stages of developing a database to track and monitor its compliance promotion activities, as it currently does for its enforcement activities. However, the Department could not provide a timeline for when the database or the indicators will be in place.

8.56 Environment Canada does not track what it spends to enforce the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act . In 1998, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development recommended that Environment Canada keep comprehensive records on enforcement budgets and expenditures. The Department agreed to do so and has listed enforcement of Fisheries Act provisions as a priority for the last three years. We were therefore surprised to learn that the Department does not code its enforcement activities by Act or regulation and was not able to tell us how much it spends to enforce the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act. As of 2005, the Department had received $46 million in new funding to improve its compliance and enforcement program for legislation for which it is responsible, including the Fisheries Act. In our view, monitoring results and tracking what it spends to enforce the pollution prevention provisions would enable the Department to better direct its resources.

8.57 Environment Canada does not have a complete picture of who it regulates. Environment Canada is in the third year of a 10-year plan to collect information on those who should be regulated under the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. At this stage, the Department does not yet have all the information required to ensure that its enforcement and compliance promotion activities are being directed toward those who are at greatest risk of breaking the environmental laws that it is mandated to enforce.

8.58 Recommendation. In order to ensure that its compliance promotion and enforcement efforts related to hog farming are effective, Environment Canada should

• identify the regulated community,
• gather data on a national basis to direct or prioritize resources,
• monitor the impacts of its efforts, and
• keep comprehensive records on budgets and expenditures.

Environment Canada's response. Environment Canada agrees with the recommendation. It should be noted, however, that these recommended activities, although directed to hog farming, are relevant to all environmental issues where the Department has compliance promotion and enforcement responsibilities. The Department uses priority-setting mechanisms for both compliance promotion and enforcement activities under the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. These mechanisms allow for the consideration and prioritization of all issues, including hog farming.

Identification of all hog farms in Canada will be done in fiscal year 2006–07, in collaboration with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and provinces. This will help Environment Canada identify watersheds with the greatest agricultural impacts across Canada, and compliance promotion and enforcement efforts regarding hog farming issues will be more easily directed to issues of highest priority. This priority-setting exercise would need to consider the ongoing efforts by provinces and others to reduce the environmental impacts of hog farming operations. For example, many provinces have recently developed nutrient management regulations, which are also supported by various voluntary measures under the Agricultural Policy Framework.

To improve monitoring of the impacts of its efforts, Environment Canada will continue to track its compliance promotion and enforcement activities. The Department will also continue to pilot a database that could be used nationally.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's strategic approach to reducing the environmental impacts of hog farming is not clear

8.59 In 1998, the hog industry asked Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to re-examine its role and work with industry and the provinces to develop a more comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to the environmental issues faced by the hog industry. The Department and the hog industry conducted a review of the environmental challenges and together recommended that a strategic approach was needed to determine priorities in research, technology development, and dissemination.

8.60 Also in 1998, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced it would spend $2 million to develop a hog environmental management strategy. The purpose of the strategy was to develop a national approach to finding effective and affordable solutions to the environmental challenges of the hog industry by 2001. During our audit, the Department informed us that its efforts focussed on research, technology development, and communications, but that a hog environmental management strategy had not been developed.

8.61 In our 2001 Report (see Chapter 1—A Legacy Worth Protecting: Charting a Sustainable Course in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin), we observed that a strategic approach to deal with the environmental impacts of hog farming was more important than ever. Our audit concluded that it was not clear if the initiatives of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada would produce the strategic, well-co-ordinated effort that was needed to assist farmers.

8.62 In 2001, the Agricultural Policy Framework moved the Department from a sector-based approach to an issue-based approach. The environmental component of the framework focusses on reaching goals in the areas of air, water, soil, and biodiversity. Programs dealing with the environmental impacts of hog farming, including those developed under the framework, are listed in Hog farming programs and initiatives. Department officials told us that the responsibility for developing a strategic and comprehensive vision for the hog sector, as requested by industry, is now deferred to the Pork Value Chain Roundtable. The Roundtable's Strategy for Canada's Pork Industry, dated May 2005, identifies environmental issues as a major concern and notes that action here could improve the sustainability of the pork sector. However, we found that only one of the 57 specific actions identified by the Roundtable addresses environmental matters.

8.63 Based on previous audit observations and on commitments from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada dating back to 1998, we expected that the Department would have developed a hog environmental management strategy. In our view, it is still not clear if the Department has a comprehensive, strategic approach to help farmers reduce the environmental impacts of hog farming and work toward a sustainable hog industry.

8.64 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada leads programs to reduce the environmental impacts of hog farming. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has made progress in gathering baseline data and has led many programs and initiatives to address the environmental issues arising from hog production in Canada. In 2002, the Department partnered with Statistics Canada to conduct a Farm Environmental Management Survey. About 16,000 farms, including hog farms, were surveyed to collect baseline information. A follow-up survey is planned for 2007. This information will be used by the Department to measure the impacts of agriculture on the environment through the National Agri-Environmental Health Analysis and Reporting Program (NAHARP).

8.65 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has started to monitor the environmental impacts of agriculture through NAHARP and the Farm Environmental Management Survey Program. We expected that the Department would also monitor the results of its programs in order to better direct its resources. However, it does not always do so, and therefore the Department does not know if its programs are achieving their expected results.

8.66 For example, in 2000, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced $2.3 million for the Livestock Environment Initiative to assist industry in addressing environmental concerns. The initiative wrapped up with a symposium that shared research findings. However, the Department did not follow up to verify whether the objectives of the program were met, including development of pilot projects or the transfer of technology.

8.67 Further, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada announced it would spend $300,000 to develop a standard to promote responsible environmental management of hog operations in Canada. The standard was published in March 2004 by the Canadian Standards Association. However, during our audit the Department could not provide plans to monitor or assess the implementation of this standard to determine if it has had an impact at the farm level. Department officials advised us that a proposal to test the implementation of the standard on a pilot basis was approved in principle on 16 May 2005.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is not effectively communicating or monitoring its beneficial management practices

8.68 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada also develop and fund mitigation technologies and beneficial management practices for hog farming. Although we examined research activities conducted at Environment Canada's National Water Research Institute, our audit focussed mainly on the programs developed at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada because they are designed to produce results at the farm level. Exhibit 8.8 provides an example of a beneficial management practice developed by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

8.69 Environment Canada conducts research related to hog farming primarily through its National Water Research Institute. Research activities to date have focussed on the impacts of manure on water quality and are undertaken with a variety of stakeholders, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Environment Canada works to identify important emerging issues, including investigating the cause of the beach closures at Lake Huron. However, scientists indicated that there are still gaps in knowledge about the impact of hog farming on the environment and that beneficial management practices in this area need more work.

8.70 Progress is slow. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is working to deliver beneficial management practices to hog farmers through its Environmental Farm Plan Program and its National Farm Stewardship Program. The Department informed us that it can take up to 10 years to develop and implement such practices at the farm level. It provided a list of 10 categories of beneficial management practices for hog farming that have been developed with stakeholders. The implementation of the National Farm Stewardship Program, which provides funding to farmers for implementing beneficial management practices, hinges on the voluntary completion of environmental farm plans by farmers. The Department projects that about 66,530 environmental farm plans will be developed or updated by 2008. Currently, about 25 percent of this total have been reviewed and accepted under the Agricultural Policy Framework, and those that were completed prior to the framework are under review for approval. Information provided by the Department notes that delays in the development of environmental farm plans can lead to delays in other programs, including the National Farm Stewardship Program. (See photograph)

8.71 Beneficial management practices are not effectively communicated. In 1999, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada funded a research project to look into fostering a sustainable hog industry. The report recommended that beneficial management practices be incorporated into a database to promote their implementation by hog farmers. Accordingly, we expected that the Department's beneficial management practices would by now be made available on a database that farmers and others could readily access. This database could also assist Environment Canada with its compliance promotion efforts. However, we found that no central database of this nature is available. Recent surveys of farm practices found that many farmers are still not using beneficial management practices.

8.72 A recent Statistics Canada study indicates a wide variation among regions in knowledge and implementation of beneficial management practices to deal with hog manure. For example, in 2001, 95 percent of livestock farmers in Quebec were familiar with beneficial management practices for manure management, compared with 45 percent in Saskatchewan and 63 percent in Manitoba. Department officials told us that outside the prairie provinces, programming related to federal beneficial management practices is delivered by provincial governments and by third-party industry groups. On the prairies, these federal programs are delivered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The Department identified the need for a national approach to communication in this area and is currently developing consistent information for all provinces and regions. However, the Department currently cannot demonstrate that beneficial management practices and mitigation technologies are communicated consistently across the country or made readily available to farmers who need them.

8.73 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not know if the beneficial management practices it supports are cost-effective. The Department's 1999 research report concluded that it was necessary to be able to demonstrate results and feasibility for new technologies for manure management and treatment to ensure the widespread acceptance of these technologies by hog producers. During our audit, the Department was unable to provide information on what it would actually cost a farmer to implement beneficial management practices. Without important cost information, hog farmers are unlikely to implement innovative practices that could reduce the impacts of hog farming on the environment.

8.74 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada does not monitor the uptake of its beneficial management practices. The Department has made progress in gathering baseline data on environmental issues related to hog farming through its Farm Environmental Management Survey and NAHARP. However, the Department does not currently monitor the implementation of these practices by farmers and cannot report on a national basis on the effectiveness of the practices it supports. Tracking which practices work well and where they work well on a national basis would ensure that the Department is allocating its resources effectively.

8.75 Recommendation. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada should clarify its approach to addressing the environmental impacts of hog farming and clearly communicate the approach to all stakeholders, in order to encourage a sustainable hog industry. The Department should also effectively communicate its beneficial management practices and monitor their implementation.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's response. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada accepts the recommendations of the Office of the Auditor General. The Department is developing a communications plan to address the Environment Element of the Agricultural Policy Framework. This includes communications to producers about environmental stewardship, farm planning, and beneficial management practices that relate to hog and other kinds of farming activities. To clarify the approach and communicate it to all its stakeholders, the Department will improve the Framework's Environment Element on its Web site. The site will provide national and provincial information, as well as appropriate links to program delivery agents. The link to ManureNet, a national Web site, will be made more prominent. This site is dedicated to manure management issues in Canada and provides information including research projects, acts, regulations, guidelines, fact sheets, and new technologies. The timeline for completing this project is March 2006. The Department also commits to improving the communication of its environmental strategy through the next Sustainable Development Strategy.

To communicate beneficial management practices, the Department will work to improve the availability of information for producers on relevant programs under the Agricultural Policy Framework. Direct communications with producers on beneficial management practices will also continue on a regional basis through provincial Environmental Farm Planning programs, and by provincial delivery agents of the National Farm Stewardship Program (NFSP). The timeline for completing this project is March 2006. To monitor the implementation of beneficial management practices, the Department will continue to collect information on implementation of these practices through delivery agents of the NFSP. Information will be stored in a national database. This information will also be used to support program refinements to foster increased implementation of the practices by all producers by March 2008. Through agri-environmental indicators, the Department will also continue to assess the broad impact of adopting beneficial management practices on the environment. Agri-environmental indicators are reported on a five-year basis, with the next report due in 2005.

Conclusion

8.76 Petitions have resulted in departments taking action on environmental issues. In order for the petitions process to be an effective tool, the integrity of the process must be maintained by both petitioners and departments. Petitioners can do this by clearly presenting their issues and questions and making certain that their facts are correct. Departments are responsible for responding in a timely manner and ensuring that all issues raised in petitions are clearly addressed.

8.77 As part of our monitoring role, we audited selected commitments made by Natural Resources Canada and Environment Canada in response to petitions. We found the following:

• Natural Resources Canada has yet to revise the Nuclear Liability Act. The Act is almost 30 years old and the current insurance requirements are significantly lower than those imposed in 12 other major industrial countries with nuclear facilities.
• Environment Canada expects to have guidelines in place in 2006 to assist the government when deciding to accept or reject a science-based decision by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). These guidelines are intended to provide greater consistency and transparency in decisions on whether to designate a species at risk.

8.78 In our audit on the impacts of hog farming, we found that Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada do not know if their programs and activities are reducing the impacts of hog farming on the environment. Specifically, we found the following:

• Environment Canada met its commitment in its petition response for the Ontario region. However, the Department does not currently monitor or track its compliance promotion activities and cannot yet demonstrate that its efforts related to hog farming have resulted in an increase in farmers' compliance with the pollution prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act.
• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has yet to clarify its strategic approach to addressing the environmental impacts of hog farming and clearly communicate the approach to all stakeholders, in order to encourage a sustainable hog industry. The Department has made progress in measuring the impacts of agriculture on the environment in general and has developed beneficial management practices and mitigation technologies to deal with the impacts of hog farming. However, it cannot demonstrate that these practices are communicated consistently and made readily available to farmers.

About the Chapter

Objectives

Annual report on petitions. The objective of this chapter is to inform Parliament and Canadians on the use of the petitions process and our monitoring of commitments and statements made in response to specific petitions.

Audits of petition responses. The objective of our audits of petitions 60A, 60B, and 61 was to provide an update on

• Natural Resources Canada's commitment to "bring forward revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act to update it and bring it up to international standards," and
• Environment Canada's commitment to "develop guidelines [for legally listing species under the Species at Risk Act]."

The objective of our audit of the impacts of hog farming was to determine whether

• Environment Canada's compliance promotion and enforcement activities are making a difference with respect to the impacts of hog farming on water quality, and
• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada know if mitigation technologies and best management practices that they developed are being adopted by farmers.

This objective stems from commitments made by departments in response to petitions 37 and 46.

• "We [Environment Canada] are also gathering data on watersheds with the greatest agricultural impacts so that we can better direct some of our resources toward issues of the highest priority. Because of the large concentration of intensive livestock operations in the Lake Huron watershed, it is likely that we will be working on further compliance promotion and enforcement there."
• "My department [Environment Canada] also works with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to address hog manure impacts....We are also developing mitigation technologies and best management practices that can be adopted by farmers."

Criteria

It is expected that in order to implement the commitments in a response to a petition, 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 before 1 July 2004. We selected petition responses for audit using the following criteria:

• materiality/significance of the issue,
• risk that Canadians were not getting value for money and 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.

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 its use in our chapter. However, the data has not been audited, unless otherwise indicated in the chapter.

Audit team

Principal: John Affleck
Directors: Steven Morgan, Kimberley Leach

Christine Allen
Elizabeth Andersen
Elissa Cohen
Vivien Lo
Josée Petitclerc
Lyndsay Vidito

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

Definitions:

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)—The committee assesses the status of wildlife species in Canada that may be at risk of extinction. It is currently made up of 30 members from the provinces and territories, federal agencies, Aboriginal groups, and other organizations. (Back)

Governor in Council—A reference to the Governor General, acting with the advice and consent of Privy Council, who may, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Environment, amend the List of Wildlife Species at Risk by adding, reclassifying, or removing a species. (Back)

Eutrophication—A process that occurs when too many nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) enter a water body. These nutrients increase the growth of algae and other species that deplete the available oxygen in water, which can kill fish and other aquatic life. (Back)

Compliance promotion—Efforts by the government, including educational programs and technical assistance, to encourage voluntary compliance with legislation. (Back)

Agricultural Policy Framework—Approved in 2001, the framework is designed to help the Canadian agricultural industry maximize new opportunities by safeguarding and enhancing the food safety and quality system through science and environmentally sound practices. The five elements of the framework are food safety and quality, environment, science and innovation, renewal, and business risk management. (Back)

Beneficial management practice—A farm production or management practice that contributes to reducing environmental risks or realizing environmental benefits from agriculture. (Back)