---

Petition example 1: Direct

Environmental Petition

Contact Information

Name of Petitioner: #####

Address of Petitioner: #####

Telephone numbers: #####

Email address: #####

Name of Group: Manolis L Citizens Response Committee (MLCRC)

I hereby submit this petition to the Auditor General of Canada under section 22 of the Auditor General Act.

Signature of petitioner: #####

Date: February 8, 2015

Title of petition

Oil leaks from the Manolis L in Notre Dame Bay Newfoundland

Background Information:

On January 18th 1985 a Liberian cargo carrier the Manolis L. traveling out of Botwood NewfoundlandNL went off course and hit Blowhard Rock in Notre Dame Bay NL. The ship sank having approximately 462 tonnes of fuel oil and 60 tonnes of diesel oil on board.

The report from Fisheries and Oceans Canada at the time detailed the incident and identified the area as “an ecologically sensitive area in view of the local wildfowl.”

After an initial small scale cleanup immediately after the incident, the Manolis L. was left on the ocean floor with the bulk of its fuel contained in metal containers that have been slowly deteriorating in the salt water.

In March 2013 following an extreme storm in the area, there were numerous reports of oiled seabirds as well as oil on the surface of the water.

In April 2013 the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) sent down a remote operated vehicle (ROV) to examine the hull of the Manolis L. Apparently the ship had shifted in the storm and oil was discovered to be leaking from the hull. The CCG installed a neoprene seal over the leak.

A spokesperson for CCG, stated that “this will afford us the opportunity to investigate what the next best step will be. We are dealing with a very complex and dangerous situation. We have had some preliminary consultation with international salvagers. We are looking into every possibility that we can do in this situation.

There continued to be reports of oil on the ocean and a further ROV inspection revealed that oil was leaking from cracks further along the hull in an area too damaged to be able to be sealed with a neoprene seal.

On July 19, 2013 a coffer dam was placed over the newly discovered leak. A cofferdam is basically an inverted metal bowl placed over the leak which catches the oil after it leaks from a crack in the hull.

There continued to be reports of oil in August, September and October. On October 17th, 2013 the CCG did a further ROV survey and a communications person for Fisheries and Oceans stated that the seal and the cofferdam were working well. The ROV footage from that time which was obtained by the Manolis L Citizens Response Committee show a further leak which was beside the cofferdam and not captured.

In Early December 2013 there were reports of oil on the shoreline in the area. A CCG spokesperson was quoted as saying “We are looking at long term plans. Department of Fisheries and OceansDFO and the Coast Guard have 5 or 6 expressions of interest from salvage operators.”

On December 21st, 2013 there were reports of larger amounts of oil blackening the wharves with seals and sea birds dying from the oil as well. CCG investigated and reported that the oil was released from the shifting of the cofferdam in the storm. It was estimated that there was a maximum of 3,200 of the 600,000 liters that were released.

On January 18th, 2014 a new cofferdam was put into place which supposedly covered all of the leaks in that one area of the hull. On January 28th 2014, Minister Gail Shea is quoted as saying “the Coast Guard will continue to monitor the situation very closely and take the necessary steps to protect the environment.”

In the spring of 2014 the CCG emptied and replaced the cofferdam however there was leakage of oil during the process with further damage to the environment.

Due to weather conditions in the fall of 2014 emptying of the cofferdam couldn’t take place until December of 2014 and again there was a spill of oil from the operation. There were estimates that 1,300 liters of oil were captured in the cofferdam but that a third of this amount was spilled.

In January 2015 there were reports of an oil slick as well as a dying seal and sea birds in the Cape Freels area which would be in the direction of the currents from the area of the Manolis L.

In January 2015 the MLCRC met with a CCG spokesperson and he reported that there have been 5 leaks identified to date. Weighted neoprene seals were placed on 2 leaks in one section of the hull. A cofferdam has been placed over the leak with a neoprene seal over a leak beside the cofferdam. There is also a periodic leak from the other end of the hull which is covered by an additional seal.

The CCG spokesperson further confirmed that CCG are doing containment only. The CCG spokesperson gave the MLCRC a brief overview of the Emergency Response Plan that is in place to react to a larger spill. There are 4 mobile response units that can be deployed in the event of an incident however it was also confirmed that the oil can only be removed in suitable weather and that there are severe limitations regardingre ice conditions.

Petition questions and/or requests

1. We would like to ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of the Environment and any other responsible departments to provide copies of the reports of the operations that have occurred including remove operated vehicle surveys and the recommendations made with regard to permanent solutions needed.
2. We would like to see an outline of the Department of Fisheries and the Canadian Coast Guard and any other responsible departments plans for the permanent resolution to the Manolis L situation that ensures that all pollutants inside the vessel be removed to prevent an environmental disaster in Notre Dame Bay. Given the unpredictable nature of the weather and the short time period dictated by the weather we would ask for a timeline for this operation.
3. In the event that there is a full or partial breach of one of the tanks on the Manolis L., and oil leaks out into the bay in a larger amount, we would like to ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of the Environment and any other responsible departments, what emergency response measures have been put in place to mitigate the damage and clean up the pollutants.
4. We would further ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Department of the Environment and any other responsible department if the use of Corexit or other dispersants would be used in any cleanup.
5. We would further ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Canadian Coast Guard and any other responsible department what plans would be in effect if a larger leak occurs in ice season when access to the ship and to the ocean would be severely restricted.
6. We ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard for any information as to costs already incurred for the operations that have taken place to date, including remote operating vehicle surveys, aerial surveillance, patching of the hull, manufacture and installation of cofferdams and cleanup of oil spills occurring each time the cofferdams are emptied.
7. We have been told by our Canadian Coast Guard liaison that clean up costs and funds needed to remove the oil can not come from the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund as there was a settlement made between the Canadian Coast Guard and the SOPF shortly after the sinking of the Manolis L. that covered only the initial cleanup. We would ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard to provide details of this settlement and reasons why this precludes a further claim for removal of the oil from the ship.
8. We request that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard do a full cost analysis of an operation to remove the oil from the Manolis L. as well as a cost analysis of the clean up of an oil spill of 500,000 liters of oil from Notre Dame Bay including projected environmental and economic cost given that this is an environmentally sensitive area and given that a spill of this magnitude would destroy the fisheries and the tourism in the region.

---

Petition example 2: Moderately detailed

Environmental Petition

Name of petitioner: #####

Address of petitioner: #####

Telephone number: #####

Email address: #####

I hereby submit this petition to the Auditor General of Canada under section 22 of the Auditor General Act.

Signature of petitioner: #####

Date: March 19th, 2015

Implementation of climate change adaptation and mitigation measures in the Canadian North.

Background information:

The areal extent, thickness, and concentration of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has strongly decreased in recent decades.^{Footnote 1} Since 2002 there have been near-record minimums, with arctic sea ice extents being far less than both recorded pre‑1980 levels and the median extent of the 1980-2000 period.^{Footnote 2} Losses in September monthly average sea ice extent have been shown by satellite records to be more than 11 percent per decade since 1979 (reaching a yearly extant minimum in 2013 approximately 3.4 million kilometers squaredkm2 less than the mean of the 1979-2000 yearly minimum).^{Footnote 3} To date western and central Canadian Arctic temperatures have increased on average by 2-3 degrees Celsius°C in the last 50 years.^{Footnote 4} This fact, along with predictions from climate models such as those provided by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which suggest that the Arctic will experience a large increase in surface temperature over the next century, indicate that the Arctic region and its human and non‑human inhabitants are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.^{Footnote 5} Specifically, Inuit communities which rely on seasonal access to sea ice for hunting and fishing are vulnerable; climactic changes to environmental conditions will affect traditional food systems, thus impacting food security in northern communities.^{Footnote 6} Numerous plant and animal species such as polar bears, harped seals, spotted seals, ringed seals, and ivory gulls are also at risk of being negatively affected by this loss in sea ice. Changes in the marine food web connected to sea ice are likely to occur as the loss of sea ice will create an ecological shift away from ice-obligate predators (such as ringed seals, and polar bears) to pelagic fauna, and organisms which have evolved migratory behaviors in sync with seasonal changes in the ice extent are also expected to face challenges due to the increased decline and loss of arctic sea ice.^{Footnote 7} Economically and politically, declining sea ice will also create greater access and competition for natural resources such as petroleum and minerals in the arctic region, as well as opening up shipping lanes for international trade. This is likely to have profound impacts on the relationships between nation states which border the Arctic Circle.^{Footnote 8}

Therefore, I request that the Government of Canada outline:

1. What specific steps are being taken by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and/or other responsible federal agencies to assist adaptation in northern communities to the predicted changes brought by climate alteration; in respect to declining sea ice and its impact on food security by interrupting traditional hunting practices which said communities rely on? Are there specific programs or initiatives that deal with this issue? If so, what are they?

2. What steps are being taken by the Parks Canada Agency and Environment Canada and/or other responsible agencies to mitigate the effects of climate change on vulnerable plant and animal species in boreal, taiga, and arctic ecosystems in the Canadian North? Are strategies preemptive (for examplei.e. do they take into account that some species may not be able to be adequately adapt to climate change and should proactively be protected beforehand)? Are species risk assessment and conservation efforts based on predicted environmental changes from a range of climate models?

3. What steps are being taken by National Defense, Natural Resources Canada, and Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada or other relevant ministries to ensure Canadian sovereignty in the Canadian arctic in the context of climate change which allows for increasing access to natural resources such as diamonds and petroleum deposits? Are there any collaborative programs or initiatives with other nation states regarding resource security in the arctic? If so what are they? Are there any specific military or foreign policy initiatives that deal with this issue? If so, what are they?

Sincerely,

#####

---

Petition example 3: Fairly extensively detailed

Environmental Petition

October 7, 2016

Sent via E-mail: petitions@oag-bvg.gc.ca

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

Attention: Julie Gelfand

Dear Ms. Gelfand:

Re: Petition to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Resource Development on Tailings Ponds Impacts on Migratory Birds

I write to you on behalf of Greenpeace Canada and the Alberta Wilderness Association pursuant to section 22 of the Auditor General Act to petition your office to seek answers to questions regarding the federal government’s regulation and enforcement activities relating to migratory birds and tailings ponds in the northern Alberta oil sands mines.

Context

Tailings Ponds

Tailings are a waste by-product from the oil sands extraction processes used in mining operations. Tailings consist of a mix of water, sand, silt, clay, contaminants and unrecovered hydrocarbons.^{Footnote 1} For every barrel of bitumen mined from the oil sands, 1.5 barrels of toxic tailings waste is produced.^{Footnote 2} Tailings are stored indefinitely in open lakes, which currently cover more than 220 kilometers squaredkm2 in northeastern Alberta and contain over 976 billion litres of liquid waste.^{Footnote 3} By 2008, the areal extent of tailing ponds within the mineable oil sands region exceeded the extent of natural water bodies by 42%.

Impacts to Migratory Birds

The mineable oil sands area is located along a convergence zone of migratory bird flyways en-route to the Peace-Athabasca Delta, which is the most important waterfowl nesting and staging area in North America. Approximately 1.5 migratory birds use the delta during the spring and fall migrations.^{Footnote 4} Migratory birds have high probabilities of encountering the tailings ponds because of the close proximity of the Peace-Athabasca Delta and because migratory birds are attracted to ponds along the flyway. During migration, birds may stop to rest and seek food or mates on tailings ponds, particularly when those ponds are ice‑free in early spring or during storm events that can cause migrating birds to land abruptly.^{Footnote 5} In all, 214 bird species have been recorded in the Delta, all of which must fly over or near the oil sands region during migration.^{Footnote 6}

Oil sands development is a serious threat to migratory birds due to habitat loss, water contamination, and oiling risk from tailings ponds. The tailings ponds are hazardous to migratory birds because fresh tailings contain several substances with known toxicity to wildlife, including bitumen, naphthenic acids, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and concentrated salts. Even small amounts of bitumen can coat feathers to impede flight, buoyancy, thermoregulation, and foraging. Bitumen transferred from the feathers of a nesting bird to the surface of eggs is toxic to developing embryos.^{Footnote 7}

These toxic tailings ponds are also replacing the natural habitat of migratory birds. Birds land in the tailings ponds thinking that they are a natural water body, but then discover too late that they are landing a death trap. Migratory birds are particularly vulnerable in the spring, where the warm effluent in tailings ponds creates open water attractive to migrating birds while natural water bodies remain frozen.^{Footnote 8}

Whooping cranes are particularly susceptible to the risk of landing in a tailings pond because the entire global population of wild, migratory whooping cranes migrates twice each year on a path that overlaps with the oil sands mineable region. In addition, wetland mosaics provide the most suitable stopover habitat for whooping cranes and should be available every ten miles—at a minimum—throughout their migratory corridor. Oil sands development seriously threatens intact wetland mosaics as stopover habitat.^{Footnote 9} Environment Canada has stated that it considers it especially important to avoid any mortality to Whooping Cranes as a species at risk. It has also confirmed that because of the small population size and endangered status of this species, the mortality of even a small number of birds could have a substantial population-level effect.^{Footnote 10}

Dr. Colleen Cassady St. Clair of the University of Alberta recently found that approximately 200,000 birds land on tailings ponds each year despite existing deterrents. Dr. Cassady St. Clair’s research also suggests that there are more incidents occurring that are never reported.^{Footnote 11} Any numbers reported are likely an under-estimate of bird casualties for several reasons:

• many birds migrate at night but no night-time monitoring of landings occurs;
• bitumen-killed birds may sink before detection; and
• birds that land on tailings ponds but are able to fly off are not tracked to determine lethal or sub‑lethal effects.

Birds representing 94 species have been reported to have landed tailings ponds.^{Footnote 12} This number likely represents a fraction of the total number of birds actually landing on ponds, as surveys were only conducted on a portion of the ponds, and only for a short period of time each day.

As of 2010, 43 species of birds—mostly birds protected by the Migratory Bird Convention Act—have died from exposure to oil sands tailings ponds. At least nine species protected by the Migratory Bird Convention Act have lost over 50 percent of their population over the past 40 to 50 years, including horned grebe, lesser yellowlegs, short-billed dowitcher, boreal chickadee, olive-sided flycatcher, evening grosbeak, lesser scaup, greater scaup, and northern pintail. These waterfowl are a widely reported casualty of tailings ponds.^{Footnote 13}

Although the total bird mortality attributable to tailings ponds is not known with certainty, it has been estimated to reach approximately 5,000 birds annually.^{Footnote 14}

There have also been several mass-casualties that have been publically reported:

• In 2008 more than 1,600 birds dies after landing in a Syncrude tailings pond. Syncrude was found guilty of committing offences under the federal Migratory Birds Convention Act and Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and was fined $3 million.
• In October 2010, more than 550 birds had to be destroyed when an early winter storm forced the birds to land on the toxic waste ponds belonging to Syncrude and Suncor. No enforcement action was taken by the provincial or federal government as there was inclement weather at the time of the incident.^{Footnote 15}
• In November 2014, 122 birds were reported dead after landing at three different tailings ponds in the Athabasca oilsands (Canadian Natural Resources LimitedCNRL Horizon, Syncrude Mildred Lake and Suncor Energy).^{Footnote 16} No enforcement action was taken by the provincial or federal government. The Alberta Energy Regulator cited the poor weather conditions and time of day (night time) as a reason for failing to prosecute the operators.^{Footnote 17}

According to Dr. Cassady St. Clair, fatal landings will continue because of ever-increasing industry activity in an area that is home to more than a million migratory birds each year. Climate change – which is causing more storms – has also been identified as a concern, as inclement weather increases the risk of bird landings.^{Footnote 18}

Lack of Regulation

As part of the provincial environmental approval process, oil sands operators are required to submit a Waterfowl Protection Plan (“WPP”) which specifies how they will monitor the number of birds coming in contact with their tailings ponds and how they will endeavor to minimize those contacts.

However, neither level of government has established scientifically defensible or legally binding bird deterrent standards that all operators must comply with. That means that there is no set standard that must be met by operators when submitting their WPPs. Although several academic papers and reports refer to the “industry-standard deterrent system”, there is no publicly available document providing adequate detail of this standard, nor is there any information about whether government requires that the industry standard be followed. Each operator is allowed to put forward and implement its own bird deterrence program without any binding direction from the government as to what deterrent standard must be met. The result is that methods employed to deter landings vary widely among oil sands operators.

In any event, it is important to note that while the development of legally binding bird deterrent requirements would ensure consistent application of best available standards to existing tailings ponds – thereby potentially minimizing some of the impacts to migratory birds – there would still be unacceptable risks posed to migratory birds. As will be discussed in detail in the following section, no scientifically defensible bird deterrent system currently exists that can adequately deter birds from landing on tailings ponds.

Deterrent Efficacy

There is no empirical evidence that the standards contained in the WPPs authorized to date, or any industry-standard deterrent system, are effective in deterring birds. To the contrary, the evidence outlined above strongly suggests that the bird deterrent systems currently in place are ineffective in deterring birds from tailings ponds.

The efficacy of the deterrents used on oil sands tailings ponds are not completely understood because studies are typically conducted during the daytime, and many birds migrate at night. No study has looked at bird behaviour or deterrent efficacy at night. Studies that have been conducted clearly demonstrate the lack of deterrent efficacy. One study found that relative to a non-deterrent control, the odds of landing at a tailings pond protected by industry-standard bird deterrents was 38% for ducks and 69% for shorebirds.^{Footnote 19} Further, a 2013 monitoring program found that when two swallow species that had abnormally high flyover rates are removed from the analysis, 63% of observed birds with a federal or Alberta species-at-risk designation landed on tailings ponds.^{Footnote 20}

Such odds are unacceptably high, and can be extrapolated to increase substantially during the nighttime, when more birds are migrating and are more likely to come into contact with tailings ponds.

In any event, deterrent systems are not a long-term solution to the problem of avian mortality in the Oil Sands.^{Footnote 21} Regardless of the efficacy of any particular deterrent system, birds will land on the closest available water source during inclement weather conditions, whether or not deterrents are in place.

A review of deterrent systems used in tar sands tailings ponds submitted as part of the Shell Pierre River Mine and Jackpine Mine Expansion hearings concluded the following:

“Unfortunately, bird interactions with tailings ponds have been predicted to continue into the future. For the proposed Joslyn North Mine Project, the proponent has predicted that the probability of “waterfowl interaction with tailings ponds” as being “likely” and that a worst case scenario is also “likely” with a magnitude of the effect to be “serious to major” (Total E&P Joslyn LimitedLtd. 2010, Accidents and Malfunctions; Table 1-1). .... mortality events at the Shell Muskey River and Jackpine Mines continue to occur even after the implementation of their Bird Deterrent Programs. In light of this evidence, and the limitations of the system discussed above, Shell appears to be overly confident in the BirdAvert™ system. The effectiveness of this system remains questionable.”^{Footnote 22}

Lack of Enforcement

Enforcement measures can be taken by the federal government pursuant to section 5.1(1) of the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994:

5.1 (1) No person or vessel shall deposit a substance that is harmful to migratory birds, or permit such a substance to be deposited, in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such waters or such an area.

Enforcement measures can also be taken where the migratory bird is classified as a species at risk, pursuant to section 32(1) of the Species at Risk Act, 2002:

32. (1) No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species.

Despite these enforcement mechanisms being at the federal government’s disposal, we continue to see a lack of enforcement.

As set out above, although the exact number of birds being impacted is unknown, we do know that impacts to migratory birds due to tailings ponds are occurring on a continual basis, with estimates as high as 5,000 deaths a year. We also see discrete incidents where hundreds of birds are reported dead at one time. The evidence is also clear that bird deterrents are ineffective in preventing many impacts to birds, particularly during the night and in inclement weather. Nonetheless, the approach taken at both levels of government is to allow operators to rely on the faulty bird deterrent systems as a due diligence defence to avoid legal prosecution.

The due diligence standard cannot be deemed to have been met simply on the basis of having bird deterrent systems in place when scientific evidence confirms that they are ineffective in preventing impacts to birds. Given that they are ineffective even during the day, and in good weather conditions, the probably heightened risk of ineffective deterrent efficacy at night or during inclement weather is unacceptable. Changing weather conditions—including fog, wind, snow, and freezing temperatures—are a frequent reality in northern Alberta. It is insufficient for operators to have bird deterrent systems that cannot deter a significant proportion of waterfowl during optimal weather conditions. That should not be the due diligence standard.

Rather, the standard required must be a bird deterrent system that accounts for non‑optimal weather conditions and that is fully operational during all hours of the day and night. If tailings ponds cannot be operated in a safe manner at different times of day and in varying weather conditions then they should not be permitted at all, as allowing such operations would be a contravention of the federal government’s obligations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act. At the very least, operators should be held responsible under the law and should not be able to rely on the due diligence defence to avoid prosecution. Nonetheless, we continue to see a lack of enforcement action taken against operators for potential violations of these federal laws.

Questions

1. Why has the evidence of ongoing impacts to migratory birds not resulted in enforcement actions being taken by Environment Canada pursuant to the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act?
2. How does the federal government justify continued approval of oil sands mines that clearly cause significant and ongoing impacts to migratory birds given its legal responsibilities under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act?
3. How does the federal government justify permitting operators to rely on the due diligence defence when the evidence is clear that the current bird deterrent systems are a best partially ineffective, and at worst wholly ineffective, in preventing impacts to migratory birds?
4. How does the federal government justify its lack of involvement in conducting research and monitoring regarding impacts of tailings ponds on migratory birds and ways to mitigate the impacts?

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Barrister and Solicitor, Ecojustice
On behalf of the Petitioners

cc. Greenpeace Canada
     Alberta Wilderness Association

---