Evidence of meeting #60 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was impact.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you very much.
Ms. Fletcher, has Health Canada actually performed an environmental impact assessment on the plan, and if it has, what alternative plans did you put forward? In any environmental assessment, there is a mandatory requirement that alternative plans be developed.
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
As I explained, our work is the scientific development of the health impacts, so we did look at the activities around health and the strategic assessment of the impact of the health activities, but we did not look at the broader issue.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Finally, before turning it over to my colleague Mr. Godfrey, there's no interdepartmental environmental assessment that either department has participated in on this plan.
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
We would have done, as a government, as my colleague said, a strategic environmental assessment. I think if there is an environmental person here who would have been responsible for the policy work, they would be able to speak to it.
May 17th, 2007 / 12:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay. Ms. Fletcher, I assume that the quality of your analysis of health costs and benefits, which you outlined on page 8 of your document, can only be as good as the quality of the economic analysis that it's based on, which is somebody else's job. Would that be a fair comment?
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
We use assumptions in our methodology, absolutely.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
All right, but it's based on other people's work on the economic part.
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
And by and large, recognized scientific evidence that a number of people have done, so we don't only go to one source.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Okay.
Now, to the two Finance officials, you were consulted on, as I understand it from your testimony, these two documents, The Cost of Bill C-288 to Canadian Families and Business and the Regulatory Framework for Air Emissions. Is that correct?
12:20 p.m.
A witness
Correct.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
So you reviewed that. Does that mean then that the Department of Finance stands behind the figures, the analysis, the methodology, and the conclusions of these two documents?
12:25 p.m.
Director, Economic Studies and Policy Analysis Division, Department of Finance
We believe that the analysis is reasonable in both cases, that the economic impact that comes out of the analysis is reasonable in both cases, yes.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Therefore, did you note that between the two, as I heard in your previous testimony, there was a bit of a discrepancy in the methodology behind the two documents? That is to say, in the case of this document, Bill C-288, which is a plan that doesn't exist, versus this document, which is a plan that does exist, there is—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
--we discussed that earlier, and of course I asked Mr. Vellacott to live by that. Perhaps you could as well, please.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
So I guess the question is this. There are two sets of methodologies involved. Did you find a discrepancy, given the fact that in one case five outside economists were used and in the other case no outside economists were used?
12:25 p.m.
Director, Economic Studies and Policy Analysis Division, Department of Finance
It's a fact that in the case of Bill C-288, if I could speak about that—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
They've been raised by everybody else. I simply want to know, is there a discrepancy in the methodology?
12:25 p.m.
Director, Economic Studies and Policy Analysis Division, Department of Finance
The results were presented to, I think, five or a number of fairly well-known economists that are put at the end of the document, and like us, they reviewed the results and provided their assessment to Environment Canada. So they were not doing the analyzing; they reviewed the analysis, and in all these cases, they agreed with the results of the analysis, broadly speaking.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Acting Manager, Air Health Effects Division, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Only to take it back to the economics involved in the health analysis.
We're using a model that has been publicly peer-reviewed in the past and has been developed over a number of years. The health benefit analysis and the economic costs calculated there are standard science, and the health benefits model has already been validated.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My question is about the economic analysis, that we will have certain reductions or not--