Environment Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Phil Blagden]

We weren't involved in that.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

So I guess my question is, since you have a degree of responsibility for these two reports, because you have been reviewing them and consulted on them, is it also part of your responsibility to point out discrepancies of methodology, where one seems to be more rigorous than the other? Is that part of what you have to do in the review and consultation process?

[Benoit Robidoux]

If we'd thought that one was less rigorous than the other, yes, it would have been our responsibility. But we thought both were of the same rigour, done with the same model, with the same approach, by the same people, and in exactly the same way, as far as I'm concerned.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

There was a reference earlier in testimony to an economic model developed in the late 1990s for analyzing all of this in the Department of Finance—an econometric model. Has that gone on for further development so that Finance Canada is the ultimate repository of this economic analysis of environmental issues, or does that not exist as an independent entity still within Finance Canada?

[Benoit Robidoux]

We started in 1992 developing, as Paul said, generic accrual models, which are different models from what is used by Environment Canada. We developed these models over time, and they are now dynamic models, more state-of-the-art models. And we keep developing these models, yes, so they are still there. Right now, we're still in the phase of future development of these models.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

According to the text of the regulatory framework, we can expect to see $6.4 billion in health benefits once the framework has been implemented. Does your department have a study to demonstrate that the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will result in positive impacts on our health? In recent years, since Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol, has your department analyzed the health benefits that could result from meeting the Kyoto targets?

[Susan Fletcher]

We didn't do the same economic analysis for Kyoto, because greenhouse gases act at a global level and they affect the atmosphere as a whole. It's impossible for us to determine health impacts. So we can't do an economic analysis on the health impacts directly, the way we can on air pollutants.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I don't understand. You are using the government's assumption. There are greenhouse gas emissions targets that are not provided for in the regulatory framework. In recent years, have you undertaken any type of economic analysis to determine how respecting the Kyoto Protocol could positively affect our health? I know what you said, but your answer applies just as well to the current plan as it does to the Kyoto Protocol. Both assumptions are the same. Did your department undertake a study? We would not want to find out that a study was done by your department—That would be quite something. Do you have a study somewhere in your department's archives?

[Susan Fletcher]

We can do the health impacts of a reduction in air pollutants, and the $6.4 billion that you referred to is our assessment of the reduction in air pollutants by 2015, given this new agenda.

The Kyoto targets are related to greenhouse gases. We've never, to my knowledge...but I'll turn to my scientist.

[Phil Blagden]

There are no direct health effects from greenhouse gases. The analysis that we do is premised on the direct health effects of the air pollutants in terms of exposure.

The implications of Kyoto are global. Climate change is something that's developing, as Susan mentioned in her speech, and is ongoing. You can't do an economic analysis on the impact of one country in those terms, because you're looking at long-term impacts on the change in the climate and the resultant health benefits. We do not have enough certainty from the models to calculate those things. If you were to try to divide it down on a country-by-country basis, you would get a negligible impact. That's not to say that there are not benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions; it's simply that you cannot calculate those health benefits with the science that's available, because they do not have direct health effects.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

How were the global benefits by province established in this plan? What method was used? What did that include? Are the system costs included in the breakdown by province?

[Phil Blagden]

Environment Canada ran an air quality model, and so the input to that model was the emissions reductions. The air quality model predicts ambient air quality conditions across the country on gridded squares. Our model takes the information from those geographic areas and applies it in terms of personal exposure, individual exposure, according to the population and distribution across the country and to the health risks. So it's fairly straightforward to simply identify all of the areas that are contained within the boundaries of Quebec.

The only differential there would be that there are a couple of boxes on the borders, so I believe Gatineau was counted in Ontario, but it's a relatively minor issue. But the actual calculations are based on the exposure of people living in Quebec to air pollutants and the difference that the regulatory reductions would make in the air pollution concentrations, specifically the pollutant particles and ozone.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Would you say that table G.1 includes the system costs in provinces where the plan will be implemented? Would emergency room visits represent a system cost? The number of hospital admissions would be a system cost. Does that include those costs?

[Phil Blagden]

It includes the estimates of the impacts and the costs of emergency room visits, yes. So you can see from G-1 that the mean that we're looking at is a reduction nationally of about 1,000 emergency room visits. We can break that down to the number of emergency room visits per province, and then we multiply that by a cost factor to come up with a total amount, which for all of the impacts came to $6.4 billion nationally. For Quebec it was in the range of about $2.2 billion on the figure below.

I'm not sure if everybody has the same copy as I do, but there was a typo in G-5. The green bar is at the total benefits. The blue bar is at the per capita benefits.

I'm sorry, it's other way around. So I'm reading it wrong as well. The per capita needs to be green; otherwise you look at Saskatchewan and you see the discrepancy.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I have no other questions.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Is there any time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, you still have three minutes.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Ms. Fletcher, you state in your brief that you are monitoring Lyme disease. Are you monitoring other diseases that migrate due to climate change? I was thinking of the West Nile virus. Is there anything else that Health Canada should be keeping an eye on?

[Susan Fletcher]

To be truthful, it's not Health Canada that's doing that monitoring, it's the Public Health Agency of Canada. And yes indeed, they are monitoring a number of different kinds of vector-borne diseases, as you mentioned, such as the West Nile virus, Lyme disease. They're also looking at pandemics and all kinds of different things we can be exposed to in the years to come.

If you wanted more details on that, you would probably be better to bring somebody in from the Public Health Agency to talk about the work they're doing.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I hope that there is not yet any threat from malaria.

[Susan Fletcher]

To the best of my knowledge we're not, but then again I'm not the authority on that. Again I would advise you to speak to the Public Health Agency.

[Marcel Lussier, Bloc, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Will there be any public awareness campaigns to make us aware of how climate change can affect our health? Do public awareness campaigns fall within your mandate?

[Susan Fletcher]

This is Jacinthe Séguin. She's my scientist responsible for climate change.