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.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we just finished Finance and there were some questions on costs specific to advertising. I just want to submit to the clerk, in both official languages, some information.
Previous governments spent for one conference in Montreal, the United Nations conference on climate change, $1.6 million. That was just for that one conference. I thought the committee would find that informative.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Would that be the international United Nations Conference of the Parties meeting, engaging 169 countries in Montreal?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Yes, and unfortunately, they were not informed about the 35% above the Kyoto targets, that Canada would not be meeting the targets. The advertising cost $1.6 million, Chair.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
That's been tabled.
I'd like to move on and have our Health people do the presentation, if we can.
Mr. Cullen, on the same point of order.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, on the same point of order, because its relevancy is skipping the surface, could the parliamentary secretary also supply the cost figures for the government's public relations plan for their EcoAction? I believe it's to the tune of about $1 million as well that they're planning to spend. Could he table that, as well, for the committee's review?
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Oh, is it $5 million now? Okay. If we're talking about costs and important uses of government money for the environment—
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, if I may, if what Mr. Warawa just presented was relevant to the subject that you just accepted, then clearly we're talking about government's choices in spending. If they're going to spend $5 million on publicity, and are criticizing other governments on their spending, then clearly he can table a second document as well.
You've accepted this as relevant to our discussion today. Clearly, if the parliamentary secretary is interested in going down this path, then let's look at government spending.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
Mr. Chair, in response to that, Mr. Cullen was one of the people who were asking questions on costs, and I'm glad he is—Can I please finish? The Treasury Board reports annually. It's a public document. I encourage him to read that public document when it's available.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I think to end this, pursuant to standing order 108(2), the study of the government's climate change plan, entitled Turning the Corner, is what we're doing. We have guests.
I want to proceed. Could we take this up, Mr. Cullen, when we don't have witnesses here? I want to get the maximum time. We will end at one o'clock. I understand your point.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Why accept it then? I understand we can talk about it later. But if you're interested—and I believe your interest is genuine—in having as much witness time as possible, why accept the gamesmanship? It does not engender a good conversation. If the parliamentary secretary continues in that, simply rule it out of order, and we'll move to the witnesses.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Bob Mills
I'll put it this way, Mr. Cullen. I'm going to hold this document. I will discuss it with Mr. Warawa, and we will raise it at our next meeting.
Ms. Fletcher, I believe you're making a presentation first on behalf of Health Canada. We do have two members of Finance who are joining us as well. Could we hear your presentation, please?
May 17th, 2007 / 12:05 p.m.
Susan Fletcher Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
Thank you very much for inviting me to be here today, Mr. Chairman.
I'm the assistant deputy minister of the healthy environments and consumer safety branch of Health Canada, and in that connection, one of my responsibilities is for environmental impacts on health. It's in that respect that I'm here today.
I am pleased to address this committee on Health Canada's role in the Government of Canada's plan for climate change.
With your indulgence, I will speak for a few moments, not only about climate change but also about the closely related issues of air pollution and chemicals, which from a health perspective are inextricably linked to each other. There's no question that the environment is a key determinant of health. Our well-being is dependent upon the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, as well as the safety of the products and chemicals we use. These cornerstones of our daily life are being threatened by changes to our climate.
We know that climate change is already occurring throughout the world.
We've seen real examples of the types of events that climate change will make more frequent; for example, the extreme heat and cold waves and other severe weather events we've seen in recent years. One such example is the 1998 ice storm in eastern Canada, which was responsible for 28 deaths, 945 injuries, and the evacuation of some 600,000 people. Each year we in Canada record extreme weather events in all parts of the country that affect our lives, our health, and our livelihood.
The fullness of the effects of extreme weather events, such as storms, extreme heat and drought, as well as floods, is not well recorded or understood. We know, however, that we can be better prepared to mitigate these effects, and that we need to take special care of the most vulnerable within our population, often those with compromised health or immune systems, the elderly, the sick, and the very young.
While the way in which climate can affect health is complex, many of the relationships and effects are well documented worldwide by reputable researchers and organizations such as the World Health Organization. Although still a relatively new field of research, the study of the specific effects on the health of Canadians has progressed largely in parallel with the study of the broader impacts of climate change on the environment and on society.
There are, however, still many unknowns. Among those is knowing who is most at risk within our population, under what conditions these vulnerabilities occur, and how we must adapt our behaviours and public health practices to mitigate those effects.
We are also working to better our understanding of how climate acts on the environment in less direct ways and what the possible health effects could be. For example, climate variables such as temperatures, winds, humidity, and precipitation influence environmental processes such as the chemical reactions that cause air pollution, the transportation of chemical contaminants in the atmosphere, and the survival and replication of certain pathogens that cause water-borne, food-borne, or insect-borne diseases.
Much of the research carried out by Health Canada and other organizations in this country and internationally is providing evidence of the link between these climate variables, mostly temperature and precipitation, and groups of illnesses such as cardio-respiratory, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal diseases.
In 2003 Health Canada released, in collaboration with the World Health Organization, a report providing guidance to researchers, health authorities, and national governments on how to carry out assessment of the impacts of climate change on health. Shortly thereafter, the department embarked on an assessment of its own of the capacities in Canada for coping and adapting to future climate change and the implications for the policies and practices of health authorities at all levels of government. Health Canada expects to release this report in the fall, and it will be a major milestone for us as a country and an example for the rest of world.
Health Canada is not alone in advancing knowledge and solutions on this issue.
The Public Health Agency of Canada is modelling, for example, the spread of Lyme disease associated with changing weather to better understand the potential risks to Canadians.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, from a health perspective, air pollution and chemicals are inextricably linked to climate change, and I would like to discuss this briefly.
My colleague Cécile Cléroux has told you about the importance of addressing climate change and air quality together, because the two problems have, overall, the same sources. The two issues are also linked in their health impacts. By taking action on both greenhouse gases and air pollutants, we can realize both immediate and long-term health benefits for Canadians.
In designing public policy, it's always hoped that any trade-off between the costs and benefits now and later can be minimized. Yet we all know that the balance is not easy, nor are the risks and benefits easy to see. Fortunately, what we know about the health implications of air pollutants puts us in a position to obtain benefits now and into the future.
Numerous studies show us that the range of health end points related to the exacerbation of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases increases immediately after a smog episode. Other studies have shown that people in less polluted communities live longer.
As these effects are observable, even for small increments of air pollution and in relatively clean communities, on the basis of this science, applying targets to reduce pollution emissions across the country makes sense, since the health risk can be reduced whenever an air quality improvement can be achieved. The health payback is essentially immediate.
The concept that action needs to be taken only when air pollution exceeds specific values is obsolete. By applying national emissions regulations across the country, the federal government will provide benefits to all Canadians.
Research has made it possible to estimate the health benefits that will result from the implementation of the government's plan by 2015. Examples of these health benefits include reduced death, fewer hospital admissions, and fewer asthma attacks. By applying economic methodologies for the evaluation of these benefits, Health Canada has estimated that by 2015 the value will be approximately $6.4 billion annually. This puts the health benefits from air pollution reductions in the same broad range as the estimated economic costs. Thus in the short term the GHG emission reduction strategy is balanced by air pollution benefits.
In the longer term, global action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have significant health benefits worldwide, but the health benefits of GHG reductions will take a long time to appear. Just as it has taken a long time to see the impact of the last several decades of increased emissions on global temperatures, so it will take time to slow the increase and reverse the trend. And more importantly, regardless of what we do, climate change will have health impacts on Canadians in the coming decades and there will be a lag before emission reductions will show benefits. However, in the short term, we can be assured that the combined action on air pollutants and climate change will provide health benefits that will make our society more sustainable.
We already know that our climate affects our health in various ways and that we can improve our protection of parts of our population who are already experiencing difficulties with certain types of weather.
Our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are essential. But we also acknowledge that we will not see the results of those efforts soon, so we need to provide Canadians now with ways to cope with the changing climate.
Just as it is important to address air pollutants and greenhouse gases together, it is important to address other environmental health factors in balance with these issues. One of those is the quality of indoor air. Thus far, most of the attention has been focused on outdoor air pollution, but it is important to remember that we, as Canadians, live indoors. In fact, we spend 90% of our time indoors.
In the built environments in which we live, work, go to school, and play, we're exposed to a variety of contaminants such as airborne moulds from excessive moisture, emissions from household products and building materials, and carbon monoxide from poorly vented oil and gas appliances. These and other indoor air contaminants can cause or exacerbate many ailments, including asthma, respiratory infections, and allergies.
Health Canada is taking action to address the issue of indoor air.
Under the clean air agenda announced last fall, the government committed to developing a priority list of indoor air pollutants in partnership with provinces and territories. It will lead to guidelines and other measures to protect the health of Canadians from these pollutants when they are indoors.
Another key initiative to improve health and the environment is the chemicals management plan. Announced last December, this innovative plan, developed by Health Canada and Environment Canada, is designed to ensure the safe management of chemical substances.
Chemicals are natural, and most are generally benign. Through human ingenuity, we've found ways to manipulate chemicals to improve the quality of our lives, increase food production, and cure illnesses. However, some chemicals are dangerous and can remain so for a very long time. Under the plan, the government will take immediate and decisive action on five categories of chemicals, including the prohibition of many of them. We have also begun assessing some 200 chemicals that have been flagged as high-risk. Industry is being challenged to prove that they can use these products safely and soundly.
In conclusion, climate change is an issue of importance to Health Canada. I hope my remarks have informed you of how we are addressing the challenge through our departmental mandate and as a key player in the delivery of the government's environmental agenda. But to be clear, our role is one of producing scientific evidence on the impact on health and on the benefits of reducing that impact.
Both the scientific evidence and the information we received from Canadians tell us this work is important.
Our immediate actions under the clean air agenda and the chemicals management plan will inform and complement the work we are doing on the health effects of climate change. Taken together, we believe these initiatives provide a foundation for protecting the health of Canadians from environmental contaminants, now and into the future.
Thank you.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you very much, Ms. Fletcher.
I'm going to be circumspect in my questions. We're running out of time, so it would be helpful to have short answers, if that's okay. I don't want to be rude. We'd love to have more time, and perhaps we can get you back.
Can you tell us, to start, Ms. Fletcher, whether you have performed any analysis on Bill C-30? Has Health Canada been called upon to perform any analysis on Bill C-30? You referenced a number of parts, in your remarks on air quality and so on, that are instrumental to Bill C-30. Have you done any work analysis on Bill C-30 in its present form?
12:20 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
We were provided with some scenarios by Environment Canada, and we did the health impact of those scenarios. If you would like details on the methodology of the impact work we did, I'd like to turn to Phil Blagden, my scientist, for that work.
12:20 p.m.
Phil Blagden Acting Manager, Air Health Effects Division, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Department of Health
The only analysis we've done since Bill C-30 was amended was a summary of its content and the implications for the department.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Green, I need to correct the record. Moments ago you said--and I would like to turn the question, as well, to Ms. Fletcher and your team from Health Canada--that a comprehensive environmental assessment was performed on the government's plan. Yesterday we heard from Environment Canada that no such environmental assessment has occurred.
Ms. Fletcher, in your document you talked about Health Canada doing a major environmental impact assessment on health to cope and adapt to future climate change.
The first question, Mr. Green, is whether I misunderstood. Are you saying that the Department of Finance did an environmental assessment?
12:20 p.m.
Chief, Resource and Environmental Taxation Section, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
To be clear, Mr. Chairman, in response to the question, what I said was that with respect to the budget measure that phased out the accelerated CCA for oil sands, the department conducted a strategic environmental assessment, which it does in respect of all policy proposals that are presented to the minister for decisions.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So on the plan in its entirety, to your knowledge, no strategic environmental assessment has occurred, is that right?
12:20 p.m.
Chief, Resource and Environmental Taxation Section, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I can't speak to it. It would not have been conducted by the Department of Finance.