Health Committee on June 18th, 2015

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too am very appreciative of the witnesses coming here today and sharing. I actually have to agree with my colleague. My background is health care. I was involved in primary health care, public health, and child care licensing, and to be frank, I was completely unaware that this was an issue.

I was elected in 2008, so I guess my first question is: when did this awareness and focus come into being? As I said, I don't recall anything in the early 2000s, or at least anything that I was familiar with. That's my first question. When did we start to really put a bit of focus on this particular initiative?

[Kelley Bush]

We'd had the same guideline level since 1988. The original guideline was set based on available research on miners' exposure. It was only in the early 2000s that there was new pooled research that distinctly demonstrated that there was a risk at lower levels in a residential environment, and that research led to Health Canada and our federal-provincial-territorial committee reviewing the guideline and lowering the reference level to 200. We knew at the time that was a significant decrease, and if we were going to decrease the guideline to that extent, we wanted to have a full program to support it to make sure that we educated Canadians about what the guideline meant, and the actions that they could take to reduce their risk.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Great. I'm also thinking about something in line with what my colleague was saying. I look at the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and it actually engaged members of Parliament in something it called “308 conversations”, which were focused on suicide prevention. I think all 308 of us have opportunities within our communications. That's just another method. Although it sounds as though a ton of work has been done, I don't know if there's been any research on the level of penetration and awareness of this as an issue.

Ms. Bush, maybe you could talk to the issues of penetration and awareness.

[Kelley Bush]

Absolutely. We did some public opinion research comparing where we were at the beginning of the program in 2007 to where we were in 2013, and we've definitely seen an increase from about 50% to about 65% in the level of awareness, and a significant increase from 4% to 25% with regard to Canadians' awareness of where they can get detectors and how they can test their homes. The challenge with this issue is that while levels of awareness have definitely increased, our research so far demonstrates that we haven't achieved a significant increase in action, i.e., testing.

The conversation about the challenges around risk communication and radon could be a very interesting one, because you can't blame anyone. There's no immediate health effect, and a lot of people tend to be apathetic towards the issue. We're making good strides, but the point we're at now is that we need to convert awareness to action. We're starting to see that, but there's still more work to be done.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Let's say you take a neighbourhood of 1,000 homes on average, what percentage of homes do you anticipate would have levels that are above our current standards?

[Kelley Bush]

According to the cross-Canada survey data that I mentioned earlier, it's estimated that across Canada 7% of homes have high levels of radon, but that varies quite significantly across the country. In Manitoba and New Brunswick, it was over 20%, but in every single province there were regions where 10% to 20% and in some places 40% to 50% of homes tested high. The average across the country at 7% of homes is still very significant.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

As my last comment or question, I certainly see both a federal and a provincial role. There were some comments in terms of the Canada Labour Code, and I'm just trying to get a sense of to what degree, because obviously the provincial and territorial ministers regularly meet with their federal counterparts. In your awareness, has this issue ever been discussed at those particular meetings?

[Kelley Bush]

I can speak to what Health Canada has done there. We have gone to make a presentation about the revised guideline, and we follow up on a very regular basis. It is the intent to have the Canada Labour Code harmonized with our current Canadian guideline. It's just been delayed. The most recent information we have is that it's supposed to be updated by the winter of 2015-16.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

But that would not necessarily translate into what the provinces are doing in terms of their labour codes or workers' compensation.

[Kelley Bush]

No.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thank you, Ms. McLeod.

Next up is Mr. Hsu. Go ahead, sir.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to start by continuing the questioning from Ms. Moore regarding labelling of homes. As you say in your notes, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies radon in group 1, which means we know it's carcinogenic.

This is a question for everybody. Do you think houses should be labelled once they've been tested and that before and after remediation perhaps one could have a different label?

[Kelley Bush]

I think Kathy would like to respond there.

[Kathleen Cooper]

We looked at the provincial statutes, which I didn't get into in my presentation, and there is home warranty legislation in several provinces that says new homes are statutorily deemed to come with what are called “implied warranties of habitability”. In that case, it would mean that they had followed the building code, and the building code requirements largely have been or are being updated across the country to incorporate the national building code requirements for radon.

When you talk about existing homes, that's a little trickier, because when you sell a home, you have similar kinds of disclosure statements and requirements, and they may or may not provide information about radon. I think the idea is intriguing.

I think it would be better if we were to increase this awareness. One of the reasons we wanted that income tax credit was for the federal government to send a strong signal to the public to take the issue more seriously, get their homes tested, get them remediated if the levels are high, and have a tax break to be able to accommodate it.

I'm sorry; I'm drifting a little bit from your question.

[Kelley Bush]

The only thing I can add is that under the national radon program we have worked with the Canadian Real Estate Association, and they now do have guidance that they provide with regard to radon. Based on our discussions with other countries, such as the U.S., that have had a national radon program in place for longer, with regard to.... Every home has radon. It's not a question of whether or not it's in there. I don't know about labelling, but I can tell you—

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Well, on labelling, if you've done a test, presumably the results of the test are there.

[Kelley Bush]

When we get calls from members of the public who have tested their home and are concerned because they want to sell it but they've mitigated it, our response to them is that everything that we've seen in the U.S. in regard to what they can communicate is that they've addressed the issue, they've made their home a healthier home, and it's a value-add. That's what they've seen in the U.S. It doesn't impact it in that way. I don't know if that directly answers your question.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I just wanted to throw it out there.

Mr. Rankin had another question, which I want to ask in a different way. I'm wondering if anybody has thought about it from an economic point of view. If you had an extra dollar to spend, where would you help people the most? Would it be in spending it on reducing smoking or on reducing exposure to radon? Has anybody tried to figure out which one of those two will have a bigger effect on lung cancer? It's an economics question, so maybe it's too hard to calculate or something.

[Kelley Bush]

I'm not aware of any comparison like that being done within Health Canada. Smoking is definitely a bigger contributor. I think I should make that statement very clearly because we've worked with our colleagues on the tobacco side. With regard to a comparison, from an economic perspective, no.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Maybe I'll try another question. You mentioned that Health Canada has studied the effects of energy retrofits on radon. My question is about whether there's a synergy. We want to encourage energy retrofits for other reasons, and I'm wondering in terms of these two issues, energy efficiency and exposure to radon, whether there's some synergy in promoting both at the same time.

[Kelley Bush]

That is absolutely what Health Canada's looking at with the research we're doing, from two perspectives. From the perspective of the work that's being done to retrofit a home, is there an opportunity to build radon out in that situation? Secondly, with regard to what's being done to retrofit and seal up the home, is there a risk of increasing the radon level in the home? That research is still ongoing so we don't have all of the results.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ben Lobb]

Thanks very much. Seeing as how it's Mr. Hsu's final committee meeting, we were generous in giving you an extra 20 seconds, sir. We're very generous on the health committee.

Next up, Mr. Young. Go ahead, sir. We'll have to take it off your time.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for being here today.

Kelley Bush, I'm looking at your job title. I'm wondering if it actually fits on your business card because it's so long. I'm assuming you're the go-to person in the Government of Canada on this issue.

[Kelley Bush]

I do have a colleague who is responsible for the technical operations side and all the research, so we are both the go-to. It takes a big group to run the program.