Ottawa and Quebec City appear poised to bail out asbestos producers

[danmand]

Deathbed reprieve for killer industry?

Ottawa and Quebec City appear poised to bail out asbestos producers
Published On Sun Jun 6
Jennifer Wells/Toronto Star
Kathleen Ruff
The battle to end Canada's export of deadly asbestos may be about to be lost.

Economically, the industry is on its deathbed. The last two asbestos mines (the Jeffrey mine and the Black Lake mine in Quebec) are both under bankruptcy protection, have almost exhausted their asbestos deposits, have slashed the wages of remaining workers and seen sales plummet by 50 per cent in the last decade. But the industry is counting on Premier Jean Charest and Prime Minister Stephen Harper to rescue it.

Apart from the moral issue of exporting asbestos disease for profit, taxpayers might want to take note of how two supposedly business-minded political leaders are risking public funds and Canada's international political capital to resuscitate an industry that is notorious for its record of economic disaster and public health tragedy.

Charest is on the verge of giving the industry a $58 million loan to finance a new, underground Jeffrey mine. He has set two conditions: that the workers sign a five-year contract; and that they put 10 per cent of their wages into a trust fund for five years, creating a reserve of $10 million that taxpayers would get if the mine fails and taxpayers have to pay the $58 million loan guarantee.

The industry tried unsuccessfully to get financing from private investors. Last year it seemed that a Chinese investment company might do so, but it withdrew at the last moment. Now Charest is stepping in with public funds where private enterprise refused to go.

If the negotiations currently underway succeed, the new mine will open shortly. It will export 200,000 tonnes of asbestos every year for the next 25 years to Asia and, the industry hopes, to Africa, where protections are virtually non-existent and resulting suffering and death will be enormous for decades to come.

With Charest providing financing, Harper has promised to provide international political protection to stop the industry being regulated. Harper is the only Western political leader and the only national Canadian leader to support asbestos. There seems to be no limit to the help he is willing to provide to the industry, including sabotaging a UN convention.

While ruthlessly cutting funding from scientific research on climate change and aboriginal healing programs, when it comes to the annual quarter of a million dollar funding for the asbestos industry's lobby group (the Chrysotile Institute), the Harper government gives the funds without a moment's hesitation, dismissing appeals by the Canadian Cancer Society and health experts.

With this funding, the institute publishes literature assuring developing countries that asbestos can be safely used and claiming that India, Thailand, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe have already achieved a 99.8 per cent success rate.

This is utterly false information. Quebec's asbestos is handled under appalling conditions overseas, as the recent CBC documentary Canada's Ugly Secret showed. Quebec government studies report a 100 per cent failure rate to handle asbestos safely in Quebec itself.

This lobby group's literature carries the emblem and flag of Canada. If the Vancouver Olympics logo was worth a fortune, how much is the official Canadian logo worth to the asbestos industry in pushing asbestos in the developing world as a product endorsed by Canada? The Canadian flag is supposed to be honourable.

Harper has given the industry his commitment that, as long as he is Prime Minister of Canada, he will support export of asbestos and will block a UN environmental agreement, the Rotterdam Convention, so as to prevent chrysotile asbestos from being put on a list of hazardous substances, as repeatedly requested by the convention's expert body.

Blocking the Rotterdam Convention is an important gift to the industry and one the industry has lobbied the government hard for, using its government-given funds. Sales would suffer if countries were informed of the hazards of asbestos and the necessary safety measures, such as a national inventory of every place where asbestos-containing products have been placed, and specialized equipment, training and processes whenever renovation or demolition takes place.

It is unlikely that Prime Minister Harper is a genuine enthusiast of asbestos. It is, after all, being removed at huge taxpayer expense from his official residence at 24 Sussex Dr. and from his workplace, the House of Commons. His motivation is a political agenda to win a couple of seats in the asbestos-mining region.

The Canadian Public Health Association says that “exporting death made in Quebec” is “wrong, unethical, indecent and we should all be outraged.” This represents the feelings of most Canadians.

Premier Charest and Prime Minister Harper are about to give the asbestos industry a new life for the next quarter century. History will not forgive this betrayal of our country and of common human decency.

If we, as citizens allow them to do this, we will be seen by the world as the ugly Canadians.

 

[Aardvark154]

Gee how shocking, the very idea of two successful heads of government attempting to make sure than an important industry in the Chaudière region of Québec, doesn't go out of business thereby throwing the Thetford Mines area down an economic black hole.


I wonder would the Toronto Star be so “hot to trot” were the issue closing smelters in Sudbury?

 

[danmand]

Gee how shocking, the very idea of two successful heads of government attempting to make sure than an important industry in the Chaudière region of Québec, doesn't go out of business thereby throwing the Thetford Mines area down an economic black hole.


I wonder would the Toronto Star be so “hot to trot” were the issue closing smelters in Sudbury?

Truly disgraceful.


The World Health Organization has labelled all types of asbestos, including chrysotile, as carcinogenic. It is banned in many developed countries, including New Zealand, Australia and all European Union countries.

The Canadian Public Health Association says that “exporting death made in Quebec” is “wrong, unethical, indecent and we should all be outraged.”

 

[Questor]

Gee how shocking, the very idea of two successful heads of government attempting to make sure than an important industry in the Chaudière region of Québec, doesn't go out of business thereby throwing the Thetford Mines area down an economic black hole.


I wonder would the Toronto Star be so “hot to trot” were the issue closing smelters in Sudbury?

Your point has some validity. The Star would probably not be so supportive of closing smelters in Sudbury. But smelters, while toxic, do not represent the same health hazard as asbestos.

So, if the Star is being hypocritical by being critical of government support for asbestos but not being critical of government support for mining in Sudbury, maybe it should be more critical of mining in Sudbury. I'll take a guess and say you wouldn't agree with that. So then your position is that the Star shouldn't be critical of government support for any industry, regardless of the environmental damage and health costs?

 

[james t kirk]

It's simple politics.

Asbestos is fine if handled correctly. If you don't disturb it, or it is not degrading on its own, it won't bother you. Prolonged exposure to asbestos dust is not good, no denying that, but I see no need to be ripping it out of buildings if there is not an exposure problem.

Example - Union Station Toronto - the entire roof structure of Union Station is constructed of steel trusses. The ceiling is suspened from the trusses. Every square inch of those the trusses are coated with an asbestos fire proofing. Do you remove it even though it's not a danger?

Not in my opinion.

Asbestos does have some uses - such as a its heat insulating abilities. As far as I am aware, there is no other material on earth that does what it can do.

That said, the uses for asbestos are very limited and there is only a small market for the stuff.

BTW, I've been to Tetford Mines. What a sureal place that is with mountains and mountains of asbestos mine tailings piled hundreds of feet everywhere.

There's leathal materials all around us. It all comes down to using it correctly and safely.

 

[danmand]

It's simple politics.

Asbestos is fine if handled correctly. If you don't disturb it, or it is not degrading on its own, it won't bother you. Prolonged exposure to asbestos dust is not good, no denying that, but I see no need to be ripping it out of buildings if there is not an exposure problem.

Example - Union Station Toronto - the entire roof structure of Union Station is constructed of steel trusses. The ceiling is suspened from the trusses. Every square inch of those the trusses are coated with an asbestos fire proofing. Do you remove it even though it's not a danger?

Not in my opinion.

Asbestos does have some uses - such as a its heat insulating abilities. As far as I am aware, there is no other material on earth that does what it can do.

That said, the uses for asbestos are very limited and there is only a small market for the stuff.

BTW, I've been to Tetford Mines. What a sureal place that is with mountains and mountains of asbestos mine tailings piled hundreds of feet everywhere.

There's leathal materials all around us. It all comes down to using it correctly and safely.

I agree that does not make much sense to remove it, if it is not being disturbed; Why expose people to the removal dust if not necessary.

It just makes no sense to mine something that has been shown to cause disastrous medical conditions if not being handled EXACTLY correct. That is why ithe use of asbestos has been banned in most of the developing world; Even Canada and US has put extremely severe restrictions on its use. What the CBC has proven is that the the way asbestos exported to 3rd world countries is being handled will cause deaths in these countries.

I wonder how people can argue that it is OK to export a material to developing countries to be used in a way that has been banned in Canada?

 

[Aardvark154]

I What the CBC has proven is that the the way asbestos exported to 3rd world countries is being handled will cause deaths in these countries.

Is Canada handling it this way or are the importers?

To my mind somewhat like blaming distillers for those who drink to excess.

 

[dcbogey]

I wonder would the Toronto Star be so “hot to trot” were the issue closing smelters in Sudbury?

Based on this article http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/819684--inside-sudbury-s-bitter-vale-strike?bn=1 , the Star is pretty hot to trot about the situation in Sudbury. IMHO the article is so one sided as to be almost unreadable. Not once did the the so called "local girl" get into the current reason a deal hasn't been reached.

 

[danmand]

Is Canada handling it this way or are the importers?

Are you arguing that Asbestos is harmless and should be broadly allowed in Canada?

To my mind somewhat like blaming distillers for those who drink to excess.

Nah, more like blaming the people who sell heroin and Crack.

 

[Aardvark154]

Are you arguing that Asbestos is harmless and should be broadly allowed in Canada?

No, but even as JTK posted there are some uses for in which Asbestos is unsurpassed.

However it has to be used with extreme caution, proper respiratory precautions and ventilation etc. . . .

 

[danmand]

No, but even as JTK posted there are some uses for in which Asbestos is unsurpassed.

However it has to be used with extreme caution, proper respiratory precautions and ventilation etc. . . .

Which you know is not the case in India. It is the same problem as when we export elctronics junk for "recovery" to China. We all know that the old PCs etc are not being dismantled under safe conditions for the workers in China.

I actually have a better analogy for you than what I posted above, namely

People knowingly selling booze and cigarettes to children.

 

[danmand]

here is an old article from the economist

Hazardous hypocrisy
A curious liking for asbestos
Oct 23rd 2008 | MONTREAL | From The Economist print edition

FOR more than a decade, workers in hazmat suits have been boring into the walls and ceilings of Canada’s parliament buildings to remove tonnes of asbestos insulation. This tedious and expensive work is to protect the health of lawmakers and their staff: even limited exposure to asbestos can cause lung cancer or mesothelioma, a deadlier cancer. These risks have prompted most rich countries, and many poor ones, to ban all forms of asbestos.

But they have not stopped Canada from exporting large quantities of the mineral to developing countries, especially in Asia, nor discouraged the government from paying to promote its use abroad. This is “corporate welfare for corporate serial killers”, says Pat Martin, a former asbestos miner who is one of the few members of parliament to denounce the hypocrisy.

Campaigners hope that it will end at a meeting in Rome, starting on October 27th, of the Rotterdam Convention, a registry compiled by the United Nations of hazardous substances which require “prior informed consent” before they can be exported from one country to another. Canada has lobbied vigorously to prevent chrysotile, or “white” asbestos—the only kind still mined—from being included.

The industry argues that this carries little risk of pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lungs’ protective lining. It also claims that if chrysotile is used in high-density materials, in which the asbestos is bound together with concrete or resin, the risk of lung cancer is minimal. But medical experts, including the World Health Organisation, disagree. They say that in practice it is impossible to prevent carcinogenic dust being released when chrysotile asbestos is handled, and want it listed as hazardous under the convention.

At the convention’s previous meeting in 2006 Canada led a select group of countries—including India, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Peru and Ukraine—in blocking a listing. The reward for Canada lending its boy-scout reputation to this cause was that the other countries would “tolerate higher-cost Canadian producers” and thereby allow its asbestos industry to remain profitable, according to a ministerial briefing-note obtained by a researcher.

Fewer than a thousand Canadians still work in asbestos mines, down from 7,000 in the 1970s. The remaining active mines are in Quebec. The industry’s labour battles, and role in the approval of workplace safety laws, have given it an almost sacred status in the province and made it politically untouchable. Even health officials are wary of criticising it, although mesothelioma rates in Quebec are among the highest in the world. “It’s a very touchy question,” says Louise de Guire of the province’s public-health institute. “There’s a certain pride in the industry, even if not many people survive off it any more.”

Things may be about to change. This month two dozen public-health experts issued an open letter calling for chrysotile to be listed under the convention. This followed calls from Canada’s main labour federation for an end to asbestos mining and exports. Comparing the asbestos industry to arms traders, the Canadian Medical Association Journal said the government was taking part in a “death-dealing charade” by arguing that chrysotile can be safely used in the developing world.

The political timing is propitious for a ban. Stephen Harper, the prime minister, has just won a second term for his Conservative minority government. He owes no favours to Quebec’s voters, who gave him no extra seats, or to Jean Charest, the province’s premier and a former ally, who railed against the federal government during the campaign.

Officials say they have yet to decide what position they will adopt at the Rome meeting. If they drop their opposition to chrysotile being listed as a hazardous material, that would be the first step towards banning it, fears Clément Godbout, who heads the Chrysotile Institute, a government-funded lobby group formerly known as the Asbestos Institute. That, say campaigners, is precisely the point.