Canada should join other countries in banning asbestos
Shameful legacy doesn’t need Donald Trump’s seal of approval
So that makes five.
Sandy Kinart’s brother-in-law died a couple weeks back, 14 years after mesothelioma took the life of her husband, Blayne. One a pipefitter, the other a millwright, the Kinart brothers spent their working lives in Sarnia, bearing the toxic industrial legacy of asbestos exposure. In 1998, it was Sandy’s uncle Garnet, a fibreglass worker, who was felled by the aggressive cancer. There was another brother-in-law, gone. And an aunt. So that makes five.
“And we’re only one family,” Sandy says. “I do realize we live the legacy of the past, but by him allowing and condoning this behaviour only makes it so other families are going to be experiencing this in the future.”
By “him” she means U.S. President Donald Trump, whose inert stance on the “miracle mineral” was recently unearthed by Newsweek with this marquee quote: “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob.”
That’s a line beyond the creative imaginings of even the staunchest asbestos apologists.
In light of the president’s historic musings and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recently proposed rule not to ban asbestos but to cause manufacturers and importers to seek the EPA’s approval before using the stuff, the marketing moves by Russian asbestos producer Uralasbest make eminent sense. Why not stamp pallets of chrysotile asbestos with a big red facsimile of the president’s mug along with the selling line “Approved by Donald Trump, 45th president of the United States.”
Not that Uralasbest was suffering without Trump’s help. The company already claims to be the largest asbestos producer in the world, with more than 20 per cent market share. Eighty per cent of its production is exported.
Canada’s shameful legacy in both the mining and uses of asbestos has been told through the tragic human cost, and legislative heel dragging. Consider that Iceland banned asbestos in 1983. That Australia’s asbestos ban came into force in 2003.
Or that the EU announced a ban on all forms of asbestos in all member states as of Jan. 1, 2005. Through all that Canada stood firm as a contributor to the problem, with asbestos mining continuing until 2012 and exports growing to such recipient countries as India.
“Many of these countries didn’t have the regulatory framework regime to be able to protect the people who were most affected by the exposure to asbestos,” notes Fe de Leon, a researcher with the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA).
The current Liberal government pushed Canada toward the right side of the story beginning late in 2016 by taking first steps toward an asbestos ban. The proposed regulations around that prohibition were released this past January, with public comment open through the spring. So, better late than never. But the U.S. administration’s soft stance should make the Trudeau government consider whether the proposed made-in-Canada regulations are world leading, and take the opportunity to make them so.
CELA, with the support of a long list of supporting organizations, argues that this is not the case. “Groups across Canada were really excited to hear that the government was developing a regulation to ban asbestos,” de Leon says. “So the general feeling was, this is fantastic, this is good advancement and we will see the use of asbestos curbed dramatically in the coming years. And I do think that will be the case. Unfortunately, there are some serious exemptions that exist in the proposed regulations.”
One such exclusion pertains to the chlor-alkali industry, which requested a full exemption to continue the import and use of asbestos. In this instance asbestos is not present in an end product, but used in the process of making caustic soda. The government regulations propose a time limited exclusion until 2025. CELA points out that plants in Japan and elsewhere have transitioned to a non-asbestos using technology and that a similar Canadian conversion should be mandated within a period of no more than two years.
The issue of “mining residues” — estimated at 800 million tonnes in the province of Quebec — also gets an exemption in the regulations. The proposed exemption is vague: “To allow for their rehabilitation, the use of mining residues for construction and landscaping would need to be allowed by the proposed Regulations.” And concerning: “While the potential risk of exposure remains, these activities would be expected to reduce asbestos mining residues over time.” Case-by-case authorization would be up to the province “in which the construction or landscaping is to occur.” In opposing the exemption, CELA points out that the regulations don’t even go so far as to explain how a province is to make the decision whether or not to authorize such use. CELA makes 16 recommendations in all. The organization expects that the government will complete its review this fall. Regulations are expected by year’s end.
This can all start to feel like hacking one’s way through dense brush. But Fe de Leon broadens our conversation in a wise way. Think of the scope of this legacy. Think of demolitions and renovations.
“That’s part of the conversation,” she says. “Not just buildings that are under the ownership of government, but those in private hands.”
Take a look at Australia. Five years ago that country established the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency. A robust and impressive website addresses, by example, the remediation of 40,000 kilometres of water mains containing asbestos. The goal: a nationally consistent approach.
“We need a national strategy around asbestos,” de Leon argues. “I think this is where the federal government’s leadership is badly needed to demonstrate what could be done and should be done as a minimum standard across the country.”
Sandy Kinart says Australia is doing a wonderful job, one that Canada should mirror. Her hopes and dreams are for the future, she says, for her grandchildren and the children who come after.
The Liberal government took its first steps toward an asbestos ban in 2016