Ottawa’s shameful foot-dragging on asbestos continues

This article first ran in the Toronto Star:

Ottawa’s shameful foot-dragging on asbestos, the toxic mineral used as insulation in thousands of schools, apartment buildings and workplaces across the country, seemingly knows no end.

Though 55 countries, including Australia and Britain, have banned the substance in recent years, Canadian asbestos imports are on the rise. Despite international consensus that the carcinogen should be added to the United Nations’ list of hazardous materials, Canada is among the few countries to oppose the move.

The roots of our dangerous obstinacy are political. Successive prime ministers have defended the deadly mineral in the hopes of winning votes in rural Quebec, where asbestos mining was an important industry for more than a century. Only last summer, three years after the last of Quebec’s mines shut down amid dwindling demand, did Ottawa finally acknowledge that “asbestos, if inhaled, can cause cancer and other diseases.”

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada was at last “moving to ban asbestos” because “its impact on workers far outweighs any benefits that it might provide.” This welcome promise prompted fanfare from health advocates and vulnerable workers who know all too well how devastating that impact can be.

Yet in recent weeks the Trudeau government has cast doubt on its commitment to this necessary and overdue ban.

Asked for an update by the Globe and Mail earlier this month, the Prime Minister’s Office hedged. Ottawa is “reviewing its strategy on asbestos, including a potential ban,” the spokesperson wrote.

The federal government has been studying this issue for more than a decade. How much more time does it need — and at what cost? A recent study found that in 2011 alone, nearly 2,100 Canadian workers were diagnosed with asbestos-related cancers. It pegged the financial cost of such illnesses at $1.7 billion per year. One would hope that statistics like these would add some urgency to the government’s review.

More troubling still, at recent UN meetings the federal government has again expressed doubt that so-called chrysotile asbestos should be covered under the Rotterdam Convention, an international treaty on hazardous materials. Its rationale? “It has not been proven that chrysotile asbestos causes cancer.”

This type of asbestos accounts for approximately 95 per cent of the mineral found in Canada. Are we to understand that when Trudeau talked about a domestic asbestos ban, he meant only the 5 per cent that is non-chrysotile? If not, why is the government saying one thing about the health risks of asbestos at home and another thing internationally?

One hundred and fifty thousand Canadian workers are exposed to asbestos every year. Thousands of those workers will be diagnosed with cancer as a direct result of their exposure in coming years. Meanwhile, many poor countries, especially in South America, continue to import and use asbestos in their schools and homes. The federal government is either responsible for or complicit in all of this.

The scientific and international consensus is clear. Canada should ban the import and export of asbestos, fund a national program to remove the mineral from buildings, and support international efforts to discourage its use. The health of workers is too high a price to pay for a few votes in Quebec.