It's easy to get demoralized these days with so much going wrong around the world. So it is incredibly encouraging to see a campaign for justice and workers' health and safety prevail against supposedly insurmountable odds.
That is how the "odds" would have been described a year and a half ago for anyone musing about taking on the asbestos industry in Quebec. It would be difficult to come up with an example of a more entrenched and powerful adversary. A year ago, the remnants of a once enormous asbestos mining industry had literally every powerful political and economic player in its corner: all the federal political parties, including the NDP and the Liberals; all of the provincial political parties in Quebec; all the business and corporate players provincial and federal; the entire Quebec union movement and the Canadian Labour Congress; and by their meek silence (with a couple of exceptions) the medical and academic scientists whose voices could have made an enormous difference.
A year later and the asbestos industry and its lethal product are literally on their last legs, assailed from (almost) all sides. One after the other the supporters of this dying/killing industry have changed sides, bowing finally to a relentless campaign backed up by indisputable science declaring asbestos -- all asbestos -- kills and maims. The latest news is out of Quebec, where the final battles are, of necessity, taking place.
It is instructive to all those who assess the prospects of certain struggles as impossible to win, to read that the Quebec Liberal government -- a centre-right, pro-business party -- is now considering abandoning the industry that just weeks ago it was pledging to give its undying support. A story in Monday's La Presse reported that: ".a high-level meeting took place last week between the three government stake-holders most affected by the issue: the Minister of Health, Yves Bolduc, the Minister delegated to Natural Resources, Serge Simard, as well as the president of the National Public Health Institute of Quebec (INSPQ), Luc Boileau."
Those at the meeting are declining comment about media speculation [1] that the government of Jean Charest is examining "the possibility of revising its position on asbestos between now and the end of the year." Such an examination was deemed inconceivable even four months ago. But the revelation the government is even thinking about changing position means it will be extremely difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. Its best strategy for maintaining the status quo would have been to say nothing at all. In the asbestos fight, once you talk about it, your fate is decided. Charest's office is denying that they are considering changing policy, but it is an enormous crack in the asbestos edifice that the meeting took place, no matter how they try to explain it away.
A victory for science and morality
Just ask Michael Ignatieff -- who came full circle last spring and summer, making the banning of asbestos Liberal Party policy. Ignatieff entered the debate off-guard -- drawn into it by an activist at a Victoria public meeting. His response was an unguarded, moral one: "Our export of this dangerous product overseas has got to stop." He tried to wriggle out of it -- after being pounded by his own party heavy weights and the Quebec media. But it was too late: the morality of the exports was the issue.
Ignatieff initially claimed the science wasn't clear. But that route was suddenly blocked by the coincidental release of two reports -- one by Health Canada (suppressed for a year) and another devastating study by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the world's most respected cancer organization. Both confirmed chrysotile asbestos a deadly Class 1 carcinogen. To his credit, Ignatieff stuck to his original gut response: exporting this stuff was immoral.
The NDP had earlier been obliged to abandon its position -- just as it was making in-roads in Quebec -- faced with determined lobbying and the sheer weight of the moral argument. Ken Georgetti, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, too, took the risky step of alienating the CLC's Quebec wing by calling for a ban [2] after an emotional appeal on behalf of sick and dying workers by one of India's largest unions.
The role of science in this struggle is as gratifying as that of the moral imperative's victory over economics. Science has taken a severe beating in Canada and the US over the past fifteen years with governments all but abandoning the precautionary principle for the market's "risk assessment" approach. Whether it's tainted meat or climate change, the right's fierce attack on science has had the effect, amongst others, of intimidating many scientists whose role it is to protect society.
But the junk science produced by the asbestos lobby -- in particular the Chrysotile Institute (headed up by the former President of the Quebec Federation of Labour) -- has ironically put some steel in the spine of those assigned with the task of informing the public about health issues. Indeed, it's as if the dam had broken in Quebec and all the data and many of the scientists involved, suddenly flooded into the public realm.
Fifteen doctors, toxicologists, occupational hygienists and epidemiologists, several of them professors at the universities of Montreal, Laval and Sherbrooke, issued an extraordinarily powerful public statement calling for and end to Quebec's asbestos exports. The La Presse headline could not have been more clear: "It's time to stop the asbestos lies." This from a group not prone to dramatic statements -- and published by a paper [3] that for years was complicit in the silence.
Dr. Pierre Gosselin of Laval University's medical faculty said that Canada's conduct resembles "criminal negligence." The health experts declared that Canada's efforts to stop chrysotile asbestos being added to an international list of hazardous substances was an "indefensible infamy."
The shameful holdouts
The Chrysotile Institute's core argument has been that asbestos is not harmful if "used safely." But perhaps it was the lie about safe use in Quebec itself that has finally moved the media and the Quebec political elite, to reluctantly reconsider. Quebec's National Public Health Institute has issued a total of eleven reports proving that the claim of "safe controlled use" of asbestos in Quebec is a myth. The lethal cancers directly related to asbestos are increasing in Quebec by 4 per cent a year. And the province's definition of "safe levels" of exposure is ten times more lenient than most of Europe and the US and a 100 times more than the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.
There are still powerful holdouts on the asbestos front -- the most aggressive among them, Prime Minister Stephen Harper. "The Conservative Party is the only political party that can be trusted to defend the asbestos industry," stated Harper [4], claiming that the Liberals were being "duped and manipulated by extremist groups." That would be, I suppose, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and the International Labour organization. Another holdout is Gilles Duceppe and the Bloc Quebecois. Most shameful of all is the entire Quebec labour movement, led (or bullied) by the Quebec Federation of Labour, which continues its complicity in the destruction of the lives of potentially thousands of Third World workers so it can maintain "solidarity" with the few hundred miners still working (at much reduced wages) in the sole remaining mine.
But even these final dominoes will fall, sooner or later. The relentless campaign against death and disease, rooted in a moral imperative and public science, and spearheaded by Kathleen Ruff, human rights advisor with the Rideau Institute (disclosure: I am also an advisor with the Rideau) has converted powerful individuals, political organizations and a major Quebec media outlet -- players no one dreamed would change their views.
We'll see who finds their moral compass next.
Murray Dobbin's State of the Nation column appears every two weeks in TheTyee and rabble.ca.
Links:
[1] http://www.cyberpresse.ca/environnement/200910/05/01-908407-amiante-quebec-pourrait-revoir-sa-position.php
[2] http://www.canadianlabour.ca/sites/default/files/Asbestos_PolicyE.pdf
[3] http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/704763
[4] http://www.courrierfrontenac.qc.ca/index.asp?section=detail-actualite&ID=130493
[5] http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2009/05/ignatieff-and-asbestos
[6] http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2009/04/canada-should-call-complete-ban-asbestos-right-now
[7] http://rabble.ca/print/news/2009/10/banning-asbestos-exports-value-tilting-windmills#comment-1070313
[8] http://rabble.ca/print/news/2009/10/banning-asbestos-exports-value-tilting-windmills#comment-1070392
[9] http://rabble.ca/user
[10] http://rabble.ca/user/register
It is heartening to see this deadly industry finally winding down but the pain inflicted will last for generations to come. And not just in other countries.
There are likely tens of thousands of people across Canada who have worked with asbestos at one time or another. It used to be used on all automotive brakes and clutches. Mechanics would pull the drums off of cars and blow the dust off with compressed air. For all I know, it's still going on. I worked in place that specialized in brakes and clutches for several years. I wonder if I have a ticking time bomb in my lungs. It can take decades for asbestos to cause disease.
There are also hundreds of thousands of homes across the country that were insulated with vermiculite, much of which was contaminated with a particularly nasty form of asbestos. Health Canada claims that there is minimal health risk as long as the stuff is contained in attics but who really knows?
It is encouraging to hear that back east the tide is shifting in favour of banning the export of asbestos. However, here in British Colombia, Worksafe BC has produced a discussion paper in which four key policy issues are discussed (Bronchogenic Carcinoma (Lung Cancer) in Asbestos-Exposed Workers July 27, 2009). The recommendations from the report may make it more difficult for workers with mesothelioma to get compensated.
In the Executive Summary:
The first issue is whether to maintain or delete the asbestosis requirement currently set out in Schedule B. In the systematic review, Dr. Finkelstein concludes that the asbestosis requirement in Schedule B is current and supportable based on the most current medical science.
The second issue is whether to maintain, delete or modify the bilateral pleural thickening or fibrosis requirement currently set out in Schedule B. Dr. Finkelstein concludes that the presence of bilateral diffuse pleural thickening or fibrosis would not be an indicator of how much asbestos a worker was exposed to; rather, it would be an indicator of some amount of asbestos exposure. Dr. Finkelstein concludes that the specific criteria specified by Schedule B, namely that the pleural thickening or fibrosis must be over 5 mm thick, is not supported by the scientific literature and would benefit
from modification.
The third issue is whether to add a requirement that a worker must be exposed to asbestos for a specified number of years (the cumulative exposure approach) to Schedule B. Dr. Finkelstein recommends that the WCB adopt the cumulative exposure approach. Based on the research, options are presented in the discussion paper of either a 10-year or 20-year period of cumulative exposure.
The final issue is whether to add a list of certain processes or industries to a cumulative exposure period requirement to Schedule B. Dr. Finkelstein recommends that the WCB create a list of industries with elevated asbestos-associated lung cancer risk for workers in BC. The discussion paper sets out two options in this regard - either a specific or broad approach.
Here is a list of proposed industries:
o Asbestos mining;
o Insulation and filter material production;
o Construction;
o Plumbing and electrical work;
o Pulp mill work;
o Shipyard work; and
o Longshoring.
What about firefighters, BC Ferry deck crews and housewives?
My own father died of mesothelioma in 2004 from only 2 years of exposure while he served in the Canadian Navy during WWII - exposure over 60 years ago. He didn't have asbestosis nor did he work in one of the industries listed in the discussion paper. Housewives are also not considered who have died from mesothelioma from exposure to the asbestos fibres brought home on the work clothes by their husbands.
To send in feedback to Worksafe:
CONSULTATION
Stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on the discussion paper, options, and any
additional comments that may be relevant to the issue.
Stakeholder comments will be accepted until December 15, 2009. When responding,
please provide your name, organization, and address. Comments may be sent by mail,
fax or e-mail to:
By e-mail: policy@worksafebc.com
By mail: Louise Kim
Senior Policy Analyst
Policy and Research Division
WorkSafeBC
P.O. Box 5350, Stn. Terminal
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 5L5
By fax: (604) 279-7599
"The general trend is more cases (asbestos related diseases) each year and internationally, researchers are projecting this trend to crest anywhere between now and 10 years from now. I think it is safe to assume that the rate will not be lower for at least five years in B.C." (UBC's Dr. Paul Demers, Vancouver Sun Feb. 4, 2008).
One would hope that with asbestos related diseases on the rise in BC that Worksafe BC won't attempt to change policy in favour of decreasing compensable claims.