This past June, Canada again blocked the addition of chrysotile asbestos to Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The Rotterdam Convention — an international forum dedicated to sharing information about hazardous chemicals and pesticides — aims to protect the citizens of vulnerable developing nations from dangerous substances. If chrysolite — a notorious carcinogen — had been successfully listed under Annex III, it would have been classified as hazardous, and importer-countries would then be provided with information about handling precautions and non-hazardous alternatives.
Prime Minister Harper’s reluctance to let chrysotile be listed under Annex III is part of a successful bid by the Conservatives to wrest the Quebec riding of Megantic L’Erable, which produces asbestos, from Bloc Quebecois control. Canada edges out Russia, China, and Khazakstan as the world’s leading asbestos exporter. The Harper government has shown strong support for the industry: promoting its deadly product abroad, and, extraordinarily, even funding its federal lobby group, the Chrysotile Institute.
Chrysotile, a serpentine form of the mineral asbestos, is used to make some types of concrete, and to fireproof houses. While less deadly than its amphibole cousins, amosite and crocidolite, chrysotile is known to cause a range of agonizing lung diseases, such as asbestosis and mesothelioma; it is not used in Canada. In developing nations like India, where government health regulations are virtually non-existent, however, usage is widespread. It is estimated that at least 90,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases. However, the real number is certainly much higher, as the affected countries lack efficacious diagnosis and tracking methods. Although Harper has said that Canadian exports are used “under safe and controlled conditions,” and the Chrysotile Institute maintains that chrysotile carries “no increased cancer risk” at low levels, both claims are rejected by independent experts.
Although virtually every Canadian public health association, including CMAJ and the Canadian Cancer Society, advocates banning chrysotile exports, and a member of Harper’s cabinet, Chuck Strahl, is dying of lung-cancer caused by his ‘safe and controlled’ work with asbestos, Harper supports the chrysotile industry unswervingly. While refusing to lift a ban on the use of asbestos in Canadian homes and schools, Harper also refuses to stop exporting it to countries that have yet to enact such a ban.
The rationale for this hypocrisy is that Harper “does not want to to put Canadian industry in a position where it is discriminated against in a market where sale is permitted.” Even if Canada stops exporting asbestos, this argument goes, other exporters will just fill in the gap, so why should we lose out on business? Indeed, Chrysotile Institute president Clement Godbout argues, “at least 700 direct jobs and approximately 2,000 indirect jobs” would disappear if asbestos exports were banned. “What will happen to those regions? To the quality of life in their communities? To the people who lose their jobs?” he asks.
It should be of interest to Canadians that the head of our government is willing to defend the practice of selling carcinogens to the abject poor with an argument used most frequently by drug dealers. When meth-pushers argue that if they don’t sell to kids someone else will, they are absolutely right, and it doesn’t make one iota of difference to how we regard them — as debauched monsters exploiting the helpless. By Harper’s reasoning, however, those who happen to be caught and jailed are suffering a form of discrimination.
As for Godbout’s plaintive question, a thought-experiment is useful in assessing its moral value. Suppose that thousands of Canadians were dying annually because they handled a material, known unequivocally to cause cancer, which was sold to us by a country that claims it is safe while refusing to use it themselves. How would we react to laments over the reduction in “quality of life” that the people who profit from our misery would suffer if they were forced to stop selling us this job-creating substance? We would probably find the question itself obscene and unworthy of comment. The analogy is flawed, however. For it to be accurate, Canada would have to be a poor nation, home to one-third of the world’s poverty, without the means to treat those dying of asbestos-related diseases.
The Indians who take jobs handling asbestos are largely unaware of the hazards they endure, and have few options in any case. If the citizens of producer-countries do not compel the governments to stop exporting asbestos, there is little hope for these desperate people. Banning exports from Canada will not stop other countries from selling chrysotile, but it would add Canada’s voice to those pressuring them to stop, and put a world ban within sight. In countries like Russia, China, and Kazakhstan, opposing government policies can get dissenters jailed and tortured. Canadians, who live in one of the freest countries in the world, have no such excuse.
