Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services and Indigenous Health) Share this | Hansard source

That is an excellent question which I will answer as I progress through the speech. What we have is tension between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec, who both find themselves tacitly supporting the continued export. The concern for many who are opposed to what is effectively the transfer of asbestos to developing economies—where the understanding, knowledge and regulation of the use of this product are fairly limited—is the responsibility a developed economy has to make sure that is done fairly and safely. The answer probably is, in current arrangements: very, very little.

Some have attempted to use the Rotterdam treaty, which focuses on pesticides, as a way of preventing the use of a product that, they would argue, can be used safely only in an almost theoretical sense. While the figures diverge, the Canadian-government-sponsored Chrysotile Institute will say that it is 99.8 per cent safe to use asbestos under certain conditions. I think everyone in this chamber would know that those conditions do not exist around the world.

The best figures we have about the number of deaths due to asbestos are, I think, even higher than those the member provided earlier. If you take all of the deaths in the developed world, it is in the order of 100,000 per year. We need to be balancing that morally against the economic impact for economies. Choosing Canada because it is a developed economy and the wealthiest of the asbestos exporters, let us consider the price that they would pay if they were to cease the export of asbestos. The answer is that there probably are 200 to 500 jobs in those mines. Some would argue that those mines are already economically barely above water. Many of them are still reliant on government sponsorship to survive. So this is a sector that is struggling.

We also know that there is direct support from the Canadian government. There is a very financially favourable loan to expand a new mine. But we also know that the Canadian government has a link with the Chrysotile Institute, which they support to prepare newsletters like this. I found this of enormous interest. This is a 12-page document that promotes the safe use of asbestos. It even includes beautifully illustrated headers showing smiling children from developing economies, who are obviously delighted that asbestos is arriving on their shores. On further reading, what it is effectively saying is that asbestos can be safely and responsibly used, under controlled circumstances. It then goes into significant detail to convince the world that there is no longer ‘any exposure’ theory—that it is no longer the case that any form of exposure can lead to cancer. While I regard that as being an intellectually fascinating detail in this document, in a practical sense it is a complete waste of space, time and taxpayers’ money, if I could make that observation from the other side of the Pacific.

The current Canadian government do not want to lose a couple of seats in Quebec. They do not want the backlash that could occur if there were to be some restrictions on the mining of asbestos. And, fundamentally, a developed economy does not really have any concern for how a product, once it leaves its shores, is used when it arrives in the market that has purchased it. This should be of enormous concern. It does sound a little bit like the tobacco industry, and, as I have said already, it sounds a little bit like the Australian’s Labor Party’s approach to uranium.

Let us be very clear about this: there have been and there will be extreme statements on both sides. I will just allude to a few of these. Firstly, we are seeing, particularly in Canada, very few politicians prepared to speak out about this topic. We are only just starting to see some cracks here, with the NDP and some federal Liberals—and, in Canada, unions, outside Quebec—starting to support the words of the previous speaker.

If you look a little closer at who graces the pages of these Canadian government funded newsletters, it is—yes, you guessed it—the union movement. Right at the top of it, you will be interested to read that the chrysotile asbestos labour unions from Quebec are on the front lines, fighting hard on this issue to continue the export of asbestos. I think it is just worth making sure that that is on the public record, because that is printed in a Canadian government funded newsletter from an institute which is itself run and owned by someone who previously owned an asbestos mine. So it does appear to get murkier.

While I cannot pretend to fully understand the ins and outs of asbestos in Canada, it is also interesting to see some of the rhetoric that is suffused through these Canadian government sponsored newsletters. One example is: ‘We have been vigilant and perseverant in defending the rights of workers.’ That certainly evokes the language of the front lines of the left, doesn’t it? These are the guys who are defending the jobs of the people who dig this stuff up. There are 200 to 300 of them, and probably another 500 who are indirectly associated with asbestos export. They are the very people who you would potentially put out of work—but to save the lives of 100,000 people. It has to start somewhere, doesn’t it?

If you bring a motion to this place, you need to realise that the case being made to continue the status quo is not always being made by powerful industry. It can sometimes be made by a labour union, and sometimes by a government that is defending its own economic interests. I just place that before the chamber: that newsletter, ‘for the safe and responsible use of chrysotile’. Of course, when they make their case, they leave the word ‘asbestos’ out, because that is a little bit distasteful these days, isn’t it? So instead, they use the chemical name to try and avoid any insensitivity.

In short, every health organisation you have ever heard of will talk about the dangers of asbestos and say that more needs to be done, and what we have here is one developed economy that certainly does not appear to be doing enough. You can call it indifference but you can also call it a focus on a domestic economy. Parts of Quebec are probably not doing that well at the moment and those few hundred jobs, let us be honest, support families who would be extremely disadvantaged were they to be transitioned into other forms of the economy. So we have to be looking for solutions to that if we are to aspire to those noble aspirations that were mentioned in the previous speaker’s motion.

I am not saying that any politician is an enthusiastic advocate of asbestos. Obviously they are not. But I think it is important to point out the tensions. The residence of the Canadian Prime Minister is currently having asbestos removed from it and the House of Commons in Canada in recent years has had the asbestos removed from it. So the argument is: can we really expect that it is completely fair to be exporting asbestos at exactly the same time? Both levels of government, Quebec and Canada itself, find themselves in a situation where it is only continued government support that keeps these mines up and running and they continue to export—and we hear of the dreadful morbidity. (Time expired)

See this speech in context