Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Asbestos Wars – My Response To The Position Of My Conservative MP

Given Canada's unconscionable ongoing export of death (i.e., asbestos) and given that it is back in the media spotlight thanks to the brave efforts of Michaela Keyserlingk, about whom I wrote a brief posting yesterday, now seems a propitious moment to post the response I wrote to my Member of Parliament, David Sweet, on June 20th of this year, after he responded to my expression of concern calling for the termination of this deadly practice.

While I never publish emails that I have received, as I feel they are private communication between me and the other party, I don't see anything improper about posting my response to such communication.

Here it is:

Dear Mr. Sweet,

Thank you for your reply to the concerns I expressed regarding the ongoing export of chrysotile and the request that Canada join the United Nation in banning its production and export. While I appreciate that over the years you have always made an effort to respond to matters I have written to you about, I find that I must take issue about your and your Government's cavalier attitude toward asbestos.

In you response, you cite that the well-documented lethal impact of asbestos use is the result of past mishandling, and that Canada promotes the safe handling and use of this deadly product. Putting aside the fact that asbestos has been removed from Canadian buildings since its deadly nature was understood, I have to wonder whether you and your Government are indulging in either a form of sophistry or self-delusion when you imply that countries such as India, which regularly use this product, are going to handle it in a manner that will ensure the safety of its workers.

Despite the fact that India is an emerging economic powerhouse, it still is, even by the most generous of criteria, a developing country that is well-known for its willingness to exploit the labour of men, women, and children in the most dangerous of situations, not unlike the practices
cultivated in the West as the Industrial Revolution took hold. So by instructing upon the safe use of asbestos, you may have discharged your legal obligation, but not your moral one.

By all accounts you are a good person, one who embraces the tenets of Christianity. I urge you to consider the central message of that religion, as espoused by Christ: to love and honour God through caring for our fellow human beings, a commission that is often so very hard to adhere to, even in the best of times.

I realize that once a decision is made, the caucus must speak with one voice. I guess the question that I leave you to consider is this: have you, both in your capacity as the people's representative and as the chair of the Commons Industry, Science and Technology Committee, done everything possible to follow what your heart tells you is the right thing to do on this issue?



Please sign this petition urging Prime Minister Harper to stop threatening Michaela Keyserlingk and to stop exporting asbestos.



2 comments:

  1. Canada opposed the addition of asbestos to Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. Being added to this Annex does not ban asbestos. It does not result in protectionism. The Conservatives originally tried to cowardly hide behind other countries objections, but when India ceased to oppose, the mask came off.

    The purpose of the Rotterdam Convention is "to ensure the proper use of those hazardous chemicals by promoting the exchange of information about the substances and also to make decisions about the import and export of these chemicals."

    In other words, to provide information on how to handle dangerous substances safely.

    Why do the Conservatives constantly claim that asbestos 'can be handled safely', but absolutely refuse legally binding obligations to tell importers *how* it can be handled safely?

    ReplyDelete
  2. An excellent point! Sadly, I guess it is yet another example of the Orwellian perversion of language that this government seems so adept at practicing. Should I have additional communication with Mr. Sweet on this issue, I will be sure to include what you have pointed out.

    ReplyDelete