This Web page has been archived on the Web.
Canada's policies on chrysotile asbestos exports
Petition: No. 179
Issue(s): Air quality, human health/environmental health, international cooperation, natural resources, and toxic substances
Petitioner(s): David R. Boyd
Date Received: 30 October 2006
Status: Completed
Summary: This petition raises questions about the practice of exporting Canadian chrysotile asbestos to developing countries. Most uses of asbestos have been banned in Canada, and all uses of all types of asbestos have been banned in Europe and Australia. The petition claims, however, that Canada is one of the world’s largest exporters of chrysotile asbestos, and over 90 percent of these exports are sent to developing countries such as India and the Philippines. The questions posed include ones related to the health effects of chrysotile asbestos, Canada’s export policy, international trade practices, and federal asbestos-related expenditures.
Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Canada Economic Development Agency for Quebec Regions, Environment Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade - Department of [2006-present], Health Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada
Petition
24 October 2006
Johanne Gelinas
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development
Office of the Auditor General
240 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0G6
RE: Canada's policies regarding chrysotile asbestos
Most uses of asbestos have been banned in Canada, and all uses of all types of asbestos have been banned in Europe and Australia. However, Canada is one of the world's largest exporters of chrysotile asbestos, and over 90 percent of these exports are sent to developing countries such as India and the Philippines.
According to the World Health Organization, exposure to chrysotile asbestos causes lung cancer and other diseases, including asbestosis and mesothelioma. These diseases may take 20 to 40 years after exposure to develop. The global authority on carcinogenic substances, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, identified chrysotile asbestos as a known human carcinogen in 1977.
Several years ago, Canada challenged France's decision to ban the use of asbestos, taking the case to the World Trade Organization. The WTO consulted some of the world's leading experts on asbestos and rejected Canada's challenge, based on the following conclusions:
"Since 1977, chrysotile asbestos fibres have been recognized internationally as a known carcinogen."
"This carcinogenicity was confirmed by the experts consulted by the Panel, with respect to both lung cancers and mesotheliomas, even though the experts appear to acknowledge that chrysotile is less likely to cause mesotheliomas than amphiboles. We also note that the experts confirmed that the types of cancer concerned had a mortality rate of close to 100 percent. We therefore consider that we have sufficient evidence that there is in fact a serious carcinogenic risk associated with the inhalation of chrysotile fibres."
"No minimum threshold of level of exposure or duration of exposure has been identified with regard to the risk of pathologies associated with chrysotile."
European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products—Report of the Panel, Doc. # 00-3353, 18 September 2000 www.wto.org
Canada filed an appeal that was also unsuccessful. The WTO's Appellate body confirmed the decision, stating:
"All four of the scientific experts consulted by the Panel concurred that chrysotile asbestos fibres, and chrysotile-cement products, constitute a risk to human health, and the Panel's conclusions on this point are faithful to the views expressed by the four scientists. In addition, the Panel noted that the carcinogenic nature of chrysotile asbestos fibres has been acknowledged since 1977 by international bodies, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization. In these circumstances, we find that the Panel remained well within the bounds of its discretion in finding that chrysotile-cement products pose a risk to human life or health.
European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products—Report of the Appellate Body, Doc. # 01-1157, 12 March 2001 www.wto.org
Conclusive evidence that all forms of asbestos are carcinogenic has led many industrialized nations (including Australia and all 25 members of the European Union) to ban the use of this hazardous substance. Not only does Canada continue to mine and export chrysotile asbestos, but the federal government actively opposes any restrictions on international trade (particularly pursuant to the Rotterdam Convention), and continues to subsidize an asbestos industry lobby group known as the Chrysotile Institute.
Because of widespread public concern and embarrassment about Canada's continued support for the mining and export of a known human carcinogen, this Petition seeks answers to the following questions:
1. Health Effects
a) Does Canada disagree with the position of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization that chrysotile asbestos is a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure?
b) Can the federal government identify any peer reviewed scientific studies not funded by the asbestos industry that indicate chrysotile asbestos does not pose a serious threat to human health? Please provide a list.
c) Does Canada have any data on asbestos-related illnesses in the nations that import Canadian asbestos?
d) What is Health Canada's position on the health effects of chrysotile asbestos?
2. Asbestos exports
a) What volume of asbestos has been exported by Canada in the past five years? Please include a breakdown of volumes according to the importing nations.
b) Why does Canada believe that chrysotile asbestos can be safely used in developing nations for purposes for which it is banned in Canada?
c) With respect to the nations that import chrysotile asbestos from Canada, please provide details of the occupational health and safety laws that protect workers in those nations (since Canada's export policy is based on "safe use").
d) On October 17, 2006, on CBC Radio's program called The Current, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn stated that Canada provides funding to developing nations that import Canadian asbestos to ensure the asbestos is used safely. Please provide details regarding this funding—recipients, programs, and amounts.
e) What other means does Canada rely on for monitoring and ensuring "safe use" of Canadian chrysotile asbestos in importing countries?
f) Are there other products that, like asbestos, are predominantly banned in Canada because of health concerns but continue to be exported from Canada to developing nations? If so, please provide a list.
3. International Trade
a) Does Canada disagree with the rulings of the World Trade Organization that supported France's decision to ban the use of all types of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos? In other words, does Canada maintain that the WTO wrongly rejected Canada's claims?
b) What is Health Canada's position on the listing of chrysotile asbestos pursuant to the Rotterdam Convention?
c) Why does Canada oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention?
d) Which countries are Canada's allies in opposing the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention? On the CBC radio program mentioned above in question 2(d), Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn claimed there were eleven nations supporting Canada's position (out of more than 100 parties to the Rotterdam Convention).
e) What tactics have been used by Canada in efforts to prevent the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention? For example, has Canada lobbied other nations to support Canada's position?
f) Is Canada the leading nation opposed to the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention? For example, was Canada the first nation to speak against the listing of chrysotile asbestos at the recent meeting of the parties in Geneva (Oct. 9–13, 2006)?
4. Federal Asbestos-related Expenditures
a) How much federal funding has been provided to the Asbestos Institute (now known as the Chrysotile Institute) over the past 25 years? Please provide a breakdown on a year by year basis.
b) How many Canadian officials attend the meetings of the parties to the Rotterdam Convention, and what are the costs associated with these trips since the Convention came into force?
c) How much did Canada spend in its unsuccessful effort to have the WTO overturn the French ban on asbestos (including preparations for the case before both the WTO Panel and the appellate body)?
d) What has been the federal government's share of the annual Canadian health care expenses associated with diseases caused by asbestos (lung cancer, asbestosis, mesothelioma)? Please provide costs for the five most recent years for which data is available.
e) What are the costs of the renovations to buildings on Parliament Hill associated with the health threat posed by asbestos? What are the costs of asbestos removal and/or treatment from all federal buildings?
f) How much does the Government of Canada spend annually on efforts to persuade developing nations that chrysotile asbestos can be used safely?
g) Related to Question 2d, how much does the Government of Canada spend to ensure that chrysotile asbestos is used safely in developing nations?
These questions fall within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Public Works, and the Minister of International Trade. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you seek clarification or further information regarding this petition.
I look forward to receiving substantive responses to these inquiries within the time limits prescribed by statute. However I would also like to request, for reasons of fiscal prudence and environmental conservation, that no correspondence associated with this petition be sent using courier services. Canada Post's regular mail is preferable.
Respectfully,
[Original signed by David R. Boyd]
David R. Boyd
Trudeau Scholar, University of British Columbia
Adjunct Professor, Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University
Research Associate, POLIS Project on Ecological Governance, University of Victoria
1321 MacKinnon Road, RR1
Pender Island, BC
V0N 2M1
Tel: 250-629-9984
Email: davidrichardboyd@yahoo.com
Minister's Response: Canada Economic Development Agency for Quebec Regions
March 15, 2007
Mr. David R. Boyd
1321 MacKinnon Road
R.R. 1
Pender Island, British Columbia
V0N 2M1
Dear Mr. Boyd:
I am writing with respect to your Environmental Petition No. 179, to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, regarding Canada's policies on chrysotile asbestos. The petition was received by the Ministers of Health Canada, International Trade, Foreign Affairs, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Environment Canada, Canada Economic Development Agengy (CED), Labour and Natural Resources Canada on November 14, 2006.
The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, will provide you a response on behalf of all departments which received the petition.
Sincerely,
[Original signed by Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]
Jean-Pierre Blackburn, P.C., M.P.
Minister's Response: Environment Canada
2 March 2007
Mr. David R. Boyd
1321 MacKinnon Road
R.R. 1
Pender Island, British Columbia
V0N 2M1
Dear Mr. Boyd:
I am pleased to respond to your Environmental Petition No. 179, to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, regarding Canada's policies on chrysotile asbestos. The petition was received in Environment Canada on November 14, 2006.
Due to the nature of the issues being raised in the petition, Environment Canada has collaborated with the other departments involved to prepare a joint response. My colleague, the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs, will be providing you with the government's response to the petition. This response has been reviewed by my officials, who are in concurrence with its conclusions.
I appreciate your interest in this important matter.
Sincerely,
[Original signed by John Baird, Minister of Environment]
John Baird, P.C., M.P.
Joint Response: Foreign Affairs and International Trade - Department of [2006-present], Health Canada, Human Resources and Social Development Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada
|
|
15 March 2007
Mr. David R. Boyd
1321 MacKinnon Road
Rural Route 1
Pender Island, British Columbia
V0N 2M1
Dear Mr. Boyd:
I am writing in response to your environmental petition no. 179 to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development regarding Canada's policies on chrysotile asbestos.
The petition was received by the ministers of Health, International Trade, Foreign Affairs, Public Works and Government Services, Labor, and Natural Resources on November 14, 2006. You will find enclosed a joint response that was coordinated because of the nature and scope of the issues raised in the petition.
I appreciate your interest in this important matter.
Sincerely,
[Original signed by Peter G. MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]
Peter G. MacKay
Enclosure
Environment Petition No. 179—Chrysotile asbestos
1. HEALTH EFFECTS
a) Does Canada disagree with the position of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization that chrysotile asbestos is a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure?
The Government of Canada recognizes that all forms of asbestos fibres, including chrysotile, are carcinogenic. The main health risks associated with all forms of asbestos are primarily occupational, and relate to the inhalation of fibres that may lodge in the lungs in the course of mining, manufacturing and construction and renovation activities. However, scientific studies show that chrysotile is a less potent carcinogen and less persistent in the lungs than the other forms of asbestos, and consequently poses a lower health risk.
Canada follows a "controlled use" approach to strictly control exposure to chrysotile through federal, provincial and territorial workplace exposure limits and bans on some categories of consumer and workplace products under the Hazardous Products Act.
The Government of Canada is of the view that the occupational health risks of chrysotile can be managed if regulations, programs and practices equivalent to Canada's are in place to limit exposure to airborne fibres and that the risks would be no greater than posed by other occupational activities. Low levels of exposure pose low risks.
b) Can the federal government identify any peer reviewed scientific studies not funded by the asbestos industry that indicate chrysotile asbestos does not pose a serious threat to human health? Please provide a list.
The Government of Canada assesses the value of studies on the basis of scientific merit and peer reviews, rather than the source of funding for the study.
Recent reviews and comprehensive risk assessments using methods such as meta-analyses find that chrysotile fibres are much less potent than amphibole fibres, particularly crocidolite fibres.
The two most recent and comprehensive reviews made public were peer-reviewed and funded by government agencies, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive. They were based on an analysis of many scientific publications. They concluded that chrysotile fibres are some two orders of magnitude (hundreds of times) less carcinogenic for mesothelioma than amphibole asbestos fibres. These studies also concluded that chrysotile posed one order of magnitude (tens of times) less risk for lung cancer than amphiboles fibres do.
References to the US and UK studies, and another recent peer-reviewed study on the biopersistence of Canadian chrysotile follow:
Final Draft: Technical Support Document for a Protocol to Assess Asbestos-related Risk
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/asbestos/pdfs/asbestostech1-5.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/asbestos/pdfs/asbestostech6-9.pdf
Report on the Peer Consultation Workshop to Discuss a Proposed Protocol to Assess Asbestos-Related Risk. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Washington, DC 20460 EPA Contract No. 68-C-98-148 Work Assignment 2003-05.http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/asbestos/pdfs/asbestos_report.pdf
The Quantitative Risks of Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer in Relation to Asbestos Exposure, John T. Hodgson and Andrew Darnton. Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 44, No. 8, pp. 565–601, 2000 (UK Health and Safety Executive).
The paper concludes that the risk of mesothelioma posed by chrysotile asbestos is 1/100 that posed by amosite asbestos and 1/500 that posed by crocidolite asbestos. It also concludes that the risk differential for lung cancer from chrysotile asbestos is 1/10 that posed by amosite asbestos and 1/50 that posed by crocidolite asbestos.
The Biopersistence of Canadian Chrysotile Asbestos Following Inhalation: Final Results Through 1 Year After Cessation of Exposure. David M. Bernstein, Rick Rogers, Paul Smith Inhalation Toxicology, 17:1–14, 2005. The paper reports that chrysotile is much less biopersistant than other forms of asbestos.
c) Does Canada have any data on asbestos-related illnesses in the nations that import Canadian asbestos?
The Government of Canada does not collect such data. However, information on cancer rates is available from the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The latest available data is found in IARC Scientific Publication No. 155, Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Vol. VIII Edited by D.M. Parkin, S.L. Whelan, J. Ferlay, L. Teppo and D.B. Thomas
d) What is Health Canada's position on the health effects of chrysotile asbestos?
Inhalation of chrysotile asbestos fibres, particularly at the high and uncontrolled levels experienced through occupational exposure in the past, can lead to asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and also laryngeal cancer. Chrysotile is a less potent carcinogen than other forms of asbestos (see response to 1b). As well, current lower levels of exposure now experienced in the occupational setting pose a lower risk than experienced in the past. (See response to 1a).
2. ASBESTOS EXPORTS
a) What volume of asbestos has been exported by Canada in the past five years? Please include a breakdown of volumes according to the importing nations?
Please see attached Tables 2 and 3.
b) Why does Canada believe that chrysotile asbestos can be safely used in developing nations for purposes for which it is banned in Canada?
Over 93 percent of chrysotile exports are used for inclusion in cement products, and about 5 percent for friction materials. We are not aware of chrysotile being commonly used in developing countries for applications that are banned in Canada. The severe legacy of disease associated with exposure to "asbestos" in developed countries can be linked to three principal factors: 1) "asbestos" was originally treated as a nuisance dust and no standards existed until the 1960's; 2) the use of "asbestos" in low-density friable insulation, such as sprayed-on, applications; and 3) the mixing of amphibole asbestos fibres with chrysotile in many applications for cost and technical reasons. However, use of "asbestos" in developing countries only started in the 1960's and is predominantly confined to products where the chrysotile fibres are locked into a cement or resin matrix. Today, at least 98 percent of total chrysotile fibres' consumption is for manufactured products in this category.
c) With respect to the nations that import chrysotile asbestos from Canada, please provide details of the occupational health and safety laws that protect workers in those nations (since Canada's policy is based on "Safe use").
Canada exported chrysotile and chrysotile-based products to some 73 countries around the world in 2005. While implementation of domestic measures to ensure workplace health and safety is a sovereign responsibility of importing countries, Canada makes efforts to promote the controlled use of chrysotile. Canada provides information on how to manage the risks associated with chrysotile and supports the work of the Chrysotile Institute which promotes safety in the use of chrysotile internationally. Countries are encouraged to implement measures in compliance with the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 162 on Safety in the use of Asbestos.
Asian countries, which include India, Indonesia, South Korea, Sri Lanka and Thailand account for 74 percent of Canadian exports of chrysotile worldwide. For these countries, we refer you to the following as examples of health and safety measures:
- India: Ministry of Labour, The Factories Act, 1948 (Amended by Act 20 of 1987)
- Indonesia: Ministry of Manpower, Ministerial Decree No. 03, 1985, (addressing health and safety related to the application of asbestos in the workplace) & Director General Decree No. 104, 2006 (a code of practice on the application of asbestos in the workplace referencing ILO guidelines on the safe use of asbestos).
- South Korea: Ministry of Labour, Enforcement Regulations for Industrial Safety and Health Act, 1982.
- Sri Lanka: The Department of Labour uses the ILO guidelines on the safe use of Asbestos to promote safety measures on a voluntary basis.
- Thailand: Ministry of Interior, Safety in Working Environment (Chemicals) Act, 1977.
d) On October 17, 2006, on CBC Radio's program called The Current, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn stated that Canada provides funding to developing nations that import Canadian asbestos to ensure that asbestos is used safely. Please provide details regarding this funding –recipients, programs and amounts.
The Chrysotile Institute, a not for profit organization, is mandated by both the federal and provincial governments as well as by the industry and the unions representing the chrysotile workers, to support the promotion of the controlled use of chrysotile nationally and internationally. For that specific purpose, the Government of Canada contributes 1/3 of the annual budget of the Institute to a level of $250,000 annually to advance the previously mentioned objective.
Between 1984 and 2006, the Chrysotile Institute has organized and conducted information and dust control seminars for trade unions, held medical surveillance training programs, provided technical and financial assistance for launching national fibre associations, and technology transfer in more than 60 countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Middle East. Each initiative has helped developing countries and those with economies in transition meet the worker health and safety requirements of the ILO Convention 162.
e) What other means does Canada rely on for monitoring and ensuring "safe use" of Canadian chrysotile asbestos in importing countries?
While Canada does not have the legal authority to monitor exposures in other countries, the industry has agreed not to export to companies that do not use chrysotile in a manner that is consistent with Canada's controlled-use approach. At the same time, the Chrysotile Institute is helping to build capacity and expertise in countries using chrysotile to better ensure its controlled use. In this regard, the Chrysotile Institute periodically collects data, based on industry input, on a range of workplace exposures in countries producing and using chrysotile.
f) Are there other products that, like asbestos, are predominantly banned in Canada because of health concerns but continue to be exported from Canada to developing nations? If so, please provide a list.
"Asbestos" is not predominantly banned or severely restricted in Canada although some products containing "asbestos" are prohibited. The Hazardous Products Act governs regulated and prohibited products, including asbestos products.
Based on the Export Control List for 2005, pursuant to section 103 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, there is one product, Tributyltetradecylphosphonium chloride (TTPC) banned (for use, processing, sale, offer for sale or import) in Canada that is exported from Canada. According to the Government of Canada's records, there have been no exports of this product to developing countries since 2000. It is manufactured domestically and was exported to Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States of America in 2002. This product is banned in Canada for environmental reasons.
3. INTERNATIONAL TRADE
a) Does Canada disagree with the rulings of the World Trade Organization that supported France's decision to ban the use of all types of asbestos, including chrysotile asbestos? In other words, does Canada maintain that the WTO wrongly rejected Canada's claims?
The WTO Panel was asked to determine whether France's ban on asbestos violated certain obligations of the TBT Agreement and GATT 1994. It was not asked to determine whether the principle or application of controlled use of chrysotile asbestos was safe or effective per se.
In no way does Canada call into question a country's right to adopt regulations in the public interest, or to set appropriate levels of protection for public health reasons. In Canada, as well as in other countries, the use of chrysotile asbestos is strictly regulated. Canada stands by its position concerning the controlled use of chrysotile asbestos. Canada's policy of controlled use is well founded because it has a sound scientific basis and is a responsible approach.
b) What is Health Canada's position on the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention?
The Government of Canada made clear its position on the listing of chrysotile under the Rotterdam Convention at the third Conference of the Parties held in Geneva October 9-13, 2006. The Conference of the Parties is the decision making body of the Rotterdam Convention. Canada opposed the addition of chrysotile to the list of substances subject to the Rotterdam Convention. Canada joined with all other Parties in deciding to defer consideration of the listing of chrysotile until the fourth Conference of the Parties in 2008.
c) Why does Canada oppose the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention?
Canada opposed listing of chrysotile asbestos at the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention but indicated that it would not prevent consensus in support of a deferral of this agenda item to a subsequent Conference of the Parties. Canada joined with all other Parties in deciding to defer consideration of the listing of chrysotile until the fourth Conference of the Parties in 2008.
d) Which countries are Canada's allies in opposing the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention? On the CBC radio program mentioned above in question 2 (d), Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn claimed there were eleven nations supporting Canada's position (out of more than 100 Parties to the Rotterdam Convention).
In addition to Canada, countries that did not support the listing of chrysotile under Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention at its third Conference of the Parties included: Indonesia, India, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe.
e) What tactics have been used by Canada in efforts to prevent the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention? For example, has Canada lobbied other nations to support Canada's position?
Canada participated in a working group established by the President of the third Conference of the Parties to discuss key issues related to the proposed listing of chrysotile. Canada worked constructively to develop a decision that was acceptable to all Parties. Canada joined with all other Parties in deciding to defer consideration of the listing of chrysotile until the fourth Conference of the Parties in 2008. The full text of the decision (RC-3/3) can be found on the Rotterdam Convention website, www.pic.int.
f) Is Canada the leading nation opposed to the listing of chrysotile asbestos under the Rotterdam Convention? For example, was Canada the first nation to speak against the listing of chrysotile asbestos at the recent meeting of the parties in Geneva (Oct. 9-13, 2006)?
Canada was the first country to register its views at the third Conference of the Parties in Geneva. In the Conference of the Parties process, decisions are made on the basis of consensus. Given that a number of other countries also opposed listing, the issue did not enjoy consensus. Canada joined with all other Parties in deciding to defer consideration of the listing of chrysotile until the fourth Conference of the Parties in 2008.
4. FEDERAL ASBESTOS-RELATED EXPENDITURES
a) How much federal funding has been provided to the Asbestos Institute (now known as the Chrysotile Institute) over the past 25 years? Please provide a breakdown on a year by year basis?
Please see Table 1 below.
b) How many Canadian officials attend the meetings of the parties to the Rotterdam Convention, and what are the costs associated with these trips since the Convention came into force?
Three Conferences of the Parties have been held to date. Seven Government of Canada officials attended the first two meetings and eight attended the most recent one. The total travel cost for these officials was $111,385.
How much did Canada spend in its unsuccessful effort to have the WTO overturn the French ban on asbestos (including preparations for the case before the WTO Panel and the Appellate body)?
The total cost to the Government of Canada of preparing and presenting the litigation case European Communities—Measures affecting asbestos and asbestos containing products before the WTO Panel and the WTO Appellate Body is estimated to be $575 000. This estimate comprises: legal and other professional services, travel, hospitality, freight, printing, and an estimate of in-house government legal counsel costs incurred in preparing for and presenting the case. The costs of the litigation case were incurred in the fiscal years 1997-1998 through 2000-2001.
d) What has been the federal governments' share of the annual Canadian health care expenses associated with diseases caused by asbestos (lung cancer, asbestosis, mesothelioma)? Please provide costs for the five most recent years for which data is available.
Government of Canada support for health care in Canada is provided to the provinces via the Canada Health Transfer. Canada Health Transfer support is allocated to provinces and territories on an equal per capita basis to ensure equal support for all Canadians regardless of their place of residence. Support for treatment of individual categories of illness is not broken out in the transfer.
e) What are the costs of renovations to buildings on Parliament Hill associated with the health threat posed by asbestos? What are the costs of asbestos removal and/or treatment from all federal buildings?
Up until the 1980's, asbestos was used in construction materials because of its insulating, fire-resistant and reinforcing properties. Generally, asbestos is found in pipe insulation, ceiling tiles, mechanical equipment insulation and drywall compounds. The presence of asbestos-containing materials does not, in itself, constitute a health hazard, provided the material is intact. Undisturbed material in good condition presents little risk. Health hazards occur when these materials become damaged and asbestos fibres become airborne. Due to these health concerns, industry stopped manufacturing and installing materials containing friable (easily crumbled) asbestos. In the 1980's the usage of asbestos in friable construction materials was prohibited under the federal Hazardous Products Act.
The PWGSC Policy on Asbestos Management provides for a code of practice for managing asbestos in PWGSC-owned or -leased buildings. Many of the buildings managed by PWGSC still contain asbestos and, as such, PWGSC manages associated health risks by limiting exposure. This is done within the context of an Asbestos Management Plan, which surveys the buildings for, and provides regular inspection and surveillance of, asbestos-containing materials.
In the event that building renovations or repairs may result in a potential disturbance of asbestos-containing materials, appropriate abatement procedures as defined within the Asbestos Management Plan are undertaken. As a result, the majority of work involving removal and/or treatment of asbestos is done within the context of larger-scale renovation and construction projects. Take for example a boiler replacement project. Prior to replacing the existing boiler, PWGSC would evaluate the potential disturbance of asbestos-containing materials and would undertake the necessary abatement procedures to remove the asbestos from the work area. Once the asbestos is removed, workers would begin replacing the boiler. As a result, the work would be identified within the PWGSC building management system as a "boiler installation" project, not as an "asbestos abatement" project. This means that it is not possible to provide accurate and meaningful data associated with the costs of asbestos removal and/or treatment from federal buildings, including those on Parliament Hill.
f) How much does the Government of Canada spend annually on efforts to persuade developing nations that chrysotile asbestos can be used safely?
Canada, in partnership with the Quebec government, the workers and their unions and the industry, has mandated the Chrysotile Institute to promote the controlled-use of chrysotile abroad. (see response to 2d) In addition, some Government of Canada's representatives attend workshops and conferences to support Chrysotile Institute's activities in disseminating the most recent scientific evidence related to the use of chrysotile. This was the case in Indonesia, Thailand and Peru in 2005 and 2006. The total annual average cost to the government is approximately $10,000.
g) Related to question 2d, how much does the Government of Canada spend to ensure that chrysotile asbestos is used safely in developing countries?
In addition to the costs referred to in 4f, the Government of Canada provides $250,000 to the Chrysotile Institute annually. There are no Government of Canada chrysotile asbestos programs that provide direct financial support to developing countries.