OCTOBER 18, 2011: A BLOODY ANNIVERSARY
Laurie Kazan-Allen
Presented at a Press Conference
Ottawa, Canada, October 18, 2011
We are here today to mark the 20th anniversary of the overturn of the United States
Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule. It is fitting that we do so in Ottawa, the capital of thecountry which attacked the legislation intended to protect Americans from deadly
exposures to asbestos. It was, after all, as a result of a lawsuit backed by the Federal
Government of Canada, the Province of Quebec, Canadian asbestos stakeholders andothers, that the ban was quashed. As a consequence of the legal and political actions
mounted by Canadian interests, a further 300,000 tonnes of asbestos, most sourced fromCanada, were used in the U.S. and vast amounts of asbestos products were incorporated
into the national infrastructure. The continuing lack of an asbestos ban in the UnitedStates has been ruthlessly exploited by industry lobbyists to promote global sales ofasbestos.
The Canadian assault on the U.S. ban was masterminded by politicians and civil servantsin Ottawa and Quebec. They sought to remain invisible and, to a large extent, succeeded.
Their Machiavellian strategy was spelt out in 1986 by Alek Ignatow from the Ministry ofEnergy, Mines, and Resources: “Clearly, the industry must be seen as leading on thisissue,” he wrote. So, while industry fronted the attack, financial support and politicalassistance from Quebec and Ottawa underpinned the incursion of Canada’s asbestos footsoldiers into U.S. territory. Documents released by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) name those involved in the Canadian plot to overthrow the U.S. ban.
Canadians Implicated in Attack on U.S. BanCanadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney lobbied President Reagan over theEPA’s plans to ban asbestos at a meeting in the mid-1980s. The PM was kept
apprised of developments regarding the ban proposals as were members of thePrivy Council.
Quebec Premier Jean-Robert Bourassa raised Quebec’s concerns about thecontroversial ban with U.S. trade officials at a meeting in Washington in 1986.
Canadian Ambassadors to the U.S. Allan Gotlieb and D. H. Burney meet withthe EPA Administrator in September 1986 and April 1989 respectively.
Over the years, EPA officials grew used to seeing the Canadian Ambassador’s
letterhead on correspondence and memoranda attacking the EPA’s ban proposals.
On January 10, 1989, in a 17-page “note,” the Canadian Ambassador rehashed his
Government’s arguments in support of the policy of “controlled use of asbestos.”“Asbestos is,” the Ambassador wrote “an extremely versatile mineral which1produces useful, cost-effective materials essential for providing potable water,
sanitation, and affordable shelter in developing countries.”
Other politicians whose names are in the EPA files include Canadian Minister ofEnergy, Mines and Resources Marcel Masse, Quebec’s Minister of Mines
Raymond Savoie and Roch Frechette, Mayor of the Quebec town of Asbestos.
Personnel at Canadian ministries and departments with involvement in the plot tooverturn the ban included staff at the:
••
••
•
•
•

Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Resources
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
Ministry of Regional Economic Expansion
Department of Health and Welfare
Department of External Affairs
Canadian International Development Agency

Reflections
Of course, it is not possible to say what might or might not have happened had Canadiansstayed on their side of the border when it came to deciding on how the U.S. Government
could best protect the lives of American citizens. It is conceivable that without theinvolvement, support and influence of Canadian asbestos interests, the attack on theEPA’s Asbestos Ban and Phase-out Rule might well have failed. Should that have beenso, then several things could have transpired. The U.S. would, by now, have benefited
from twenty years of using asbestos-free products; a generation of workers would haveescaped hazardous exposures to asbestos-containing products. Other governments,
following the U.S. example, might also have passed legislation prohibiting asbestos use.
The asbestos-free world which so many of us have campaigned for could have become areality.
Concluding Thoughts
The financial greed and political expediency which motivated the onslaught on the EPA
ban is alive and well in Canada. Canada’s behaviour at the meeting of the Rotterdam
Convention in June 2011 is an example of this as are the increasingly outrageousstatements being made by Baljit Chadha, a businessman hoping to extract a $58 million
loan guarantee from the Quebec Government for a new asbestos mining project. Today,the 20th anniversary of the overturn of the U.S. ban is the perfect time to say: “Enough isenough.” In memory of those whose lives have already been sacrificed in the name ofasbestos, let Canada finally do the right thing – shut down this corrupting and corrupt
industry, cut loose the pariahs who are growing fat on asbestos blood money and assist2communities in the mining regions to diversify their economies. An asbestos-free future
is possible; it is what each one of us deserves. 1

1

The full paper and documentation from the EPA can be accessed at: http://ibasecretariat.org/lka-a-bloodyanniversary-2011.php3