Natural Resources Committee on June 1st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Ms. Kuyek.

[Joan Kuyek]

I'm not sure this is really balanced, Mr. Chairman. I seem to be the only person speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're not engaged in a debate here; it's really just an information session. If you'd like to comment on any question, please go ahead. I'm trying to get some balance.

[Joan Kuyek]

I would like to comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Very well.

[Joan Kuyek]

We very much appreciate the hard work that the Mining Association of Canada and PDAC have put in towards sustainable mining in the E3 initiatives. They're very good initiatives, and there's some excellent work being done there.

I would like to point out, however, that the initiatives remain voluntary. They're done as an agreement by the company, and the company monitors itself. So this doesn't do anything about the bad actors.

As an organization that probably hears more mining horror stories than anybody else in the country, we're a bit jaded and cynical when it comes to the operations of mining companies. I would like to say that to some extent this is an argument for tighter regulation and more oversight of mining companies. We already have some excellent voluntary initiatives to level the playing field, but for the bad actors it would make sense to make sure those decisions are enshrined in law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Fine, thank you.

Maybe a really short comment, thank you.

[Anthony Andrews]

A really short one. Every sector has its bad actors, and the mining industry is no exception. The NGO sector also has its bad actors and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We don't need that here. We're trying to impart some information to this committee, so we can decide where we want to go. If the committee decides that it wants to do a major study on the mining industry in Canada, we'll have you all back and get at this at that level. But for the time being, our members are interested in getting information to broaden their perspective on the industry as a whole.

I appreciate this very much. I know how tough it is for you, because you're so passionate about what you do. But today we're just trying to get some information going.

I should explain, Mr. Bevington, if you weren't aware of it, that we don't go the same way each round. In this round the next questioner is Monsieur Paradis.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to come back to chrysotile asbestos, an issue I am quite familiar with. I understand that the Government of Canada's current position is based on solid scientific evidence as regards chrysotile asbestos. The Department of Natural Resources says that its primary concern is the health of workers and the general public, and that their interests come before those of the industry. That's the reason why it has advocated the safe and controlled use of chrysotile for the last 20 years.

The risks associated with asbestos are not limited to the mineral ore, but in fact include all fibres or particles that can be inhaled and end up in the lungs. The risk level varies on the type of fibre. Therefore, because of differences in that regard, the risks associated with chrysotile asbestos, which is the only one produced in Canada, are far lower than those associated with amphibole asbestos.

To summarize, the Canadian scientific community believes that asbestos-related health problems can be attributed to inappropriate past use of the amphibole type of asbestos, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of safe chrysotile asbestos.

The first of my three questions is addressed to Ms. Kuyek.

When you say that chrysotile is a carcinogen, are you considering the government's qualifications of that information that I've just mentioned?

Second, what is the relative risk of chrysotile compared to other fibres or particles, particularly replacement fibres, considering that the amount of available credible scientific evidence available is inadequate to determine the potential effects of these replacement fibres on humans?

Thirdly, Mr. Nash, what do you have to say about the fact that Natural Resources Canada is the largest chrysotile lobby in Canada, according to Ms. Kuyek?

[Joan Kuyek]

I want to thank you for the question. First, this is an ongoing controversy and we, along with some national labour unions, purchased a two-page ad in The Hill Times a week ago, which has been turned into a pamphlet, in French on the other side, for distribution next week.

We felt that it was important to challenge the claims of the chrysotile industry about the safety of using chrysotile. It has been proven to be a carcinogen. There is absolutely no doubt that it is a carcinogen. There is a debate about whether it is worse than amphibole or tremolite asbestos. This position has been refuted and challenged by the chrysotile industry on the basis that it doesn't bio-persist in the lungs.

The argument about bio-persistence is in fact a red herring. There is no proof that the length of time it is in the lungs is what determines its effect on human beings, and it also is a serious question in people who have been exposed only to chrysotile and find that they have mesothelioma, which is a cancer that's caused only by asbestos.

I would urge members of the committee to look carefully at the document when it comes out next week and we'll be glad to respond to that one.

It is true that people in the asbestos regions of Quebec, some of the women, have higher rates of mesothelioma than people in other parts of the country and in other parts of North America. It is certainly true that there have been major efforts made by the Quebec union movement over the years to try to handle this dangerous fibre safely.

In unionized workplaces where people wear all the equipment and everything is monitored very carefully, then it probably can be used safely. However, we export it to other countries, where it may be handled safely and it may not. We have ample evidence of places in Peru, in Brazil, and in other countries where we export where the asbestos is not handled safely and where workers are exposed to it. It's made into asbestos cement, which is then handled by people at home, which deteriorates and causes problems. I understand that a number of the communities after the tsunami in Indonesia were rebuilt with asbestos cement.

Certainly there are reasons to use it, but there are also a lot of reasons why it's incredibly dangerous, and we, along with 39 different countries and a number or organizations that are listed in this document, feel that it is dangerous, that it should be banned in Canada and banned abroad, and that the people who are dependent on this industry in Asbestos, Thetford Mines, and Danville should have the opportunity for other kinds of work, a huge investment to help them rejig their economy to enable them to have a just transition from this work.

It's a danger to the people who live there. It's a danger to people who work with it and it's a danger to the people where we export it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Ms. Kuyek.

Is that answering your questions?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Yes, I just wanted to...

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'm a little concerned that we're running out of time. It's a very controversial matter and one that we could pursue at length.

Before we go back to Monsieur Paradis, I did want to hear from Mr. Nash because he did comment on this matter earlier.

And if you could, Mr. Nash--

[Gary Nash]

I'll do it as quickly as I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

--respond and then I'll go back to Monsieur Paradis. I beg the indulgence of the committee, because I think it's a very important matter for all of us.

[Gary Nash]

Very quickly, number one, there is very significant growing evidence that chrysotile is hardly associated with mesothelioma and there's a lot of science to demonstrate what I'm saying.

Number two, Jacques Siemiatycki and Michel Camus and a number of others from Health Canada just finished a study looking at the female population issue. It's not what we heard.

Third, I would say that the unions in Quebec, the FTQ, the Métallos, and the people living in the community beside these huge tailings piles...I'm sure that the workers there would not sacrifice their health for the sake of a salary. Consequently the people who are involved and living in those communities strongly support the federal government's position. We can demonstrate anytime that we have the science, and we're willing to put it before anyone internationally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

By the sound of things, it may be that we will have that opportunity.

Mr. Paradis, I will allow you to continue.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

The problem is that if you are advocating that asbestos be banned, you must know that this fibre has been studied over and over again by the Government of Canada. We know that, according to the scientific community, when asbestos is used in a safe manner, it poses no danger. On the other hand, we are not sure what the case is with replacement fibres.

If asbestos were to be banned, what should we do about these replacement fibres when we don't know anything about the dangers they may pose for human health? Are we not placing ourselves in a precarious position?

[Joan Kuyek]

If I could, Mr. Chairman--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Briefly.

[Joan Kuyek]

Yes. The safety of the replacement fibres should be studied, too. We are not arguing that they shouldn't. If they have been studied, then I'd like to see the comparison. I simply haven't seen it.

The argument that chrysotile is carcinogenic has not been refuted. There was a study, a very good study--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We are going to another question.

[Joan Kuyek]

Okay, sorry.