The weather was actually much nicer than this picture makes it look like it may have been from this picture. I actually took this shot of Parliament Hill at a super high shutter speed as we crossed over the bridge from Hull to Ottawa yesterday afternoon. The windows were super dirty, which accounts for the cloudy nature of the photo. However, it puts me in mind of how I feel Canadian politics are these days: Dark and Cloudy.
Now that I have the attention of the government…
I received an emailed letter from the Minister of the Environment, The Honourable Peter Kent today. I’m hoping for a letter from the Minister of Health next, and, since Kent forwarded my letter to them, I’m also anticipating hearing from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, International Trade, and Labour. I should start a scrap book.
UPDATE 09/27: A second letter from the Minister of the Environment!
This is a long one… if you don’t read everything in the Government’s letter (and it is all a load of crap), at least scan to the end for my editorializing…!
Back in July, asbestos was in the news a lot. Canada, a leading exporter of the stuff, was getting in hot water internationally for exporting it and not ensuring it was used safely overseas when it is something banned in this country. I got a little miffed about that, given my family history with asbestos, and made some comments on Facebook. Those comments turned into a series of long debates with friends which my sister, Jen, proposed that we incorporate into a letter to the Prime Minister. Since I had just done something similar a couple months earlier, I was definitely game to hate mail our government once again.
July 4, 2011
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
As you may have noticed, your efforts at the recent Rotterdam Convention to keep chrysotile asbestos off the Annex 3 list of hazardous chemicals have garnered some attention. We are writing you to voice our own concerns about Canada’s continuing role in exporting asbestos. We are sisters; Gillian is 29 and Jennifer is 26.
Our relationship with asbestos began fairly personally. Our grandfather worked for an oil company at their refineries for his entire career. As a manager, he brought his family to live in onsite housing when his children were young. This is likely how the family received most of their exposure to asbestos. When our grandfather died of cancer in 2003 he was also suffering from asbestosis. When our mother was diagnosed with mesothelioma in the fall of 2000, doctors were shocked to see the disease in a patient so young. She fought it for three long years, far beyond the maximum 8 months she was originally given, and died a few months shy of her 50th birthday. Jennifer was 18 and Gillian was 21. Asbestos touches real people.
We are also concerned about Canada’s place in the global village. If we ban a substance in our own country but continue to sell it to others, what does that make us? Profiteers at the expense and certain harm to others? Would we expect the federal government to prop up the manufacture of drugs so that we can ship them to other countries? Opiates have a use in the health care industry, as does marijuana, but in reality we get upset at countries that don’t crack down on the manufacture and export of drugs that are illegal in Canada.
Canada should agree to let chrysotile asbestos be listed as a hazardous material and also provide the training necessary for its proper use. Unfortunately, developed countries have a tendency to sell resources to developing countries with no regard for safety, often exposing them to risks that would never be acceptable here. If we are a global village, we need to act like neighbours who actually care about each other more than making a dollar.
We worry about possibly watching our mother’s three siblings deal with asbestos-related diseases. We worry about other children losing their parents. We worry about Canada’s tarnished reputation on the world stage because of the government’s stance on this issue, and we are ashamed.
Gillian and Jennifer
I didn’t receive a response to the first letter that I sent (though, unlike this one, I only sent it to the PM and not my MP) and so, that was the last I thought of it. Until today. I arrived home this afternoon to a letter in my mailbox from the Ministry of Natural Resources. Ministry of Natural Resources? It wasn’t until I was halfway down the driveway with the closed letter in my hand that I realized what it must be. Inside, I received a two-page lecture from the Hon. Minister Joe Oliver… (text follows) (Sorry for the bad lighting in the first image. Not sure what happened. It was the same time/place… I should get a scanner.)
Dear Ms Gillian and Ms Jennifer:
The Prime Minister’s Office has forwarded to me a copy of your letter of July, 4, 2011, in which you express some concerns related to Canada’s position with respect to chrysotile asbestos.
Please accept my sympathy for the asbestos-related death of your mother and your grandfather. I understand and appreciate your concern for the well-being of others, and assure you that the health and safety of workers and the public is a priority for the Government of Canada.
It is important first to clarify how we use the term “asbestos.” A great deal of confusion arises from the common use of the generic commercial term “asbestos” to describe two different and distinct classes of mineral fibres found naturally in rock formations around the world: amphibole and serpentine.
Chrysotile, the only “asbestos” fibre produced in and exported from Canada, belongs to the serpentine class. Serpentine minerals are structurally and chemically different from the amphiboles. Chrysotile is the only “asbestos” fibre that does not belong to the amphibole group. The risk posed by using chrysotile fibres can be managed if adequate controls, such as those established in Canada, are implemented and completely observed.
In 1979, the Government of Canada adopted the controlled-use approach to asbestos. This means that, through the enforcement of appropriate regulations to rigorously control exposure to chrysotile, the health risks associated with processes and products can be reduced to acceptable levels.
Chrysotile is regulated under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The objective of the regulations is to prevent the exposure of consumers to products containing or consisting entirely of any type of asbestos and which can readily shed loose fibres that can be inhaled and cause adverse health effects. Canada does not ban naturally-occurring substances. Canada manages the risks of products and practices derived from these substances where and when required and applicable.
The illnesses we are currently seeing in countries that have intensively used “asbestos” fibres are linked to past high-level exposures and inappropriate uses. These uses have been prohibited or discontinued in Canada since the late 1970s. A total ban on chrysotile is neither necessary nor appropriate. Implementing a ban would not protect workers or the public against past uses that have been prohibited for many years.
More than 93 percent of the world production of chrysotile is used in chryso-cement-manufactured products in the form of pipes, sheets and shingles. Five percent is used for friction materials such as brake pads and linings. Canadian-manufactured products include brake pads, gaskets and specialty products. Fibres are encapsulated in a matrix in those products, thus preventing the release of fibres and allowing their use.
We all share the objective of protecting human health. Since 1979, Canada has promoted the controlled-use approach, both domestically and internationally. Canada continues to work with other countries on matters related to the safe use of chrysotile through the Chrysotile Institute.
The Chrysotile Institute, a not-for-profit organization established in 1984 by the governments of Canada and Quebec, labour and industry, has the mandate to promote the controlled use of chrysotile both domestically and internationally. The Chrysotile Institute provides information to governments, industry, unions, media and the general public on how to safely manage the risks associated with the handling of chrysotile fibres. This information includes technical regulations, control measures, standards and best practices. Over the years, the Chrysotile Institute has assisted knowledge and technology transfer in more than 60 countries.
Thank you for writing.
The Honourable Joe Oliver, P.C., M.P.
Did anyone else notice the excessive use of quotation marks around “asbestos”?
I find it interesting how, in the same breath, asbestos use in Canada is both condoned as safe and labelled as risky. Please, make up your mind. And then instead of giving me a history lesson and lecture, trying to placate me with lots of information and overwhelm me to silence, actually address my concerns. While I appreciate that the government actually replied to my letter (First time that the Conservatives have ever replied to anything I have written. Though I would also like to take this opportunity to state that my wonderful NDP MP has responded to every letter I have ever written her.), I feel a little patronized and completely unsatisfied by this response. Basically, it is another rehashing of this government’s position: “I am right, you are wrong. Shut up, get out of our way while we screw this country over.”
I woke up just in time to listen to the 7am CBC Radio news this morning… rolled over and turned it on, as I usually do each morning, and lay in shock listening to the lead story. It was like a punch in the gut. Looking at the “news feed” of my Facebook friends this morning, it seems I am not alone in that feeling.
I was able to hear Jack Layton speak once in person, when he came to speak at the University of Victoria in 2006. I have voted for him and his MPs in the last several elections.
He did a lot of good work for Canadian politics and it is a shame he will not be able to be around to reap the official opposition rewards of his work. He will be greatly missed.
UPDATE: Jack’s letter to Canadians.
I’m in Vancouver for a series of meetings this weekend. I am the new BC/Yukon representative for the Primates World Relief and Development Fund (PWRDF) – the international development and social justice arm of the Anglican Church of Canada. I’m looking forward to finding out more about what that will entail and getting involved in some of these important issues!
Further to that, I have received an electronic reply to my letter to the Prime Minister. It just said my letter had been received. I have sent it off by post as well. The enthusiastic and encouraging response I received here and on Facebook was unexpected and really quite lovely! Thank you for your kind words.
Yes, I just emailed this to the Prime Minister.
Dear Mr Harper,
I am a politically involved young person, the type of person that your new majority government (congratulations, by the way) does not represent but desperately needs to try to understand and engage.
When I voted in my first election, 11 years ago and just a few months after my 18th birthday, I voted for the Reform Party. I voted for the Reform Party because I had had the good fortune of spending a week in Ottawa with Forum for Young Canadians the previous year, meeting my MP and enjoying the opportunity to ask him questions; and I liked him. I attended, with my father, a rally when Stockwell Day was running for leader of the newly-formed Canadian Alliance and even contemplated joining the party to vote in the leadership race.
Since then, however, I have become increasingly disappointed with the direction that our right-wing political party has taken. I have felt increasingly alienated and disregarded by your party. Seeking alternatives, I have attended meetings where both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton were speaking, and enjoyed the opportunity to shake the hand of our new official opposition leader. Now, I am extremely proud to live in a strong NDP riding, with a MP I voted for, next door to the riding of our first ever elected Green MP. I have voted Green or NDP in the last three federal elections and I will continue to vote for one of these parties perhaps until you give me a palatable alternative.
In this election, I had three wishes:
- The Conservative Party NOT get a majority government.
- The NDP form official opposition.
- Elizabeth May gets elected in Saanich-Gulf Islands.
Some would say that two out of three is not too bad. However it is the one I did not get that scares me the most. Throughout the last five years and the 2011 campaign, I have been shocked and surprised at the arrogance of your MPs and candidates, proclaiming that the only way to get any benefit for the riding is to elect a government MP: “If you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” Please forgive me if I have misunderstood the way politics are supposed to happen in Canada, but I thought the Government of Canada existed to serve the people of Canada, not solely the 40% that voted for them.
I am also scared because of the precedent you have set in the last few years with a minority government. Since elected in 2006, your government has lied to and mislead the House of Commons. If you have been able to get away with that in a minority government, I am worried as to what you will try with a majority government. I was happy that there was a contempt of parliament ruling and shocked when nothing changed after it (though with the precedent you have set, perhaps I should not have been shocked). I have been upset at your treatment of your own MPs and cabinet ministers, let alone the opposition members and “ordinary Canadians.” I am concerned for our environment and how, since you came to power, we have disregarded our international agreements on fighting climate change: I am tired of being the laughing-stock of the world. I am disappointed because our Canadian identity is changing from one I am proud of to one I am ashamed of: peacekeeper to military presence.
Under the leadership of the Conservative Party, the culture of Canada seems to be shifting. Instead of being a place where people of different nationalities are welcomed, embraced, and given the opportunity to become a part of society, they are “othered” and marginalized. Instead of honouring our First Nations and Indigenous peoples, they have been ignored. Instead of loving our neighbours and empowering and listening to those who have a suppressed voice or no voice at all: low-income individuals and families, women, LGBTQs, minorities, the homeless and drug addicted.
Perhaps what saddens me most about the direction Canada has been heading in the last five years is that I am now becoming ashamed to call myself Canadian. What was once a nation respected and revered around the world is now becoming a laughing-stock. No longer will I proudly travel with a Canadian flag. No longer will I proclaim with pride that I am Canadian. This is, perhaps, the biggest tragedy of all.
And so, Mr Harper, I hope that you will work together with your opposition parties to form a parliament that cooperates and listens to ALL Canadians, not just the ones who blindly supported you. I hope and pray that you do not ride roughshod over those with differing opinions, but respect and honour everyone in our once-great country.
…one cannot help being a politician if one is at all interested in what one sees; political issues are implicit in everything.
– Evelyn Waugh, Remote People
Somewhat relevant to these days.
Back in the spring, I wrote about my problems with big pharmaceuticals. I had just come off of a course where pharmaceutical interventions for mental illnesses seemed to be disproportionately pushed. It may stem from my own discomfort with my family doctor seemingly being in the hand of pharmaceutical companies, it may stem from the fact that I live in one of the hippie capitals of Canada, or it may be the fact that I have always tried other options before resorting to popping a pill. Any way you look at it, I think there is a problem with the way North Americans relate to medications. That is why this post on The Ethics of Western Pharmaceutical Companies caught my eye. It is from jordoncooper.com, a blog I read from time to time. He shares some chilling quotes that are worth a read.
Oh dear, yes. I’m weighing in.
I haven’t been following the debate in the United States as closely as I would like to have been. I don’t know the precise wording of the bill that was voted for last night. But one thing confuses me greatly: I have been scratching my head all day wondering why so many Americans (and American Christians) are against public healthcare. What it comes down to for me is “Why would any follower of Jesus be against something that cares for the poor and less-fortunate. Isn’t that what we are supposed to do? I’m pretty sure that is the good news that Jesus came to proclaim. (The whole sight for the blind, freedom for captives, etc. thing.)
I’ve been reading a few blogs around cyberspace today, and (unsurprisingly) most of the American’s I follow are quite happy about the whole thing. The one that got me was discovering that hayfever is a preexisting condition that means you can be denied insurance in the US. Say what?! Then there is my former Bible College classmate who has joined a Facebook group that is “304,059,724 against Obama’s Healthcare takeover”. (When I last checked, they were not actually at that number yet.) One gem posted on the wall is “The government in this country cannot and should not force health care on us.” I am sure no one would force anyone to get medical treatment, though it sure would be nice to have it if you need it.
As I said in a reply to a post on Jesus Needs New PR: “I’m not asking this in a “I’m right, you’re wrong” sort of way. The last thing I want is an us/them debate. I am genuinely curious because right now this whole debate is at the top of my “Things I really do not understand what the fuss is all about” list and I want to understand.”