The Chair: It’s my understanding that after round two there would be unanimous consent.

Would that be the case, Mme LeBlanc?

Hélène LeBlanc: We have many questions to ask.

The Chair: It has to be unanimous. No consent.

Dan Harris: Maybe ask again after the second round.

The Chair: Maybe we’ll ask again.

I’ll be glad to ask as many times as you allow me.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to members of the committee for allowing me a chance to ask questions.

Do I have five-minute time limit, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Five minutes, that’s correct, Ms. May.

Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Chair, can we make sure that the time allocated for the opposition is not used for this and that we would still have our time to ….

The Chair: That’s correct.

Hélène LeBlanc: Thank you very much.

The Chair: That said, that means I’ll have to stick very tight now to the five minutes. So for the questioners and the answerers I’m going to have to stick a lot tighter because we only have 27 minutes left.

Hon. Mike Lake: Just to clarify, where are we with questions?

The Chair: After Ms. May is done, then we’ll go to our third round. It will be Conservative, NDP, Conservative, Liberal.

Ms. May.

Elizabeth May: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll attempt to use my time efficiently. Thank you witnesses.

I want to go back to the competition policy review panel and their advice before the amendments were tabled in 2009. I’m really going to ask questions specifically around the fact that these amendments through Bill C-60are attempting as I see it to bring greater clarity around certain concepts and to extend timelines for national security reviews.

What I want to know is if whether within Industry Canada, whether you received advice that it would be helpful to review and clarify the term national security which currently isn’t defined within the act?

Paul Halucha: It’s been something that has been mentioned by I would say think tanks and certain legal firms that represent foreign investors. Again in their efforts to have maximum certainty, they wanted to have a prescribed definition of it or a list the way that some other countries do like the United States.

Elizabeth May: Yes, I think the United States, the U.K., China, Japan and Germany that would have reviews that would be triggered by an actually defined term of national security.

What I’m wondering is whether Industry Canada, whether you’re aware of any studies in the Canadian context that, as you said think tanks have recommended this. It’s in the Canada Gazette from when the 2009 amendments were accepted that there were recommendations at the time that the term national security should be “explicitly defined and national security reviews should take place according to concrete objective and transparent criteria”.

Are you aware of any empirically design studies that would in any way question the benefit of having such defined terms and such transparent reviews?

Paul Halucha: I’m not. We don’t have any studies on that. I’d clarify, it was a policy decision by the government to not have a prescribed definition for national security on the basis that the types of threats that Canada could face from period to period can change. Given the evolving nature of threats, you wouldn’t want to have a definition of national security that precluded you from considering certain specific types of threats.

Elizabeth May: But you’d agree with me that other countries haven’t found a defined term to be an impediment to applying their investment tests in relation to national security.

Matthew Dooley: I would point that the United States, as a clear example, has an non-exhaustive list—it’s exhaustive in that it’s very long, but it’s non-exhaustive in that they can add more to it if they want to. I would argue that they don’t have a clearly defined definition for “this is national security”. What they have done is list their sensitive industries or sectors that they’re going to be concerned about and by the way if another sector comes up, as Mr. Halucha said, the threats change and they’ll add that to the list.

Elizabeth May: Yes, Mr. Dooley, you may find their list exhausting but it’s not exhaustive. In any case, it might be a model we can look at.

Those are all of my questions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. May.

The post Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology appeared first on Elizabeth May.

NDP committee members explained that they had found irregularities in government accounting for its funding in information from the Parliamentary Budget Office.  Goodyear stated that the accurate source is Public Accounts records, which show no irregularities.  He requested NDP committee members present apologize.

The post Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Is it because the 100,000 people annually who are killed by asbestos are nameless to us that we will sell this poison globally? Is that why we do not care, in this country, to end this trade?

I would be grateful for the member’s thoughts.

Mrs. Carol Hughes: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, I think the government of the day is not putting faces to the victims, which is extremely sad.

My friend writes me often to update me on her husband’s case. They are tuned in right now. Julius’ fight is our fight. He and his wife want to ensure that others need not to go through what they have gone through, attempting to seek treatment and having the door closed on them. They also want to ensure that the government stops exposing workers to this deadly substance. Martina is tireless in her attempts to get Julius the best care possible. It is a difficult task and she is well aware of the way the conditions play out, barring a miracle.

I just want to leave members with a couple of words as they consider their position on this motion. I truly hope that the members on the government side are listening, because they will not hear a better plea, at least in my opinion, than this.

The post Asbestos (E) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[qMFZmFttcjg]

In fact, the ambient pollution by asbestos in waterways and in the regions of Asbestos, Quebec, and its surroundings have led to the highest level of women with asbestos-related cancer documented anywhere in the world.

I wonder if he has any comments on that aspect.

Mr. François Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it is inescapable. Unfortunately, in the past 100 years and even recently, a significant number of workers have been victims of the market collapse. In Asbestos alone, 1,000 jobs have been lost in a small community of approximately 6,000 people. That would be equivalent to 900,000 people losing their jobs and having difficulty finding work in Toronto for 10 years. If Toronto had such a problem, there would have been a plan in place long ago to address it. The asbestos workers are suffering financially, and the member unfortunately is correct in saying that they are also the front-line victims of asbestos-related illnesses. I can therefore only concur with my colleague’s comments.

The post Asbestos (D) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[9sy9Eq5bJQ4]

Mr. Wladyslaw Lizon: Mr. Speaker, through the Chrysotile Institute, Canada has been working with countries that produce and use chrysotile effectively to implement and enforce regulations to keep exposure low and utilize control of use practices of chrysotile.

As I mentioned before, chrysotile is not the only dangerous substance. I would remind members that we sell uranium. The safety precautions in handling, transporting and mining the substance are crucial and most important.

The post Asbestos (C) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I am proud of the fact that the Green Party was the first federal political party to call for an end to the asbestos industry in Canada and a just transition for its workers.

[sr-DGShe6YM]

We now face world disapproval for our quite immoral position that somehow chrysotile asbestos can be used safety in other countries while we recognize that it kills people here. I would like to ask the hon. member for Nickel Belt what information he has regarding the World Health Organization’s position on the Canadian support of asbestos.

Mr. Claude Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, even though the Green Party has supported this position for a long time, I would like to again thank and refer to my colleague from Winnipeg, because had he not done due diligence on this file, we might not be discussing this today.

However, it is quite clear that the international community supports the ban of asbestos throughout the world. It is a substance that is dangerous. It is a substance that kills. It is a substance that we should not import or export to third world countries that are not protected against the use of asbestos.

The post Asbestos appeared first on Elizabeth May.

[nuSNMoKiCD0]

The post Asbestos appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Over the last five years, there has been a healthy shift.  First the NDP, and then the Liberals, shifted their positions to, at least, favour listing asbestos as “hazardous” under the Rotterdam Convention.

The Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade was signed in 1998 and became globally legally binding in 2004.  The Convention does not ban substances.  As the name suggests, it sets out the rules for the international trade in certain dangerous substances requiring the importing country receive warnings and give its “prior informed consent.”    

Canada has long been a staunch defender of asbestos.  When France banned chrysotile asbestos in 1999, Canada launched a complaint to the World Trade Organization.  Up to that point, the WTO, created in 1995, had always found in favour of trade and never in defence of health and safety.  Asbestos was the first exception and Canada lost.

Canada’s PR campaign is that the old dangerous asbestos is different from chrysotile asbestos.  True, asbestos, used in brake linings and insulating, was brown and chrysotile asbestos, used primarily to reinforce concrete, is white.  What they have in common is that breathing in their fibres causes cancer.  No level of exposure is safe.

The World Health Organization has estimated that approximately 100,000 people a year will die due to asbestos exposure.   The Canadian Cancer Society has called our government’s position “unethical.” 

What made this year’s meeting of the Rotterdam Convention particularly galling was Canada’s negotiating strategy.  Hanging back, we let India and other developing countries do our dirty work. It appeared the deadlock was broken on June 23rd, when India recanted and agreed to press the small handful of other developing countries still opposed, to agree to listing.  As reported by the respected newsletter, Earth Negotiations Bulletin:

As opponents to listing chrysotile became sparse, the elephant was left with nowhere to hide. Tempers flared as Canada confirmed it would not join any consensus on listing chrysotile. Usual allies questioned why the party (Canada) would allow negotiations to progress even as it knew it could not join the consensus.

Speaking for the Prime Minister, PMO Communications Director Dimitri Soudas stated, “All scientific reviews clearly confirm that chrysotile fibres can be used safely under controlled conditions.”

But even Health Canada’s own advice is at odds with our public position. A 2006 memo from Health Canada (HC) was obtained by public interest researcher Ken Rubin through Access to Information:

“We can not say that chrysotile is safe… HC’s preferred position would be to list… [HC acknowledges that] the final decision [regarding Canada’s position at the Rotterdam Convention] will not be made on the basis of health alone, and other key factors will need to be considered.”

Also released through the same Access request was this 2008 memo:

“Health Canada’s Expert Panel presented a report to Health Canada that confirmed chrysotile asbestos poses a risk to human health. Health Canada’s current position is that asbestos is a carcinogen which can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma.”

So, we have lost another two years in which Canada will continue as the fifth largest exporter of chrysotile asbestos — without warnings.  Nevertheless, I sense we are closer than ever to victory.  Despite Stephen Harper’s campaign swing in Quebec criticizing the Bloc for not doing enough to boost asbestos, despite the fact his Minister for Industry, Christian Paradis, represents the asbestos mining region of Quebec; Conservative MPs are beginning to voice dissent. 

Former MP Chuck Strahl, diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer, called on his former colleagues to change Canada’s position. Mark Warawa (MP for Langley) questioned our stance and was promptly removed from his position as Parliamentary Secretary for Environment (a move he says was unrelated.)  Now, Conservative London area MP Ed Holder has said he will not support asbestos.  In Question Period, I urged the government to change its position while there was still time in the negotiations. The Government back-benchers looked distinctly unhappy as Paradis read out the same answer (same claim as the PMO) the fifth time in that day’s QP.

I see shifting the position on asbestos as a key moment to empower Conservative MPs to break free from the total control exerted by the Prime Minister. It will be the only way that Canada can cease being a knowing exporter of death and human misery.

The post Asbestos — Harper Government earns ire of the world appeared first on Elizabeth May.