# Canada: We Love Asbestos! (and you should too)



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Damn Conservatives.*

*Canada keeps asbestos off UN hazardous list*





> Canada has single-handedly blocked listing chrysotile asbestos as a hazardous chemical, the United Nations confirmed Wednesday, even as the Conservative government maintained its silence back home.
> 
> At a summit in Switzerland, Canada's delegation ended days of silence and speculation by opposing the inclusion of asbestos on a UN treaty called the Rotterdam Convention.





> Vietnam, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan also initially opposed the listing. However, Stanley-Jones said one-by-one they switched positions after India announced it would support the listing.
> 
> That left Canada as the lone voice against the listing.
> 
> ...


(Halifax Chronicle-Herald)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Truly outrageous position for the Government Of Canada to take. With only one mine operating in Canada it would have been the opportune time to sign onto the Rotterdam Convention. Look who has a unique interest in keeping the mine open.


CBCNews said:


> There's one remaining mine in Canada, located in the riding of Industry Minister Christian Paradis.


Conservative Government Blocks Rotterdam Convention's approval of banning Asbestos


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Yep the government is simply wrong on this issue and it seems they may be getting ready for a policy change... hopefully.

Chuck Strahl, a former Conservative Cabinet Minister who was diagnosed in 2005 with mesothelioma a rare cancer that is linked to previous asbestos exposure, due to his exposure to asbestos from brake pads used in the logging industry when he used to work a logging yarder in his youth came out on Sunday and said that Canada should sign the Rotterdam Convention regarding chrysotile asbestos.

Asbestos should be listed in Rotterdam Convention as potentially harmful 

In speaking with some in the conservative ranks they seem to think that Chuck would only say this if he was given the "go ahead" from higher up, even though he retired before the election.

There used to be political reasons for the Conservatives to remain supportive of the asbestos industry as it is in Quebec and they were trying to make inroads in that province and to back the Rotterdam Convention could potentially cost them support. Now that they have been reduced to 5 seats in the province without an election for 4 years it could be the time to let it go.

The NDP are some of the most vocal backers of signing the Rotterdam Convention re: asbestos and with the number of MPs that they have in Quebec, they will now have to take some of the political "heat".

That the government didn't sign on this time around is I think possibly just a vestige of past policy and things may be changing soon. One can only hope.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Yep the government is simply wrong on this issue and it seems they may be getting ready for a policy change... hopefully.


Agreed on this one. Simply being required to warn of it dangers seems fairly innocuous.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Truly outrageous position for the Government Of Canada to take. With only one mine operating in Canada it would have been the opportune time to sign onto the Rotterdam Convention. Look who has a unique interest in keeping the mine open.
> 
> 
> Conservative Government Blocks Rotterdam Convention's approval of banning Asbestos


Nice the way you changed the wording of the headline there BigDL. The actual and truthful headline: *Canada blocks move to deem asbestos hazardous*

Signing the Rotterdam Convention would *not* ban the use or export of asbestos it would simply add it to the list of hazardous materials and the exportation of it would have to be accompanied by a declaration of the dangers of its use and would let countries where companies import it to turn it away if they don't think they can safely handle it.

If you are going to post on the topic please try at least to be truthful and accurate... It does no one a service to misrepresent the facts.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I doubt the government's position to continue this nonsense has anything to do with the 400 asbestos jobs in Quebec. Someone in the asbestos industry has incredible influence with any government which happens to be in power. Doesn't matter if it's the Cons or the Libs as this has been an issue for years. I think the tentacles of this influence reach deep.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> *I doubt the government's position to continue this nonsense has anything to do with the 400 asbestos jobs in Quebec.* Someone in the asbestos industry has incredible influence with any government which happens to be in power. Doesn't matter if it's the Cons or the Libs as this has been an issue for years. I think the tentacles of this influence reach deep.


I disagree as political support in Quebec is always of concern whether you be Lib or Con. It isn't only about the jobs but more importantly the revenues.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hard to say what being on this list actually means. Each individual country can draft its own asbestos exposure law, and the MSDS for asbestos clearly indicates that exposure is a suspected cause of cancer.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

screature said:


> I disagree as political support in Quebec is always of concern whether you be Lib or Con.


Is that riding (where the mine is) currently Con, Lib or NDP?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> Is that riding (where the mine is) currently Con, Lib or NDP?


Con and a Minister, Christian Paradis.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

That makes it clearer...LOL


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

screature said:


> Nice the way you changed the wording of the headline there BigDL. The actual and truthful headline: *Canada blocks move to deem asbestos hazardous*
> 
> Signing the Rotterdam Convention would *not* ban the use or export of asbestos it would simply add it to the list of hazardous materials and the exportation of it would have to be accompanied by a declaration of the dangers of its use and would let countries where companies import it to turn it away if they don't think they can safely handle it.
> 
> If you are going to post on the topic please try at least to be truthful and accurate... It does no one a service to misrepresent the facts.


You make a good point. The question of why the Conservative Government would not sign onto a protocol that is basically a "heads up" for potential buyers?

Could it be because the industry has plans for new mines and great expansion?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Harper also made Asbestos, Quebec a stop on his campaign, so the refusal to list it's asbestos in the Rotterdam Convention stems from campaign promises made by the glorious leader himself to back the industry.

Although the writing is on the wall, as i think the government will start cutting subsides to the mine beginning next year. It's just a shame that with all the promises Harper breaks he couldn't break this one and just list the substance as harmful.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I honestly don't see how signing on to this deal would imperil the Canadian asbestos industry.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

DId any of you catch the Daily Show's Asif Manvi interviewing the President of the Jeffries Mine in Asbestos, Québec?

Talk about uncomfortable... and warranted...

The Comedy Network - The Daily Show - Asbestos


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I read a number of documents on this issue and my gut instincts were correct. The Rotterdam convention amounts to little more than packing an MSDS with the material before it's exported, so I would hope the government eventually agrees to this.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Indeed seems very odd not to agree to this. 

Perhaps not all of Harper's secret agenda has been revealed thus far.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I read a number of documents on this issue and my gut instincts were correct. The Rotterdam convention amounts to little more than packing an MSDS with the material before it's exported, so I would hope the government eventually agrees to this.


the asbestos industry claims that while it isn't an "official" ban it in effect becomes an unofficial one as potential buyers will look elsewhere for alternatives. that's why they're reluctant to do it.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

I don't understand this decision!

Everything I hear about asbestos is bad!

My Dad worked on a school, as a kid in the 60s, tearing down a school. 

Found out years later, it had asbestos.

at 36, he got lung cancer which the Dr. directly associated with the asbestos. His smoking didn't help things of course. Surgery went fine, but the cancer spread 2 years later and he died at 38.

so ya, f*ck asbestos!

and the idiots pushing to keep it off the list.tptptptp

btw, i didn't tell that story for sympathy..it's been 21 years since he passed, which seems like an eternity, but screw those idiots!!!!!

tptptptp

stick them in a room full of asbestos and see if they are willing to keep it off the list.

ar$e$..

grrrrrrr


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

When I was a kid, we made candle holders out of asbestos. I still have a duck I made out of it.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

^ Yep, last night I was thinking about that modeling clay with asbestos that they gave to us in elementary school art class in the 1960s. Fun for _everyone!_


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Yes and look how long it took to get that exposure out of our environment.

The good news is the latency period for asbestos 20 to 40 years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The Doug said:


> ^ Yep, last night I was thinking about that modeling clay with asbestos that they gave to us in elementary school art class in the 1960s. Fun for _everyone!_


They mixed it in front of the class, and I remember the stuff flying around the room like snowflakes.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

They never mixed it in front of us - the teacher would bring in a big pail of the stuff and then dole out globs of fibrous funstuff to all the eager kiddies.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Doug said:


> They never mixed it in front of us - the teacher would bring in a big pail of the stuff and then dole out globs of fibrous funstuff to all the eager kiddies.


Ha ha, I did that too. I remember the class project was to make asbestos clay ashtrays for our parents - because, of course, _everyone_ smoked back then, except a few weirdos. It was a different world back then.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

I always made little volcanoes. Let 'em dry out, bring 'em home, put baking soda in the bottom then pour vinegar in. Mildly disappointing results every time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The Doug said:


> I always made little volcanoes. Let 'em dry out, bring 'em home, put baking soda in the bottom then pour vinegar in. Mildly disappointing results every time.


I used ground-up model rocket engines... much more exciting


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

See, this is exactly where the asbestos came in handy.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I love a thread where everyone agrees...:lmao:


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Ha ha, I did that too. I remember the class project was to make asbestos clay ashtrays for our parents - because, of course, _everyone_ smoked back then, except a few weirdos. It was a different world back then.


LMAO!! I'd forgot about making those ashtrays in class. Then we'd paint them with lead based paint.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

kps said:


> I love a thread where everyone agrees...:lmao:


Really?? You're nuts it's boring.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Conservative asbestos tactics 'shameful,'*





> A threatening email from the federal Conservative party to the widow of an asbestos victim has Canadians in an uproar from coast to coast, including Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley.
> 
> Bradley called the actions of party executive director Dan Hilton "absolutely shameful" after Hilton warned Michaela Keyserlingk of Labelle, Que. to stop using the party logo in an online ad campaign.


(The Observer)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

She should stop using the logo. She has every right to express her opinions--none to the logo.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

She should not have anything to do with the conservative logo. What did the liberals do to help her husband?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Protection of Trade Mark and a Logo is more important than the protection of Human Life?

Some people have a warped senses of values as to what is important and what is *really important*.

I guess that comes from being on the *Right* side of the argument and a Conservative supporter.

Some Mother's children.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Of course she shouldn't be using the logo. That's exactly why she is using it. 

The Conservatives' warning shot across the bow backfired and now she's getting even more wind in her sails to carry her cause even further. 

The Cons have two choices:
1. Continue their action out of legal principle. As sad as this lady's reason for using the logo is, the bottom line is that she has no right to use it. Of course, continued action will only mean continued attention to the issue at hand. Tsk.

2. Slink away silently, and hope for a bigger news event to draw the spotlight away. Tsk.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

+1 with KC4 remarks (no dang like button)

Why isn't the Conservative Government pleased about the free publicity involved with Michaela Keyserlingk's online Ad campaign? 

Isn't the Conservative Government all in favour of the use of Asbestos?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Protection of Trade Mark and a Logo is more important than the protection of Human Life?


This is an inane comparison and a logical fallacy. She could carry on her campaign without the use of the logo.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> She could carry on her campaign without the use of the logo.


Not if she's serious about moving her campaign forward quickly. If she's got guts (and I think she does) she'll continue to push it in the face of the Cons...forcing the issue.

Getting people to back you up against the government/asbestos industry is even easier than rounding up help to kick the oilsands industry/government.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> This is an inane comparison and a logical fallacy. She could carry on her campaign without the use of the logo.


Why? Cause you said!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Why? Cause you said!


No. Because the rules of logic have a long tradition in the Western World. A few thousand years. It would require an effort better than yours to overturn that tradition.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No. Because the rules of logic have a long tradition in the Western World. A few thousand years. It would require an effort better than yours to overturn that tradition.


Hardly civil disobedient though!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

KC4 said:


> *Not if she's serious about moving her campaign forward quickly.* If she's got guts (and I think she does) she'll continue to push it in the face of the Cons...forcing the issue.
> 
> Getting people to back you up against the government/asbestos industry is even easier than rounding up help to kick the oilsands industry/government.


I disagree. She will be shut down quickly if she keeps on and rightly so. I don't agree with the government's policy on asbestos but she has no right to use the logo regardless.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

screature said:


> I disagree. She will be shut down quickly if she keeps on and rightly so. I don't agree with the government's policy on asbestos but she has no right to use the logo regardless.


You could be right Screature about her being shut down quickly. It's a game of chicken. 
We'll see how far she gets/takes it before backing down herself, or being shut down. 

Meanwhile, she has the spotlight, the impetus forward and the encouragement/backing of many supporters, be they steadfast or fickle when the crunch comes.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

KC4 said:


> Of course she shouldn't be using the logo. That's exactly why she is using it.
> 
> The Conservatives' warning shot across the bow backfired and now she's getting even more wind in her sails to carry her cause even further.
> 
> ...


+1

the Cons don't get to have it both ways. they can't support the Asbestos industry, and then try to hide the fact when someone calls them on it. 

if what they're doing is the right thing for canada then they should own up to their policy.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Good call i-rui!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> +1
> 
> the Cons don't get to have it both ways. they can't support the Asbestos industry, and then try to hide the fact when someone calls them on it.
> 
> if what they're doing is the right thing for canada then *they should own up to their policy*.


Uhhhh, they have owned up to their policy... the CPC just don't want people illegally using their logo... what's not to understand... the twains do not meet in your argument... and I still disagree with the government's position on asbestos... 

But as my mother told me "two wrongs don't make a right"... maybe your mother told you something different and if she did she was wrong IMO.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Uhhhh, they have owned up to their policy... the CPC just doesn't want people illegally using their logo... what's not to understand... the twains do not meet in your argument... and I still disagree with the governments position on asbestos...
> 
> But as my mother told me "two wrongs don't make a right"... maybe your mother told you something different and if she did she was wrong IMO.


Exactly. The only issue here is illegal use of a registered logo.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

screature said:


> Uhhhh, they have owned up to their policy... the CPC just don't want people illegally using their logo... what's not to understand... the twains do not meet in your argument... and I still disagree with the government's position on asbestos...
> 
> But as my mother told me "two wrongs don't make a right"... maybe your mother told you something different and if she did she was wrong IMO.


except that a widow using a logo without consent does not approach the level of evil of Harper & co. exporting asbestos to third world countries.

and i wouldn't consider trying to shame the conservatives into doing the right thing a "wrong". It may not be legal (and that could even be up for debate, if she argued the usage in the banner is an editorial or artistic statement) but that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong".

illegal does not necessarily mean "wrong". exporting asbestos is legal, but it certainly isn't "right". do you see the difference?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

*


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. The only issue here is illegal use of a registered logo.


Here we go again! 

Some people value a registered logo and have greater concern for the non-authorised use of same, *over human life.*

Michaela Keyserlingk is not concerned with value of a register logo, she values the likely harm to human life. Her civil disobedience is to supported in my estimation. A brand and logo can be recreated but not a human life especially not her husband's life.

So what are the Cons to do? The easiest idea would have been to quietly grant her permission to protect their logo but it is far too late for that now.

What are the Cons to do? Does this logic escape those leaning to the right and in full support of the Conservatives?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What to do? The Conservatives should enforce their copyright.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Way to go, take the bait. Sometimes it's too easy. :clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Given that the Con logo is often used in a satirical manner by those poking fun at either the party or King Harpo, enforcing its sanctity might not be as easy as first thought.

One thing for sure; The result might well be exactly the sort of publicity about the Asbestos Issue that Harpo would dearly love to avoid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Given that the Con logo is often used in a satirical manner by those poking fun at either the party or King Harpo, enforcing its sanctity might not be as easy as first thought.
> 
> One thing for sure; The result might well be exactly the sort of publicity about the Asbestos Issue that Harpo would dearly love to avoid.


There's no trap here. The Conservatives will enforce their copyright and the people will go back to watching _Canada's Got Talent_. I really don't think it's going to make lick of difference.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

i-rui said:


> except that a widow using a logo without consent does not approach the level of evil of Harper & co. exporting asbestos to third world countries.
> 
> and i wouldn't consider trying to shame the conservatives into doing the right thing a "wrong". It may not be legal (and that could even be up for debate, if she argued the usage in the banner is an editorial or artistic statement) but that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong".
> 
> illegal does not necessarily mean "wrong". exporting asbestos is legal, but it certainly isn't "right". do you see the difference?


Sigghhh, go on your merry rationalizing way as you always do when it comes to such matters....


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

BigDL said:


> Here we go again!
> 
> Some people value a registered logo and have greater concern for the non-authorised use of same, *over human life.*
> 
> ...


Who is valuing a logo more than human life??? What non-sense and twisted logic because some of us choose to call a spade a spade and not try and rationalize what is clearly an infringement of a registered trademark. Pure bunk! tptptptp


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Canada to cease defending asbestos mining*



> The Harper government is throwing in the towel on Quebec’s internationally maligned asbestos industry and trying to pin the blame for this on the newly elected Parti Quebecois.
> 
> Industry Minister Christian Paradis said Canada will stop defending asbestos mining in international circles and no longer oppose adding chrysotile asbestos to the Rotterdam Convention, a global list of hazardous substances.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Grasping at straws or no idea of what they're doing? Seems for the Harper Strong Stable Majority Conservative Government™, the nuts are loosening, the wheels should soon be falling off of this tired old HSSMCG™.

Tick, tick, tick...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Considering that the PQ has canceled a loan guarantee on the only mine in Quebec that produces the stuff, I think the federal policy makes good sense. I can't see how this anything but a victory for Harper.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

No surprise there.

So your perspective is, basically, the economic argument for asbestos production is now toast, let's shut 'er down. The ethical / environmental angle doesn't even come to play in your world, does it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> No surprise there.
> 
> So your perspective is, basically, the economic argument for asbestos production is now toast, let's shut 'er down. The ethical / environmental angle doesn't even come to play in your world, does it?


Are you being deliberately obtuse? I stated earlier on in this thread that I disagreed with the federal government's asbestos policy under both the Liberals and Conservtives.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think the last line "I can't see how this anything but a victory for Harper." pretty much cancels out the accusation of CM as being obtuse.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> *Canada to cease defending asbestos mining*
> 
> (Globe & Mail)


This is a good thing is it not...? No matter the reasons... Some people are never happy... Another quote from the same article...



> *The Canadian Public Health Association quickly applauded the Harper government’s about-face.* “Canada has a moral obligation, backed by well-grounded evidence, to close down this industry and stop exporting a potentially hazardous material to countries that are ill-equipped to protect the health of workers,” said Erica Di Ruggiero, chair of CPHA’s board.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> This is a good thing is it not...? No matter the reasons... Some people are never happy... Another quote from the same article...


But Stepehen Harper is a master at making these decisions without losing face.. He gets to reverse course on asbestos, strengthen the likelihood of an EU trade agreement, earn brownie points with health organizations, kick sand in the PQ's face, and reward the town that loses the mine.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> But Stepehen Harper is a master at making these decisions without losing face.. He gets to reverse course on asbestos, strengthen the likelihood of an EU trade agreement, earn brownie points with health organizations, kick sand in the PQ's face, and reward the town that loses the mine.


Yep tis' true and still he is a pariah to some... go figure.

The previous Lib Government had 12 years (twice the time in power of this government) to do the same and never did yet somehow the Cons bear all the blame but asbestos has not become anymore deadly since 2006 or since forever... funny how that works eh?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I imagine CM furiously running searches on key phrases involving "Harper" and "Conservative" then busting with pride as he shares his one sided reports.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Screature: yes, it is a good thing - not sure how you interpreted that I thought otherwise?

MacFury: Nice to know you're thinking of me. Sorry to report, I spent the past 36 hours visiting with family, no Google searches involved, nor did I give ehMac and its citizens much thought...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> MacFury: Nice to know you're thinking of me. Sorry to report, I spent the past 36 hours visiting with family, no Google searches involved, nor did I give ehMac and its citizens much thought...


Yes, I could see things had lightened up considerably online!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it appears CM you are the next target. It's all your fault now the tone here is heavy.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Sigh. So 'tis my cross to bear. I do it with loathing, for their prattle is beneath the discourse of civilized man....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Sigh. So 'tis my cross to bear. I do it with loathing, for their prattle is beneath the discourse of civilized man....


I never figured you for a religious man...


----------

