EDITORIAL PAGE (October 28, 1991)

The recent U.S. court of appeals’ decision to throw out an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ban on asbestos is good news for the asbestos mining industry in Quebec and British Columbia, but it’s a little like offering a drowning man a course in lifesaving.

The court said the EPA has to come up with more evidence to prove potential health risks. But the damage done by the EPA’s ban is irreversible. An industry has been virtually destroyed based on unsubstantiated fears. In its heyday in the 1970s, Canada exported up to 700,000 tonnes of asbestos annually to the U.S., our largest market. Since the EPA ban went into effect in 1989, exports to the U.S. have dropped to 65,000 tonnes.

End users of the product have had to substitute other materials such as glass fibre. They couldn’t wait for an appeal of the EPA decision to make it this far.

Some end users of asbestos will benefit from the decision, and it will surely be of benefit to producers, especially those in Quebec which accounts for about 90% of Canada’s production, more than any other country except the Soviet Union. But it comes too late to save the hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in capital investment that have already been lost. Meanwhile, billions of dollars have been spent in the U.S. and Canada to remove asbestos from buildings where it was widely used in insulation, boilers and other products.

Even though the EPA’s decision vindicates those who fought the ban as being an overreaction to legitimate health concerns, the U.S. market is lost forever.

That the EPA made its damaging decision on what has now been shown to be insufficient evidence is just one more example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

With New Democratic Party governments in three provinces representing more than 50% of the Canadian population, it is more important now than ever for those in the mining industry to express their views clearly and calmly. The industry must give the neophyte MPPs the opportunity to become aware of mining’s importance to their local economies as well as to the national economy as a whole.

During his election campaign and the brief period following the election in British Columbia, Premier-elect Mike Harcourt has tried hard to show he’s no Dave Barrett, the province’s NDP premier from 1973 to 1975 who devastated resource industries with hasty, anti-business legislation.

Harcourt, while committed to such policies as reserving 12% of all land for parks and wilderness areas, has indicated a willingness to consult with business as well as labor. Spokesmen for the mining industry must take him at his word.

Indeed, Harcourt appears to be far less beholden to special interest groups than the province’s previous NDP government. While Barrett owed his election almost solely to organized labor, Harcourt has an obligation to a more diverse group including women’s groups and environmentalists. That type of alliance might not instill hope among free enterprisers, but it does dilute the influence of any one lobby group.

And, although Harcourt’s 51 out of 75 seats give him a solid majority government, he only received 40% of the popular vote. Should he stray too far from the moderate middle path, he will surely suffer the consequences in the next election.

There are still great opportunities for mining in this country. It is up to the industry itself to convince others that these opportunities need to be seized.