Saturday, 04 December 2021 01:52 GMT

Muller&Green Analyses PM Trudeau's Canadian Asbestos Policy


(MENAFNEditorial) Muller & Green Analyses PM Trudeau's Canadian Asbestos Policy

Muller & Green has recently conducted an analysis, highlighting that Canadian government will allegedly spend around $114 million on a new asbestos policy.

LONDON, LONDON, UK, March 22, 2018 / EINPresswire.com / -- Muller & Green has recently conducted an analysis, highlighting that Canadian government will allegedly spend around $114 million on a new policy regarding asbestos. The proposal for this policy came out following a promise by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to ban Canadian asbestos in 2016 while he was running for office.

The Canadian government opened a short window of opportunity for public consultation on a proposed plan to regulate against asbestos and asbestos-related products. That consultation period is, however, due to end on March 22.

The proposed plan, however, faced heavy criticism due to making little distinction between harmful asbestos such as the various amphibole asbestos and chrysotile, and 'white asbestos', still used in various products nowadays. This omission is critical for many businesses and industries in Canada, which rely on products containing the non-harmful form of the mineral. The Canada Gazette claimed that 'these businesses have generally expressed support for the proposed Regulations', however it is expected that many of these businesses are likely to become obsolete if the plan goes through.
The plan claims to be bringing Canada in line with other nations on its stand towards asbestos and the Rotterdam Convention on hazardous materials. However, it fails to note that the Rotterdam Convention does explicitly differentiate between different forms of asbestos, banning all harmful amphibole minerals but not – crucially – chrysotile.

One of the rationales for the proposal is economic, in terms of savings that will be made in health services from reduced cases of asbestos-related diseases. However, regulations and prevention of asbestos-related diseases have been established, contradicting the health argument.
Secondly, the figures provided for the implementation of the plan and the cost to industry and businesses are considered to be relatively low. Moreover, removing safe asbestos from public buildings could take running costs into the billions.
The planned proposal has also been criticized for its omissions and exceptions, involving mining activities and permitting the use of asbestos in the chlor-alkali industry until 2025.


The plan purports 'to protect human health by reducing asbestos exposure of Canadians, and to meet international obligations.' It would appear that human health is not in danger, thanks to adequate regulations already in place and international obligations do not dictate that any government is expected to regulate against non-harmful substances as laid out by the Rotterdam Convention. According to many, the only danger is potential 'waste of public money'.

About Muller and Green:

Muller & Green specializes in research, analysis, consulting, and PR activity for local and global brands.
We are focused on establishing and maintaining strong lines of communication, understanding and cooperation between an organization and its public.

Joseph Williams
Muller & Green
+44 20 3289 7118
email us here

Share on Distribution channels: Business & Economy , Environment , Law , Politics , Waste Management Contact Joseph Williams
Muller & Green
+44 20 3289 7118
email us here Share This Story

MENAFN2203201800703196ID1096637119


Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.