"Was this Royal Commission really necessary?" The Royal Commission on Asbestos opens its massive, three-volume report by posing this question. It states that the answer to the question should be provided by the readers of its Report, which took almost four years to complete and cost the Ontario taxpayer $1.7 million.
But the Commission then challenges its readers by saying that, whatever their answer to its question, the appointment of royal commissions to identify hazards and assess risks will not be a satisfactory way to cope with growing concern over the multiplication of potentially hazardous substances in the workplace and the environment. The royal commission approach, says the Commission, "given its cost in money and time, is clearly not a substitute for the development of ongoing, institutionalized approaches to the matter of hazard identification."
The asbestos experience, according to the Commission, teaches important lessons about the regulation of hazardous substances. The tragic toll of disease and death inflicted upon asbestos workers is the result of social attitudes which, until about a decade ago, were indifferent to the importance of disease prevention. Given these attitudes, the process of identifying the hazards posed by asbestos unravelled slowly and regulatory responses lagged.
But these attitudes have changed dramatically. "Fortunately," says the Commission, "society now recognizes that factors in the human environment contribute importantly to premature death, and that prevention is the best approach for the control of many diseases." Yet now that society is rightly apprehensive of disease-causing substances, it must also learn that the asbestos experience speaks for a discriminatory response to a hazardous substance. What happened in recent years with respect to asbestos is that "protective actions were taken which did not recognize that a substance that kills in the workplace may pose insignificant risks in the indoor or outdoor environment."
Throughout Canada and the United States, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent removing asbestos from buildings. Only a fraction of these removal projects was warranted by the risks posed to building occupants. The public authorities that financed these removal projects, including the Government of Ontario which has spent $26 million to finance asbestos removal from schools, showed how responsive they are to public apprehensions. But there was no one to explain to the public that apprehension was not justified in many instances because risks were insignificant. Asbestos removal projects conducted on a crash basis therefore involved some needless expenditure. Also, the Commission states that the crash nature of the removal work probably increased the risk that asbestos removal workers may contract disease. This risk arises from elevated asbestos exposures occasioned by careless work practices frequently associated with inexperienced contractors
If the asbestos experience is not to be repeated with other substances, governments need an agency whose mandate is to identify hazards and assess risks in an ongoing manner. The Commission notes that the Science Council of Canada recommended in 1977 that the Government of Canada create such an agency. This recommendation has not been implemented.
The Commission says that a hazard identification and risk assessment agency will be most economical and effective if it is created to serve all governments, federal and provincial. It urges the Government of Ontario, through its channels of federal-provincial communication, to secure the creation of such an agency. The agency should have the scientific capacity to identify hazardous substances and to assess where and when such substances pose significant risks or insignificant risks. It should be an information agency, leaving matters of regulation to the usual departments of the federal and provincial governments. The agency should have open means of communicating with elected representatives, the media and regulatory officials.