Documents attached to bibliography entries

"In this modern era, pollution and the profusion of chemicals into our environment should be a major concern to every Canadian. Certainly, the various effects on mankind are becoming a more prevalent problem. I trust that the conferences in Ottawa were successful."

I sympathize. Your crusade ;s long and arduous. But please, Mr. Brown. I care not to be an inquisitor.

Environment (McMillan) and SecState for Disabilities (Crombie) were first Ministers offices to publicly support, with money, Canadians with environmental sensitivities. Gary Gurbin, Merron Proctor, Elizabeth May and Nancy Lewand were some of the reasons.

Twenty years in civil health, was head of LCDC, deals with HIV, never encountered sensitivities? Where does Health and Welfare find these people?

I first tried to get funding from, and then offered ccns services similar to what I was doing for Oxfam and IDAFSA.

Several departments were willing to pressure Health and Welfare to act on concerns facing persons with sensitivities. Jake Epp (helped greatly by his staff and bigots in the department) continued to invisibilize the issues through equivocation. The health department was hostile until after Perrin Beatty became health minister, and was approached by Bruce Halliday, MP, a former Ontario family physician of the year.

Fresh Air BRICK publicity published for 2,000,000 readers in Canada, electronic requests from Hawaii to Bitburg, Germany.

John Davies asked for stats as part of ammunition to fight internal battles with abusers at Health and Welfare.

Excellent overview, discussion paper, for consideration of environmental health issues, including natural, social, attitudinal environments.

Lynda Brooks assembled a great team and a great conference!

Newsletter shows relationship of self help group of persons with sensitivities and doctors of environmental medicine, as led by John G. Maclennan, of Dundas, Ontario.

Poster for second annual conference of HEF.

This memo misrepresents Thomson in the usual ways. (Second page is around here somewhere.)

This letter started a process by which I could confront Epp on the fact that he was not only misrepresenting the CMA, but also his own department's file manager on the subject. Davies had a long involvement, until he left the department in 1992 or 93. At one point he described HWC's decisions as "irresponsible and dangerous."

many people are interested in the role sensitivities play in aggravating various illnesses and causing various symptoms.

Glossy image of HWC conduct, position, ignores ongoing exclusion, injury and killing of persons with sensitivities, lifts statements out of context, ignores ongoing serious preventable harm.

Corneil turned a blind eye to his department's invisibilization of the role of sensitivities in addiction, even as people he knew in the community were being caused harm.

HPB says Thomson and Zimmerman point out that there was no doubt that some people were sick because of sensitivities. Hundreds of years of history and clinical exerience are ignored. On the period of consideration of the ideas of doctors of environmental medicine is acknowledged. A much longer history is invisibilized.

Grace Wood, HPB, outlines history, leaving out actual issues raised.

Davies was extremely helpful from 1988 until the 1993 election. Unfortunately, his departure from the department coincided with several other changes that resulted in a very abusive shift in policy.

Hopkins identifies federal responsibilities named in Thomson and Zimmerman reports, including pharmaceuticals.

Somers writes that no changes have been made under OHIP, while leaving out the fact that, as Thomson's panel identified, OHIP already insured a method of diagnosis! She ignores the fact that Thomson's panel looked into hypersensitivity "disorders" (note plural). She ignores the history of sensitivities as known to Davies and others in Health and Welfare. She is conforming to the artificial debate abusers use when subjecting persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus, excluding, injuring or killing them.

All of cabinet was invited, but late. They were also informed of positive involvement of Environment Canada and Secretary of State for Disabled Persons.

In 1986, only two Canadian media outlets responded to the concern that persons with sensitivities were finding their situations made impossible by attitudes, and committing suicide on a regular basis. In late 1986/87, the Fresh Air Brick brought dozens of inquiries from across the Canada and from Hawaii to Bitburg, Germany.

Backgrounder, issues overview.

Labour Minister Pierre Cadieux's advisor refers concern to head of HPB, AJ Liston

Many problems.

Mitchell was among several MP's of all three parties who expressed concern about preventable harm being caused to persons with sensitivities. She helped after I had a chance conversation with Pauline Jewett. Unfortunately, at the time (and since) most NDP assistants and members, including my own member Michael Cassidy, were unable to differentiate between controversy about the theories of doctors of environmental medicine as distinct from the centuries-long history of persons with sensitivities. Well intentioned political assistants would bone up on our situation as described by doctors of environmental medicine and then charge forward on a mission that ignored warnings in government reports, invisibilized the group who had approached them, and moved the issues backwards!

Cassidy seems to ignore the fact that the Thomson report identified an existing, publicly insured method of diagnosing this problem he wants recognized, confuses recognition with receiving protections that are normally available to the public, which is what consumers were actually asking for.

The Ministry of the Environment initiated communitybased process in Kinburn, Ontario, to monitor and consider alternatives to weed control chemicals in a neighborhood where several environmentally sensitive people had moved to escape city pollution. By this time, the Hon Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment, had stated: "Environmentally sensitive people are the first to feel the effects of low level contaminants in the environment". (faint, hard to read)

Is the killing of persons with sensitivities in health care a medical issue, or a criminal one?

Ministerial assistants will engage, endlessly, in silliness, while ignoring public servants' contribution to the slaughter of children and other vulnerable persons.

All cabinet ministers were approached several times in writing. Sometimes they picked up the issue, usually they simply referred it to Health and Welfare.

The Ministry of Health maintained a schizophrenic position from 1985 on. Although the Thomson report identified and recommended continued public funding for an existing method of diagnosis, some MoH officials would defend criminal negligence on the basis that the report had said there was not a method of diagnosis. Of course, over the years, MoH officials revealed many internal inconsistencies, sometimes rescuing individuals, sometimes condemning patient populations to their deaths. Gibbons letter is in reply to a request, a resolution passed after being moved from the 1987 HEF Conference floor, that the Ontario Ministry of Health implement any 6 of Thomson's thirty recommendations.

Redway not only pressured Epp, but he also pressed (and won from) Wilson for tax deductions for medical expenses related to sensitivities, and he initiated research at CMHC into residential accommodation of persons with sensitivities.

There were dozens of respectable, caring MP's when Mulroney was Prime Minister. I did not find ONE under Chretien, Martin or Harper. The House of Commons is now full of bullies, cowards and creeps. Back then, there were MP's who acted honourably.

Kilgour pressed Epp and subsequent health ministers for protections.

With an estimated prevalence of 15%, many MP's were hearing from persons with sensitivities who were experiencing abuse in health care.

Many Liberals supported the protection of persons with sensitivities until Chretien was elected Prinme Minister. Then, their support vanished.

Many MP assistants just fill out cards and mail them back to people who write them, no matter how serious the issues. It is an early version of the email auto-responder.

Cassidy was like molasses on the issue. He was my own MP, but dozens of other MP's and cabinet ministers acted before him. He never did seem to grasp the ongoing preventable harm that was being discussed. Letter undated.

Copps had promised to raise issue in House of Commons, had not. Later sent some good letters. Caccia eventually raised issue in HofC 21 September 1988, a few months after consumer testimony at Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health.

Gordon Douglas, in Sheila Copps office, helped forward the concern. Copps wrote Epp several times, raised issues in committee, said at Parliamentary Health Committee (1988) that some buildings in Parliament affect her.