Thank you very much.
First of all, let me touch on your first question concerning chrysotile.I think you asked me earlier about that, about the funding. It has not been raised, just for the record. The funding is $250,000--$125,000 of that comes from the Province of Quebec and $125,000 is coming from Natural Resources Canada. So we provide $125,000 a year, again in partnership with the Province of Quebec, to promote safe use.
I will just say this on chrysotile. Chrysotile is an asbestos fibre. There are six known asbestos fibres. Of the six known asbestos fibres, chrysotile--and the science is not disputed--is the least carcinogenic. There's also science out there that suggests that the man-made substitutes, which are produced primarily in Europe, are far more carcinogenic than chrysotile, and that is science that's out there. That is why we have asked for studies to be done to compare the two, because we want the absolute straight scientific evidence so we can make this decision based on science. There is a lot of research out there that suggests that.
That's the position of the government. And again, I can tell you that I have visited these plants in Quebec myself and have seen first-hand how it's done, how it is packaged, and I was very impressed.
We've also talked about when it's used by countries that do use it. I know that some people suggest that bags are ripped open and that people are digging it out with their hands. But I'm told that these entire packages go into machines where the bags and everything are shredded. The fibres are then put inside concrete and in various products in which the fibres are encased inside, that, I would submit, provide a lot of social good. They provide a lot of housing in countries where there may not be alternatives.
In fairness, there's science on the other side too. Mr. Martin knows that. I know that. But I think it's important that we get the absolute straight goods and that we ask for that information. We've asked the World Health Organization to do those comparative analyses, not us. We've asked for that information. Let's get the straight facts in front of us, and let's make these decisions based on science. That's the position of the Government of Canada.
Oh, I'm sorry, I said funds come from the Government of Quebec. It's another federal agency. So I apologize. It's $125,000 from Natural Resources Canada and another $125,000 from a federal agency, for a total of $250,000 in federal dollars to promote safe use. Thank you for that.
On the issue of raw logs, I'm very much aware of this. I'm from Vancouver Island, as you know, Ms. Bell. I can let you know that I've had many conversations with the Minister of Forests and Range. There's provincial jurisdiction here. We were successful in negotiating language in the softwood lumber agreement with the United States so we can revisit this, and we have a side letter of agreement.
We believe that the lumber produced from these logs, which are coming primarily from private lands, as you know, should be exempted from the softwood lumber agreement, much as the Maritimes are. We think that would provide enough of an advantage that we could process those logs on Vancouver Island. We could keep the jobs for the forest industry on Vancouver Island. That's what we're all striving to do.
You have my commitment. We're aggressively pursuing this in the interests of the forest industry in British Columbia and on Vancouver Island, and hopefully, we can reach a satisfactory conclusion, because at the end of day, we're most interested in those workers on Vancouver Island and having those processing jobs stay right there.
Thank you.