Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to come back to chrysotile asbestos, an issue I am quite familiar with. I understand that the Government of Canada's current position is based on solid scientific evidence as regards chrysotile asbestos. The Department of Natural Resources says that its primary concern is the health of workers and the general public, and that their interests come before those of the industry. That's the reason why it has advocated the safe and controlled use of chrysotile for the last 20 years.
The risks associated with asbestos are not limited to the mineral ore, but in fact include all fibres or particles that can be inhaled and end up in the lungs. The risk level varies on the type of fibre. Therefore, because of differences in that regard, the risks associated with chrysotile asbestos, which is the only one produced in Canada, are far lower than those associated with amphibole asbestos.
To summarize, the Canadian scientific community believes that asbestos-related health problems can be attributed to inappropriate past use of the amphibole type of asbestos, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of safe chrysotile asbestos.
The first of my three questions is addressed to Ms. Kuyek.
When you say that chrysotile is a carcinogen, are you considering the government's qualifications of that information that I've just mentioned?
Second, what is the relative risk of chrysotile compared to other fibres or particles, particularly replacement fibres, considering that the amount of available credible scientific evidence available is inadequate to determine the potential effects of these replacement fibres on humans?
Thirdly, Mr. Nash, what do you have to say about the fact that Natural Resources Canada is the largest chrysotile lobby in Canada, according to Ms. Kuyek?