Yes, I can't sit here and let some of the assertions go by. Let me address one or two quickly.
With regard to opposing the regulation of the behaviour of Canadian mining companies abroad, as far as I know we've never opposed it, but we would argue that there is a legal issue of the extraterritorial application of domestic law. That is one fact.
The second point I would make is that much of what we do is in the public policy context, and I have the evidence to prove it. I don't make assertions without evidence, and I think there's a problem with regard to the assertions that have been made. I have evidence; others should be able to produce their evidence.
The other issue is with regard to the matter of chrysotile asbestos. We have every bit of evidence—scientific, all evidence—to demonstrate that it can be used safely. The fact that it's a carcinogen doesn't mean very much, and I'll tell you why. Under the International Agency for Research on Cancer, alcohol is a proven group one carcinogen; wood dust is a number one carcinogen; silica—sand—is a number one carcinogen.
What does that mean? They base it on what they call a hazard assessment. A hazard assessment is looking at the potential to do damage. It's different from risk. Risk is its actual, shall we say, operational aspect in terms of whether it does pose a risk and under what circumstances. So there's a big difference. The fact that it's a carcinogen doesn't mean very much.
The other issue is that with many of these environmental groups, the question has to be this. There's a huge legal community in the United States that makes a fortune on asbestos litigation, and I can show evidence after evidence for how bad it really is in terms of misinformation. We know that some of these groups are funded by people—