I took some notes, Mr. Chair, and I will try to cover the points that were raised.
Yes, the position of our government, of the Canadian government, is based on a scientific position that recognizes the safe-use approach. The illnesses you mentioned are tragic and are caused by previous misuse. The fibres used were the amphibole fibres and you know as well as I do that they were misused. Today, there is a chrysotile fibre that can be used safely and whose biopersistence is less and much less harmful than the fibres that were used in the past. I am not telling you that the substance is not dangerous. It is a dangerous substance but we must manage the risks. Hazardous substances whose risks cannot be managed have been banned, as was amphibole asbestos.
Regarding the work done by Public Works, it is a blatant example of the misuse of sprayed asbestos. This is not encapsulated asbestos. Whether it be chrysotile asbestos or amphibole asbestos or any kind of asbestos, it is an example of unsafe use. This is why we are removing asbestos.
The objective for instituting chrysotile is not to grant millions of dollars of subsidies to the industry, but rather to have a common fund where each one contributes a third, namely industry, the Canadian government and the Quebec government. The money is handed over to the Chrysotile Institute which has the role, as is the case for all hazardous materials, of promoting safe use both here in Canada and abroad for clients and purchasing countries. The Chrysotile Institute is not seeking to put out propaganda or to do lobbying or anything of that sort. It seeks to promote safe use both at home and abroad.