I was going to say that in the preamble the consistency that I was trying to suggest is, let's be consistent throughout the act. As somebody who has actually practised and litigated probably 100 different types of acts, consistency is the key. We have a definition section, and I'm sure Mr. Cullen may have amendments there, but even in the preamble we talk about air pollutants and greenhouse gases. I refer you to the preamble, clause 2. We talk about it consistently throughout.
Now if the definition clause that Mr. Cullen is bringing forward has some changes on that, then I think we have to look at that differently. Certainly consistency in the act and what Mr. Bigras was originally anticipating to propose I think is very good.
I just think the one thing that should be done is it should be consistent with the definition section. If the definition section changes, then of course, we have to go back to this particular clause and deal with it accordingly. To be blunt, I can't imagine what judge would read it that strictly, but I'm sure there are a couple somewhere in the universe, but it certainly states there are two particular things we want to regulate and it's consistent throughout the act in the regulation of it.