I tend to agree, with respect, with Mr. Bigras.
I would refer everybody to page 2 of the act, the definitions section. We have two things defined: air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
With respect, I'm wondering if Mr. Bigras would consider a friendly amendment whereby we put in the use of those two terms, for consistency in legislation and also for an understanding of where the act is going.
I think Mr. Bigras is right on the mark here, and to put in wording to encompass those two terms, which are already defined in the clause—In essence, the amendment would be to prevent air pollutants and greenhouse gases, which I think would be consistent with what he would say. It would also be consistent with the definition section.
Would you be prepared to take a friendly amendment, Mr. Bigras?