No, and I'm not here to replace the parliamentary secretary, but the words we're focusing on are “air pollution”, “air pollutants”, “climate change”, and “greenhouse gases”. What we're saying is that for legal purposes, for the purposes of the statute, air pollution includes the effects of air pollutants—smog, acidification of lakes, eutrophication of lakes, and so on—and the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, namely climate change.
So it's a statutory interpretation issue. What I'm saying is that the way the bill was written was to have the term “air pollution” be as broad as possible to encompass all those effects.