Just to make sure, removing proposed paragraph 68.1(1)(a) is a good idea, because if I understand it, we would be asking for the substitution of carbon dioxide, and I don't think there's a substitute yet.
Secondly, I think this would reflect the fact that we've already voted against separate schedules for GHGs and air pollutants. Our fear was that this was creating a new class of substances.
Mr. Moffet might help me understand or confirm that this in fact would not do so.