Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last, but maybe least, I guess. And he's in my party, so go figure.
Welcome to all of the witnesses here today.
I'm from Windsor, Ontario, the actual smog capital of Canada. We're worse than Toronto in that regard, and apparently we're hurting the Maritimes, as you're saying here.
Let's start with something common to all of you. I think we can probably all agree that the raison d'être of each of your organizations is to tackle head-on the specific health challenges of Canadians, your focus being on the health of Canadians, correct? We can all agree on that?
We probably agree, then, that the primary focus of Bill C-30 should be the human health of Canadians. Is that a fair assessment as well? Do we agree with that? Does anybody disagree with that? No? Fair enough.
There's a lot of common ground, I think, in your presentations, but there was an interesting area of divergence. Two of you, in your presentations, didn't comment on Kyoto. Now, you did mention the benefits or the co-benefits, I think, in a broader sense, about greenhouse gas reduction and what that means for air pollution reduction, but you didn't offer the government advice with respect to Kyoto. I'm not criticizing your presentations, but I'd like to know why you didn't offer the government advice on Kyoto, when one of the presentations did.