Regarding your first point, I think I did make the point that Hydro-Québec was a five-four decision. I think that's actually a very important point for us to keep in mind because we all need to be aware of the fact that the act nearly fell. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that. I did mean to point that out.
On the issue of the inclusion of GHGs under CEPA, could it mean that the federal government is dictating provincial building codes? I don't think so. I don't think they would have a constitutional leg to stand on. Obviously it's a complicated area, as has been said already. It's an area of shared jurisdiction. So in other words, the federal government is allowed to go only so far. My point was that CEPA, in the context of toxicity, has been evaluated against the constitutional ruler in Hydro-Québec.
I'd like to pass on that GHG question to our experts in the GHG issue.