I'm Barb MacKinnon and I'm also with the Lung Association.
I think it's a mixed answer. Certainly the political will has been there for certain substances. I'd like to take the example of PM-2.5 and ground-level ozone, for which we've had a very good process under CEPA to develop new Canada-wide standards.
Using that as an example, our standards are really a compromise to protect people's health. They were developed through a multi-stakeholder process that had both industry and health angles at the table. Of course, economics played into our decision to create a certain level of ambient air that's allowed for these different substances.
Yes, it's an improvement over previous levels, and it will help certain members of the population. But those are examples of pollutants with no safe exposure level, so somebody who has severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an advanced stage perhaps is going to die from exposures like that. So our level of contentment is on a sliding scale, representing our clientele of six million people. It saves some people; it doesn't save everybody. We understand the economic considerations for these standards.