Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, for the record, I would like to raise an objection to Ms. Leslie's allegation that we're somehow trashing habitat protection. I think your answer from DFO was that they said to you that it is more or less business as usual. The effective regulation is simply to target the waterways where the fish actually are and to have greater effect on the fish and the fisheries.
Now I want to say what a fascinating discussion we've been having today. I wanted to say, Dr. Reeves, that your passion for taking on nano-aggressors, both food and airborne, is very well articulated. We appreciate that. You fleshed that out a little bit. We are making progress with some of those noxious gases, as was mentioned by my colleague Bob, and as you acknowledged in Montreal. We have more to do, but we're making some progress in that area.
I appreciate what you said about trees being a filter and so on. I'm fortune to live on Vancouver Island. We're on 10 acres with forest all around us, and I sure miss it when I'm here in Ottawa in more of a concrete setting. I want to say there are some great areas in Ottawa, and I'm getting to that.
I just wanted to ask about breast cancer, Dr. Reeves, because we have you here. There's a lot of interest in that today. For example, a couple of major studies show that vitamin D deficiency has a major role in breast cancer risk reduction of up to 69%. Some people think we could save a heck of a lot of money if people got more vitamin D exposure. I'm wondering whether you think, as part of our urbanization, that we're actually spending more time indoors—we're clothed, we're not getting the exposure—and that the drastically low vitamin D levels that Canadians have is part of what contributes to the cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.