Again, I'm a little puzzled by the way in which there seems to be a bit of a gap between your bill and the Kyoto period. Under the “Interpretation” section you define, under clause 2, as follows:
“Canadian greenhouse gas emissions” means the total of annual emissions, excluding emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry, quantified in the national inventory.
Now that phrase, which is sometimes called LULUCF, perhaps it's pronounced differently en français...as I understand it, under the Kyoto Protocol, those emissions were considered in an optional fashion. But it was agreed, if we know nothing else about the post-Kyoto period, the post-2012 period, that in fact for the period you're talking about, that is to say, 2015 and beyond, it will be obligatory to consider those emissions. So why would you exclude from the definition of “greenhouse gases” the total annual sum of those items coming from land use, land-use change, and forestry, since, as we knew last year, at the time the bill was drafted, that you couldn't do that, you actually had to include them?