Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to address the member opposite, I would like to congratulate her on her appointment as critic on this file. I look forward to working with her on the environment committee.
I would like to remind the House that the two reports to which the member has referred have two very separate and distinct purposes.
The report to the UN is Canada's National Inventory Report and is the authoritative measure on Canada's performance on greenhouse gas emissions for the years 1990 through 2009. The 2011 report, like all previous annual National Inventory Reports, is fully compliant with Canada's international greenhouse gas reporting obligations.
The report to Parliament is the 2011 climate change plan for the purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It is compiled to meet the obligation of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act and, as such, has a focus only on government measures that will lead to greenhouse gas reductions during the Kyoto reference period from 2008 to 2012.
The main reason for the difference between the two estimates is therefore based on the simple fact that the National Inventory Report and the report under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act have completely different reference points.
Consistent with its long-term historical focus, the National Inventory Report includes a high level, illustrative estimates of the possible impact on 2009 emissions from all federal incentives put in place since 1990.
The 2011 Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act report, on the other hand, examines only federal measures introduced since 2006. This represents a much smaller subset of government measures than is addressed in the National Inventory Report estimate. Further, the four megatonnes number for 2009 in the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act reflects the fact that we are taking a conservative approach to projecting the impacts of recent Government of Canada actions.
I would also like to point out for the member that there are many considerations that come into play in estimating emissions reductions from government measures. I would refer the member to the commentaries provided by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy on past Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act reports for an overview of these considerations.
As the round table has also noted in its most recent commentaries, Environment Canada has made great strides in its approach to the measurement of the greenhouse gas reductions arising from government measures. This reflects the strong commitment of Environment Canada to provide the best possible estimates of greenhouse gas emissions and reductions to Canadians in an open and transparent manner.
Environment Canada will continue its active research into data and methodologies improvement for emissions reporting in order to determine the best way to account for and report GHG emissions to Canadians in all its public documents.
I hope this clarifies for my respective colleagues that following the requirements of both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act reporting obligations demands the use of different methodologies, scopes and time frames. Any comparison between the reports must, above all else, recognize this basic fact.