I can tell you that the prosecutors don't. Ontario has provisions similar to your provisions--restitution orders, compliance orders. The court can order the company to take steps to prevent a recurrence of the problem. It can order restitution to a victim of pollution. Ontario has had that legislation for years and it is little used, precious little used. The reason is bureaucratic. You have compliance officers who issue orders in one part of the bureaucracy, and then you have a separate enforcement group. They don't issue orders. They're not about securing compliance that way. They're about securing compliance by charging a person and having them penalized. Those groups don't work together very well in Ontario, and I suspect they probably won't work together very well in the Government of Canada.
So the prosecution service does not bring forward evidence on which the prosecutor can ask for a compliance order or a restitution order. And again, if it's going to be restitution you have to put a price on it, right? So what is the cost to the victim or what is the ill-gotten gain? How do you price it? A compliance officer may have some idea that the company might have saved a million dollars by not installing certain pollution abatement equipment, but that information has to get over to the other side, and very often they don't have that kind of information. You'd have to hire a consultant to do an environmental audit and a pricing. Again, I don't think your enforcement services are going to have those resources. That's not the kind of training they get.