If one thing is expressed, it means other things are excluded, generally speaking, as a matter of interpretation.
Have you looked at proposed subsection 50.91(4) regarding non-use value? I'll read it to you:
For the purposes of paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), “damage” includes loss of use value and non-use value.
That's the only place, at least in that constellation of amendments, that I can find “non-use value”. Would you agree with me that it simply, in proposed paragraphs 50.91(2)(a) and (b), refers to aggravating factors on sentencing?
Are you familiar with that section?