I would add that care was taken to provide the very same definition that is in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I'm worried about varying from that. There was some clear reason for adding paragraph (i), and I suspect it might be because of a series of Supreme Court decisions, including Friends of the Oldman. There it was argued that because environment isn't specified in the Constitution it is arguable, except in those cases where there is exclusive provincial jurisdiction, that there may well be federal jurisdiction that includes spending power.
I don't see anything else in here that would reflect the spending power. It could be a facility, for example, that's cost-shared or....