I just wanted to make sure there wasn't an unintentional loophole created. I'm not passing any comment on your writing, but an exclusion to the operator receiving any compensation would not unforeseeably make it impossible for them to be compensated for environmental remediation that happens off-site.
I don't see the notion of remedial measures included in clause 17. Often under acts pertaining to the mining industry and to pulp and paper operations, when an environmental cleanup happens there are levels of cleanliness, I suppose, or a return to a pre-existing state, that are included in the directions to the company, and they're very explicit. They've had to be, because Canada has had an experience where I think Mr. Tonks's riding had a site that picked up, closed down, and the costs of remediation of the site were extensive, because our concern for the environment in 1940 was very different from what it is today. The expectations of the public are much higher in terms of what “returning to pre-existing state” means.
Clause 17 doesn't really get at what the expectation is as to the level of cleanup, and this is an important point simply because one person's cleanup can be extraordinarily different from what the tolerance is. I can imagine the public meeting where folks are saying five years down the road, after the box has been ticked and the contractors have all left, that they still think the site is contaminated. Under legislation, if it's not defined then it seems nebulous.
Can you help me see where the definition of mitigation really is? What is it considered to be?