I've listened to the explanation, but I don't find the explanation to be adequate. I think it's really disappointing that this is not included here. I think it shows intent not to give consideration to the non-use value.
I actually have an amendment that I would like to propose to yours, Mr. Regan. The reason for this is that in the majority of cases, we speak of the non-use value because of first nation or aboriginal interests. In those cases, I don't think they would really accept that they are “public” resources.