Thank you for the questions.
I'll try my best to answer a number of them, and stop me and tell me which ones I miss, because I was trying to frame that.
On proposed section 48.11, the polluter pays principle, it's just good practice from a jurisprudence perspective to draft in the polluter pays principle, which exists in common law. I'm not a lawyer, but I think that principle has existed for some time and the act was originally written in the 1950s, at which point the polluter pays principle wouldn't have been expressed in statute. My colleague from Justice can certainly elaborate further.
With respect to the comment about the Fisheries Act, I believe that we are referencing the section of the Fisheries Act that has absolute liability for commercial fisherpersons, persons who are involved in commercial activities related to fisheries, which would be a fairly defined and unique class of citizens, if you will. I don't make my living from harvesting fish, so I would not be eligible for unlimited absolute liability under the Fisheries Act, whereas under the pipeline safety act I would, if harmed, have the ability to to recover up to a billion dollars in damages.
Should the act pass, it provides Canadians protection broadly. However, in the event that there was an incident in a theoretical context in which the Fisheries Act may be implicated, I believe, and my Justice colleague can comment on this, it's the decision of the federal crown prosecutor to decide which act they would use to prosecute or to pursue a party, should they be harmed.
Sorry, I believe there's a question there of making sure that there wasn't overlap and double counting, if you will, or double—