To the first question, yes, that's what I am proposing, that in proposed paragraph 48.12(1)(c) the reference be changed to “environmental damages”.
As I tried to set out in my remarks, environmental damages could be seen as the biggest envelope. Within that you have your two categories of “use value” and “non-use value”. That's the universe of environmental damages.
As to why I referred to the sentencing provisions, exactly; there are in fact ten pieces of federal environmental legislation that refer to damage to the environment and then define that very simply as the loss of use value and non-use value. In fact now the NEB Act, as amended by this bill, would have that definition, but it only operates in the context of the sentencing provisions.
I think the reason it's been written this way, in the context of the civil liability provisions, is due to this idea that perhaps use values were dealt with sufficiently under proposed paragraph 48.12(1)(a), which refers to “actual loss or damage”. I want to make it clear that some of those damages, probably some use values, probably would fall within that category, but certainly not all of them. So this is to ensure that it's comprehensive.
Again, bear in mind the restriction that was referred to earlier. The proposed paragraph 48.12(1)(c) damages—this reference that I'm suggesting to environmental damages—is only available to governments. That's consistent with similar legislation in other countries. It would essentially ensure that those damages would cover the full suite of environmental damages, but at the same time wouldn't result in double counting or anything like that.