No, listen, it took four years and I remained hopeful.
The next amendment gets to the issue of a question that I'm sure this committee has heard a great deal about. I certainly know from witnesses that you have heard that it is important to have legislation recommend environmental damage. The use of the words “non-use value” is recommended by a number of the witnesses you had before you, but I'm particularly going to cite the evidence of Professor Olszynski from the University of Calgary Law School. I'll quote from his evidence:
My first recommendation is that the third category of loss under the civil liability provisions be amended to refer simply to environmental damages.....coupled with an additional subsection defining environmental damages, as is the case in the sentencing provisions.
It would not only simplify the section and ensure its comprehensiveness, but it is also necessary to correct what appears to be an error in the current bill. That is the effect of my amendment.
There is one other part of my amendment that deals with another part of Professor Olszynski's testimony, which is that the Governor in Council should be required within a certain timeframe, or at least authorized, to make the regulation setting out a process for environmental damage assessment.