I think there can be areas of land that lose, for various reasons, their national significance or lose their connection to the greenbelt. From time to time on transportation routes, scraps of land end up cut off from the main greenbelt.
My view, I guess, is twofold: one, that if they're surplus lands, they should genuinely be surplus; two, that they not be a source of revenue for the commission; and three, if you do have some extra funds with respect to a slice of land that had to be given up for another purpose, you take those moneys and buy other lands that could help improve the greenbelt so that, at the end of the day, the greenbelt is kept whole or in fact improved.
As I said, some of the greenbelt lands, whether they be woodlots or whether they be wetlands, are extraordinary, and others are just now commercial cornfields.