Thank you, Mr. Choquette.
When we talk about eco-conditional support, it means giving grants or amounts that meet ecological criteria. So, these criteria become a condition for the money to be paid out.
Earlier, I spoke about land use planning. In this case, the eco-conditions could be not to give money for developing agricultural lands, in wetlands or for developments where the density is too low. However, if more money was given to building infrastructures that the federal government participates in, the conditions could address rainwater management. The government could require the municipality or any other developer to do a study on the life cycle of a building. The municipality or developer would have to show that a LEED—or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design—building results in a 5% to 10% cost surplus compared with a standard building. But the building won't exist for just five years. So the payback—if I may use that expression—will be over the long term, if you take into account the fact that buildings these days last for 40 to 60 years.
In short, an eco-condition could be that the municipality needs 10% more, representing a certain amount, but if it can prove that the additional investment from governments would be profitable over 8 to 12 years and that it would then be profitable, that would be positive. The fact that there is a gain and that the municipalities are paying means that taxpayers pay less.