It's interesting to refer to both land use planning and forest management in the question. That's what we quickly realized in the course of the work, which was conducted mainly in English. In English, it's called “forest management”. There's no ambiguity. It's a matter of managing hectares of forest. However, in Quebec, we talk about “aménagement forestier”, which is one aspect of managing a hectare of forest. We don't have a 360-degree perspective on forest management.
As we're reflecting on this, the risks of forest fires are no longer theoretical. Our task force watched the documentary B.C. is Burning. We had a disturbing meeting with the authorities of the State of California, where people have died because of the forest fires. The idea of complete classical conservation, in the form of a bell jar, doesn't allow for forest management. Timber harvesting also makes it possible to remove fuel that would increase the risk of forest fires and their potential range. That's a consensus among the first nations representatives, provincial representatives and territorial representatives we met with during the course of our work. Without telling, for example, SOPFEU in Quebec what to do and how to do it, there's potential to facilitate a conversation on actual best management practices in the country, which we recommend in the report. In English, it's a “working forest”, a forest that is already alive and forest land management that is just as alive, whose pillars are timber productivity, respect for communities and populations, biodiversity and the reduction of forest fire risks.