My question is for Mr. Perras, but Mr. Garand and Mr. MacTavish, please feel free to answer as well.
Within the municipality, there are other lands, other properties that belong to the National Capital Commission, beyond what is recognized as being Gatineau Park.
I refer you to proposal clause 10.4(2) in the bill, which reads as follows:(2) The Commission shall give due regard to the maintenance of the ecological integrity, through the protection of natural resources and processes, of any property of the Commission that is an immovable located in Gatineau Park.
It is an issue of giving due regard to the maintenance of the ecological integrity. We believe that we should rather be speaking about giving priority to the maintenance of the ecological integrity. In fact, it would be much clearer for the National Capital Commission if it was an issue of giving priority to the maintenance of this ecological integrity, rather than simply giving due regard to the maintenance of the ecological integrity. What do you think?
Moreover, my question is focused not only on Gatineau Park lands, Mr. Perras, Mr. Garand and Mr. MacTavish, but also on the other lands that belong to the National Capital Commission. You can answer us as far as the lands within your municipality are concerned, but we are going far beyond that. We are also talking about the greenbelt, on the Ottawa side, and other National Capital Commission properties.
How do you see that, Mr. Perras?