Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.
In fact, it's not entirely correct to say that only 2% of the park belongs to private residents. If you look at a map of the private residences inside the park, you'll see that they clog up all the infrastructure around Kingsmere Lake, Meech Lake, the boat ramps and trail heads. That creates a kind of Berlin wall. Their impact is much more significant than only 2%.
In response to your last question concerning the last occupant, personally that would suit me. But the problem has to be solved because private property is unacceptable in what is supposed to be a public area. The right of first refusal or the last occupant would be entirely acceptable in view of the fact that that would solve the problem in the short or long terms. The problem is still a problem, contrary to what some people think. That's been part of the NCC's policy since 1950 and the Federal District Commission.
How can we be fair to the people still living there? In my view, they have a right of first refusal. The Supreme Court has clearly held that a right of first refusal would not violate owners' property rights. It's a problem that has to be solved.
A Conservative member asked whether having a right of first refusal would be a problem for the occupants. In my opinion, that's not a problem. That respects their property rights; they can live on the premises. I'm told they can even transfer their ownership to their children, through a trust or right of inheritance, if they wish. That respects the rights of the people who are there. They didn't form the park as it stands; they inherited it. Parliament also has a financial and fiduciary responsibility toward the people to enable the NCC to implement its master plan gradually.
Whatever the case may be, the last occupant right would be a very promising solution.
