Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Mills.
Good afternoon, Ms. Lemay.
The National Capital Commission is an organization that has significant powers. As part of its mandate, it must ensure that the importance of the National Capital is showcased both to Quebeckers and Canadians, and even internationally. It must make the Capital both an attractive and a valued place.
I came to this region in 1979. I've seen the changes made over the years with a view to transforming Ottawa into a forum for the G7, at the time, and today, for the G8.
However, the fact remains that Gatineau Park is crucial to the NCC's planning. I know that it's not everything, but it is important, certainly on the Quebec side of the river. We know that in the past, the NCC bought private lands to ensure that the Park would be more of a public place. We also know that the NCC sold lands under agreements, either because it needed money or because it was obliged to do so for many other reasons.
The expression that comes to mind after your presentation is territorial integrity. There is also the issue of the role that the Quebec government should play in the decisions made by a board—made up of people from all over the place, including certain Quebeckers who are a minority on this board, both previously and now—should the bill be adopted in its current form.
I would like to know your opinion as to the idea of having to secure Quebec's agreement if, for example, the NCC wanted to sell part of the land or make changes to the National Interest Land Mass. This would affect, among other things, 17% of the territory within the Park that belongs to the Quebec government, but for which management was delegated to the NCC in 1973.
That is what is happening in the case of national parks. For example, if Banff National Park was to be enlarged, Alberta would have a say therein. I know that that is not the case currently as concerns Gatineau Park.
Would you be in favour of an amendment to allow Quebec to have a say in this matter?