I'm trying to find clarity from the legislative clerk. This is the third time something like this has happened in a bill. This particular case is a good example.
I appreciate the lesson on geography, Mr. Proulx, and I listened to the same witnesses, so I understand what the greenbelt is.
What I was trying to use as an example is, if the definition of “greenbelt” is changed to refer to what the bill is actually dealing with, which is the park, if that is included in the definition, is it then within the scope?
I'm directing that question towards the legislative clerk.