About 80% of our commercial portfolio is leased, so we have the same issues, I imagine, as the federal portfolio would, or similar issues.
There are two areas around which we focus our efforts. Similar to what we were I think collectively talking about regarding both Manitoba and B.C., there's the operational side and there's the retrofit side.
On the operational side, our out-source service provider is obliged to provide energy efficiency equally in our leased portfolio and in our own portfolio, and we're quite clear about that in our contract with them.
There are obviously different areas of jurisdiction that our out-source service provider has. For example, in some of our leased space the base building systems are controlled more by the landowner. However, in our contracts or leases with the landowner, there are clauses that indicate that we may present to them areas of interest for improvement—if we notice that, for example, the ventilation system is working overtime, or in the summer that the boiler is working, and that kind of thing. Because we pay the energy in most of our leased facilities, we have the authority to request of the landowner, and to have them respond reasonably, to ensure that the building we occupy, that we're leasing, performs efficiently.
There is the operational side. On the retrofit side, our leases are typically in five-year increments. What we try to do, when the leases are renegotiated, is build into the negotiation whatever retrofits on the building systems we'd like to see happen. There is an assessment of the building as we enter that negotiation period. We are more than willing to share the incentive and the cost associated with retrofitting the building systems for our leased portfolio as well.