As the member mentioned, we see that the departments and agencies concerned have taken the findings and recommendations of the two audits very seriously. A series of actions are currently being taken. Rather than state a finding, we prefer to go back and re-audit, which we'll do with regard to the built heritage question. We're getting ready to start the audit at Parks Canada.
As to the cultural industries question, it's too early. These obviously aren't matters that can be resolved in six months or even a year. You have to give them time. So we'll conduct another audit later.
I would add that, as regards built heritage and archival heritage, the important issue that we raised was that protection systems are no longer sufficient. We can improve administration and perhaps change ways of doing things, but, for us, the issue was not simply a management issue. A strategy had to be developed and priorities established, because there was a gap between what they were trying to preserve and their ability to do so. We observed that, by scattering money around, they wound up not preserving the heritage as they should have. At the time we conducted the audit, two-thirds of the buildings were in a condition that left much to be desired, and 90 per cent of the archives were in unprotected premises. There was already a quite significant deficiency, and they had to review the policy and decide what they wanted to preserve based on the resources they were going to allocate to that. I would say that it is virtually up to parliamentarians and the committee to decide that.