I'll answer the second question. I'll let my colleagues deal with digitization.
In terms of significance, there is a program that works very nicely, and I mentioned it a minute ago. It's called the cultural property program. The cultural property program certifies objects that are of national significance. Its legislation and the way in which it interprets “national significance” is quite broad. It says that curators and the local people are essentially the ones to make the argument of what constitutes national significance. Yes, there are checklists of “John A. Macdonald slept here” and that sort of thing. But it's an open process that allows the arguments to come from the bottom up, as it were. And it works, I think, quite effectively. It's not set in cement, and so on. About $100 million of donated artifacts are accredited each year and make it into our museums.
So I think there are ways.
That doesn't help you with the archaeological example. We're museums. We're not looking after archaeological sites so much. We look after the products that come out of the sites, because in Ontario they have to be deposited in a museum.
So I'd recommend to you at least that program as one way of looking at the national one. Our point of view is that virtually everything in Canada should be considered part of our national fabric. We are the sum total of our communities, if we are a nation. We are the sum total of our regions, of our provinces. That's what makes up Canada.