I'd like to reiterate my colleagues' thanks to all of you for your hard work on issues that are chronically underfunded. Having worked on the environmental side of affairs, I can commiserate with you, but there's hope for the future. It's great that there's a committee looking at this and great that we have such strong memos from you.
I want to follow the line of inquiry of my colleague Mr. Bossio around financing and the best approach to financing. My own sense is that we're going to reach agreement that there should be legislation. Where I'm not sure there's going to be agreement is on recommendations around the best path forward for the use of scarce funds.
I would like to hear a response from those of you who are interested. Should the rural side be weighed more heavily in the broader context of financing heritage building protection? I also want to situate this in a broader context. Do you think there would be a stronger justification for financing of heritage protection if it's framed in the context of tourism promotion, particularly rural tourism promotion? Do you think there would be stronger arguments if it were framed in terms of a main street revival program?
Is it possible that the entire argument around the financing of heritage in a competitive government funding world has been that it hasn't been focused on the right thing, not just that it's just been competing against superior priorities? I'd love to hear your comments on that.