For one of the pieces that's come to mind and that we've had a bit of a discussion on, this is more of a heads-up. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it now. In the spring, we tabled legislation on federal sustainability, the FSDA. We were looking at sustainability, and for this whole heritage piece, I would say, we didn't consider it when we did our study. I'm thinking that when the legislation comes back, it may be something that we could dedicate a session to in terms of looking at how heritage could fit into that act. I'm kind of putting it on the record that we should consider that as a committee and perhaps have some of these witnesses come back and speak to us—and perhaps others—because there could be an amendment that could strengthen that legislation. I'll leave that for some thinking for us at this time.
Mr. Sopuck, in his comments, took me back to a point in time when I was stationed at Riding Mountain National Park in the early 1990s. At that point, a number of federal heritage buildings and national historic sites were under threat. I think of the east gate there, which is an architectural gem. There was a comparable one for the south gate that had been demolished without any records. There were questions about whether we should just get rid of east gate. Also, the visitors centre was going to be demolished and replaced with something new. These are real architectural gems and set the whole character of the town of Wasagaming.
The issue we have within national parks, based on my three decades plus in the organization, is that there are always competing interests for where to spend money. I know that within national parks the idea of ecological integrity is always the driver, and then there are contemporary assets such as highways and water treatment systems. Heritage is often the neglected cousin.
Even though there's money, and your comment was that Riding Mountain park is not in bad shape, there were points in time—