It seems like an oversight or something. It is clearly out of order and beyond the intention, I'm sure, of the bill. It seems strange that it would be in there.
In terms of money—like the small craft harbour issue, Mr. Hegge, we've been discussing at committee here—if we're going to deal with these structures, obviously an envelope of money has to be made available to maintain them in proper order, like any other heritage building. I was surprised to hear them in competition with the Parliament Buildings. I think Ms. Kell made that suggestion, that other heritage sites like the Parliament Buildings could be jeopardized.
As a young country, I think we're at that transition stage. We're coming up to 140 years and we're starting to become more aware of our history. Unlike many other more mature or longer-established nations that go back 1,000 years or more, we're suddenly at the point where we're starting to say, “We do have a history here”, and probably we're going to have to be a little more serious about making the investment to maintain it. It's probably going to require some budgetary allocations in order to secure those investments.
I certainly appreciate hearing the suggestion, though, that some decisions will have to be made—I think the Auditor General made that suggestion—as to where to make those investments, which are the highest-value representative of this type of building. I'm sure the public has a big interest in making sure those decisions are made to protect representations of, if not all...and where the highest value is. So maybe we're going to need a blend of solutions, where we maintain some on our own and divest ones that have community groups close by. I don't see those opportunities in some of our remote areas on the coast, that there's any community that would have the resources, unless there's a revenue-generating capacity.
Maybe the government would be missing an opportunity in some of those areas for creating a little local economy and some interest, because there's a lot of interest in tourism on the west coast now, as you know, and the remote areas are becoming less remote all the time, as the property values go up. And in divesting these properties, they may become of extremely high value if somebody with the right perspective comes along and decides to make them into revenue-generating venues because people are looking for coastal experiences.