Thank you for your question.
I think it's important to note that the Auditor General recognized not just a lack of funding but also a lack of legal protection as being one of the issues. I think the emphasis of this bill is to put that process and that legal protection in place, and it's an important piece of the puzzle that's currently missing. So I don't think we want to lose sight of that fact.
I think funding is an issue in many areas. The purpose of this is really to put heritage conservation and heritage considerations on an equal footing with other requirements that departments already have to grapple with in managing property they own.
It's not about saying that because these are heritage buildings they all need to be restored instantly and need a significant increase in investment. I think it really is about putting in place a managed process and recognizing there is a need to invest over time.
I think that because this bill also includes measures to facilitate the transfer of heritage lighthouses to other owners who are willing and interested in stepping up to the plate and being part of their preservation and who would have access to other sources of funding that federally owned properties don't necessarily have access to, it does open up a positive future for these structures that they might not otherwise have.