I think the major problem facing the government is the increasing number of heritage sites. We indicate in one of the examples here that the numbers are increasing every single year.
The Department of National Defence has 8,000 buildings that are over 40 years old that should be evaluated under the policy. I don't think everybody is going to say that 8,000 buildings are going to be...but even just to evaluate them all.
The system has difficulty conserving the ones that are already designated. We give the example of Fort Henry. We give a whole bunch of examples of sites that I think most people would say are clearly national historic sites and are in significant need of major repairs.
We're saying that there needs to be a much better link between the whole aspect of designating the sites and the funding for the conservation, plus establishing priorities.
As shown in exhibit 2.4, about 400 to 500 sites are evaluated every year, and 30 to 50 are designated. It just keeps adding on to a situation that is already difficult.
So depending on the level of funding, I guess some could question whether there would ever be enough funding for all of it. Given the level of funding that exists, the government has to pick some priorities and decide what we have to keep.