One of the major issues is that they are only governed by a Treasury Board policy that only covers buildings. Other sites are not covered by the policy. The other major issue for government is that there are groups that designate these sites and buildings as heritage properties, but there is no link with the conservation activities, requirements to do conservation activities, or, of course, the related funding.
We're suggesting that there really needs to be much more priority-setting about which sites do need to be protected. We have examples in the report. For example, the armoury in Halifax requires major repairs, yet the Department of National Defence is wondering if they put the money into other operations or into conservation of the armoury.
The same example will come up when we look at the coast guard, which has a number of lighthouses that are no longer needed for coast guard operations, yet I think many people would say that, yes, some of those lighthouses have to be conserved as historic properties. The coast guard is stretched for funds.
So there's a real issue around designating which properties absolutely have to be protected, and then there must be a plan for funding that protection.