I would agree. I don't know when we last looked at the definition of heritage. I think the point that you have made is that the number of heritage sites, buildings, assets, etc., is unlikely to go down over time. It just keeps getting added to. There are no additional funds to departments that are managing heritage sites. When it gets designated, it just gets designated. Then you have some of the challenges that the deputy minister just pointed out in terms of managing it.
That said, we get the significance of this. There are criteria to treat those assets differently. There are some different classes of heritage. I know that some of them are classified and some of them are just recognized. So, there's a greater level of “you can't tear this one down; you can't make changes to this”. If there were sort of a look at all of that; is it time to do that—