Thank you.
For the departments that we have here, there is a real difference between Parks Canada, whose purpose is the preservation and conservation of things like buildings and monuments, and other departments. For the others, this is a by-product of simply accumulating assets over time and not something calculated by a particular department. They just wake up one day and find they've had an old building designated as a heritage place.
Of course, there are departments that are not here today, too. We identified Fisheries and Oceans and Defence merely because of the numbers, but there are other departments not represented here today that face the same issue.
I note in the report that the finding in paragraph 2.49 talked about how Defence and Fisheries and Oceans do not differentiate in how they earmark their money between heritage and non-heritage properties. Can you maybe comment on this? The point of its being a heritage property is that there are added complications to preserving a building and a priority to do so, in fact. With a non-heritage building, you're free to do whatever you wish with it, but non-heritage buildings have to be preserved, too. Deferred maintenance on a building just adds further costs later on. We need look no further than the Hill here to see what decades of neglect will do.
Perhaps comment on this. To both of these departments, do you plan to differentiate and budget differently for this, or are you going to continue to merely treat assets the same and to do a better job of keeping data on your requirements?