I think the biggest budgetary challenge has been the capital one. When we were in deficit times, I think the NCC became more efficient, which is good. We applaud that. We welcome that.
I think one area is that in the late 1980s, the last time we had a significant deficit--it was certainly much greater than it is now as a percentage of the economy--they got rid of their capital budget and then had to go cap in hand for everything they needed. As I mentioned in my opening comments, we changed that in 2007, giving them a predictable $10 million a year. I think that's important.
It doesn't get away from the fact that from time to time they're going to have to ask for special appropriations if there's something particularly significant that goes into the tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars. That won't go away, but this does give them a planning horizon to be able to seek renewal of the various stocks of real estate and buildings and, as well, the natural treasures. If you go to the Stony Swamp, they have things that assist visitor experiences. If you go to Gatineau Park, they have things that assist the visitor experience. I think those are important.
There was a real and genuine fear and concern that, for budgetary reasons, every opportunity they had to sell a scrap of land here or a parcel of land there, they wanted to do. In my honest opinion, probably not everything they did was with that motive, but certainly with the lack of a capital budget I think it was not an unreasonable concern. I think that undoubtedly it was done from time to time, so hopefully a more stable budget is something that will be welcomed.