What I was saying, or building on what Patricia said, is if a wharf is designated as part of the heritage site and then entails a higher standard in terms of upkeep in accordance with heritage standards, that's going to drive up the costs.
As you quite rightly pointed out, some costs are going to be associated with maintaining access, but our position is that cost is going to be much less than if we have to keep a wharf, a walkway, or what have you to a heritage standard. We're not suggesting in our remarks, in terms of the financial constraints, that no money would be spent on providing access. Obviously there would have to be some.
From our perspective, given the financial shortfall, we're trying to mitigate the amount of funding that would be required and restrict it as much as possible to the part of the site that has heritage value.