I think the important distinction from the heritage protection perspective is that at a particular light station you may have both things that are of heritage interest as well as other things, modern infrastructure that supports, for example, access to the things that are of heritage interest.
If I can just give an example, the purpose of the wharf is to allow access to the site. If you consider the wharf, which indeed may not be very old, to be a heritage structure, that then creates obligations when you care for that, and the kinds of international standards for care of heritage structures include things like not changing the materials that something is made out of, not changing the design of something.
So in the case of a wharf, if you had an opportunity to upgrade to materials that perform better under the circumstances or to a design that accommodated a new kind of vessel, if you have designated that wharf as a heritage structure, you'll be precluded from doing that.
The purpose of the distinction we're making is to say we should treat the things that have heritage value, like heritage buildings, in a way that respects that heritage value, and we should manage the things that don't meet that test in a way that enables access to the place.
I guess the other consideration for me when I look at this issue is that in the bill there's an obligation, once a lighthouse is designated, to do maintenance on that lighthouse. That means that someone, somehow, has to have access to the site. So already built into the bill is some requirement for access.