Moving to the point that was raised earlier by Mr. Goodacre, do you feel that in this legislation, or in the way the government treats these heritage lighthouses, there should be any secondary designation for places of importance that don't have the visitors, that don't have the access that some other places might, perhaps in eastern Canada or closer to some of the larger population centres? There may be an historically important place, but one that's identified as very difficult to get to. The fundraising capacity for a non-profit group, if there is one, or an association would be much more limited than for a group working on the other side of Quebec City, say, or near where some of you folks represent.
Do you feel there should be some caveat in here for places of a more remote nature?