Putting up the fence or the barricade is a temporary stopgap measure to keep people, I guess, from injuring themselves. If the wharf is deteriorating to the point that it has to be barricaded, the temporary solution is to put the barricade up, but there has to be a longer-term solution found.
You mentioned legal action. I don't think I would see it getting to that point. What I see is a really good program and a number of volunteers whose frustration level is to the point of wondering why they should do this any longer, why they should put up with this, if they're not seeing the dollars invested back into the program.
Talking about these dollars, I remind everybody again that this money doesn't allow for doing anything where we have overcrowding at harbours and where we need to put new investment in. We're talking about just maintaining what we have. To avoid the barricades and to avoid the wharves being closed, we need that $55 million on an annual basis to at least maintain what we have. Above and beyond that, whether for divestiture or new expansion, a separate pot of money has to be addressed.
So frustration is there, and we don't want to see the volunteers—because they do have a lease—saying, “To hell with it; I'm going to walk away”, and everybody suffering. You have to appreciate that in a lot of these communities—it's no different in my situation—even if you go on ten volunteer groups, you probably see the same faces, and they're getting tired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time.