I'll have one of the officials give you some idea of the figures.
The principle we base it on is that we do have—or we don't go out there intentionally shutting down harbours, even some of the ones that Mr. Cuzner mentioned. As the fishery changes, I myself know harbours that five years ago weren't used very much but that today are used a lot. Mr. Russell certainly has that example. We also have harbours that were used a lot but that now are not used. It's sometimes because people are going from small boats to bigger boats or vice versa, or because of the different species they're fishing in that area. Many people move to larger centres or better landing sites, etc.
So we always have harbours that are not being used. Sometimes they are big, rough, rugged harbours with huge wharves on the coast of Labrador or northeastern Newfoundland. Others might be a marina in a sheltered area in British Columbia or in Ontario.
About the latter, quite often people would love to have them, whether it be boat clubs or whether it be towns where they could develop a tourism business. Not too many come looking for a wharf in a rugged area of Labrador; you'd never be able to maintain it.
So we have all these challenges. We take a certain section of the budget each year for divestiture purposes. Sometimes, by being able to work with the local groups involved, we can get rid of a number of these harbours, but it's always with an investment from us. Very few people want to take it off our hands. It is costly, and we can't really take away from maintaining wharves that the fishermen are using to try to divest one. So we set aside a very small amount.
Do you want to elaborate a little bit on that, Cal?