As the deck indicates, we have roughly over 350 that we still need to divest. And you're quite right. In terms of priority, obviously, we would argue that the maintenance of the core harbours is critical, because as you know, we're slipping behind in that regard. However, we cannot ignore the number of harbours to divest. So we carve out, on an annual basis, roughly $1.5 million.
As an aside, you may know that we had some special Treasury Board funding back in about 2000-01 to help with that. Our estimate is that we still need this $82 million to divest of these harbours.
I think we have a pretty good priority system that we use to evaluate which harbours need to be divested in terms of a number of criteria we apply. But if you have 350 and are only able to do 15 to 20 or 25 a year, it becomes a bit of a juggling game. We don't do it on an ad hoc basis. We actually look at those harbours that are most in need of divestiture, if I can put it that way. We have to divest of these harbours. The longer we have them in the inventory, if you will, the more we have to invest some of our limited maintenance funding to keep them in reasonably safe condition. We are conscious of that.