Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to be here in your riding.
I'd like to thank our witnesses for coming and to thank you very much for the volunteer work that you've put in. I know in many cases fish harvesters are also members of harbour authorities, and I guess that's why we've come to talk about fatigue so much, because not only do you spend a day on the water but then you try to manage your harbours and all the other things. So I want to commend you for that.
The topics have been pretty much covered. For us today we looked at three harbours this morning. The main requirement for the first harbour was a breakwater. The second one needed some dredging plus other infrastructure. Then we went up to see Mr. Petten, and looking at his harbour, I wouldn't think he would ever need anything again, but they do. That's the extent and extremes that we saw today, which for me is nothing new, because I come from the south coast and I have different levels of harbours and so on. But it was quite interesting to see the way the chairman had the tour orchestrated. We did three levels, which was very informative.
I just wanted to go on about the safe harbour piece in particular in relation to what Mr. Dalton said when he talked about his five or six harbours. I'm trying to get my own mind around that, because there can be only so many of those, for obvious reasons, funding being perhaps the most important reason. Otherwise everybody would have a safe harbour.
How do you see that process developing? How do small craft harbours, with harbour authorities and other interest groups, decide where safe harbours are strategically located? That seems to be, I think, the biggest challenge for us. How do we decide that? If you had five or six interests or harbours, as you have, and you were to ask them, they'd all think they should have the safe harbour. But how do we evolve and get that way? The demand for the dollars is so great, so how do we ever get there?