What worries me the most today is that for five years the government spent 100 million dollars. All of the money was well spent, I have no doubts about that. The regions were fighting amongst themselves in order to get as much money as possible.
Furthermore, one must understand that the work had been estimated at 10 million dollars but that it cost 4 million dollars. And so, with the 4 million dollars that were spent, will the structure be able to withstand the storms over the course of five or ten years? We would normally be expecting some 20 storms.
At Rivière-au-Renard, it was a 10 million dollar project, but they obtained a little more than 4 million dollars. The structure that was put in place will therefore stand up for some time. However, down the road, everything will have to be done over.
The 100 million dollars were so stretched out and reduced at one point in time that we are wondering if the work is sufficient to respond effectively to any and all circumstances, be it with regard to operations, to the needs of the harbour authorities or, most importantly, to the bad weather we are now seeing. The question must be put.
If today you are saying that you will be giving out 100 million dollars over five years, it is the same situation. However, if you are going to be carrying out work in fishing harbours, make sure that you are granting 20 million dollars if the cost is of 20 million dollars. Do not go putting 15 million dollars into the pot to save money when we know full well that what will be built will not be up to standard, according to Public Works and Government Services Canada or the engineers. We must be careful. At the monetary level, prudence is key. We can invest 100 million dollars in infrastructure elements that will not last 20 years as planned, but rather 10 years. This is where we have to be prudent.