Again, it sounds good. I say that because, first, we have a major chunk of infrastructure from coast to coast—I was going to say the coast; we're not necessarily on the third coast yet, but we're getting there. We need a lot of infrastructure out there. They have great resources, which they can't harvest unless they get wharves. I doubt whether there is a member here in the fishing province that doesn't have major problems with infrastructure. We're having a job even keeping our heads above water.
A long-term plan for wharves is not like a long-term plan for housing, where you can see the areas you can develop and get into it and so on. The wharf budget each year can be greatly dictated by a winter storm. If ice comes into the northeast coast and into the harbours, if you get the right wind, and if a half-dozen of Mr. Simms' wharves are demolished in active fishing areas, it could rearrange priorities entirely. I don't mean areas where one or two use a wharf and they have another one three miles up the road, but we probably have too much of that also. We might want to look at working with the fishermen themselves to see where we can consolidate and provide better facilities, but that's their call.
You can set a plan as to how much you're going to spend on wharves, how much you're going to spend on breakwaters, and how much you will do in divestiture, and we have that, to a point. But the actual work itself can be dictated, as I say, simply by a shift in fishing. People I know in one community, where we built a wharf that cost about $3 million some years ago—before my day—within five years had gone to bigger boats. They could no longer land where they were landing. The wharf was abandoned, and they all moved further up where we had to go spend more money. That's the problem we run into.
Does somebody want to get into the set-up?
Would you, Cal?