A situation such as Digby, from the perspective of Fisheries and Oceans, would not happen, because we don't divest core fishing harbours; we maintain those harbours. Had we owned Digby in the first place, we would not have divested Digby.
Another guarantee we have, when we divest ourselves of harbours—and as I said, we don't divest core harbours—is that we normally do business with non-profit organizations representing local stakeholders. I understand this may be part of the explanation of the problem at Digby; that the corporation to which the port was divested did not represent the local stakeholders. That is a situation we try to avoid in Small Craft Harbours when we divest ourselves of harbours. Either we divest to the local municipalities representing the local users, or we divest, as I said, to a non-profit organization representing the local stakeholders. That's how, at least in the perspective of Fisheries and Oceans, we would prevent a situation such as Digby happening within the portfolio owned by Small Craft Harbours.