Fisheries Committee on April 21st, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

We'll call this meeting to order. I'd like to thank our guests for joining us here today. We have one by video conference, Mr. Martin.

Can you hear me all right?

[Alan Martin, Director, Strategic Initiatives, B.C. Wildlife Federation]

I can hear you, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much. We can hear you as well, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Riddell, thank you very much for being here as well.

We're going to start off with presentations.

Mr. Riddell, if you would, start with your presentation. We generally try to keep the presentation to around 10 minutes so that we have plenty of time for questions and answers from our members as well.

Any time you're ready, Mr. Riddell, go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Dr. Brian Riddell, President and Chief Executive Officer, Pacific Salmon Foundation]

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you very much. I think you are addressing a very important topic for west coast Canada and across Canada. I said in the text that I provided to you that I think you're talking about something that we consider “fabric of life” on the west coast, and I really mean that. We have a very substantial following, and I think you'll see right away that it's economic, social, and cultural. It's also fair to say that this is a very complicated fishery to manage; that it gives us opportunities and challenges as well.

My experience is very much limited to B.C. and to mostly tidal waters. Mr. Martin is much more capable of talking about the freshwater recreational fishery. I drew your attention to the Freshwater Fisheries Society of BC and provided a web link to it. I provided in the material submitted an excellent summary report of the economic value of the recreational fishery. That was provided in 2013.

I also highlighted in my text a number of statements, which the Pacific Salmon Foundation strongly endorses, provided to you by Mr. Greg Farrant with the Ontario hunting and angling federation. In that text, he makes a number of excellent points that we would certainly want you to keep in mind. I won't read them but have just noted them in my text.

I want to emphasize one point he made, on the promotion of recreational fishing as an investment in our future. I think this is a very important point—difficult to quantify, but I think one of the most important things we can do for our communities.

He also identified that, like any industry, recreational fishing requires ongoing investment, support, and promotion for achieving its potential. This is the main point that was addressed by Dr. Gerry Kristianson and Mr. Owen Bird on March 31 as well. They have provided the minister with a document called the “Recreational Fisheries Vision Implementation Initiative”. That is fundamentally what it's about: how we better regulate and manage the true benefits from the recreational fishery in western Canada.

I won't read my background. I provided it to you only so that you know where my perspective is coming from. I want to emphasize that, when we talk about the recreational fishery in B.C., we're talking about many fisheries—probably hundreds—because of the diversity of different species and the habitats that they use.

Probably the best documented evidence I can give you about the economic value of the fisheries is provided by the provincial government. They have a series of reports called “British Columbia's Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector”. It's a financial assessment. They identify four sectors: the commercial fishery, the aquaculture sector, processing of fish, and then the recreational fishery.

The numbers provided in the document for recreational fishing include those for freshwater and tidal fisheries. It's an excellent document. It gives you a lot of detail on how they define the various sectors and gives you three metrics of value to compare the sectors and two time periods. They give you the GDP, or really a measure of the net economic value to the economy; they give you employment; and then the give you direct values on expenditures.

I'm not going to go through the details; you can see them in the document. I think it's a very clear indication of the economic value and significance of the fishery in British Columbia. It really does stand out currently as the leading economic driver.

I place two other issues as equally important, though. One is the contribution that the anglers and angling communities provide to conservation in Canada and also to the social and educational value of the fishery. In B.C., the most direct indication of contribution to conservation is the salmon stamp. In tidal waters, anyone wishing to retain a Pacific salmon must also buy a stamp with their licence. It's not the licence; it's “in addition to”. At this time, it costs only six dollars, but we have between 225,000 and 250,000 people who buy it annually. You can simply do the math to indicate that it generates a significant amount of money. All of that money, because of a decision by the current government in March 2013, is returned to B.C. through the Pacific Salmon Foundation so that we can invest it in work through communities to restore salmon habitat, manage small hatcheries, and do community planning and education.

At the bottom of page 5 in my text, I give you the recent five-year table of the actual money from the stamp and the money that goes out in grants, which is the stamp plus my foundation's donations that we contribute to the communities. The total value is the value of the entire project conducted, including community values, which have to at least match. I'll read you the values from the top of page 6, because they are the strongest indication of the contribution I can give you. Since 1989, when the stamps started, through 2014, the Salmon Foundation has managed $9.2 million in stamp revenues, which has been translated into a total project value of $90.2 million invested in salmon habitat and restoration.

A 10:1 ratio on investments is not a bad deal. It really does show the the power of community and large numbers. We use that money in habitat, small hatcheries, and then in education, outreach, and community planning. Those are the six categories where we invest money.

The other thing I want to emphasize is that it's not just money that the anglers contribute. Many of them participate in these programs and do hands-on conservation.

The other point I'd like to make is that we definitely support the current recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. We see it as complementary to the foundation because you have a large upper value of $250,000 per project. Very few of our projects ever get to that size because communities must match the money. Now, with a larger source of funds like that, we can take on bigger programs using networks or partnerships programs. A particularly good example is the restoration of estuaries in the Strait of Georgia that are very commonly neglected.

Let me move on to the social value. I want to emphasize the educational element. As we look at licensing and stamp sales over a long period of time, there's no question that there is a slow, steady decline. We interpret this to be a lack of recruitment of younger fishers or new fishers into the program. I think that an educational program is an important complement to the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program now, which focuses on habitat. We have to invest in the youth and new fishers to support our future. We emphasize that in the foundation. I've given you a couple of examples where we have things like family days where you don't need a licence to go fishing. The organizations will provide rods and reels, and teach people how to fish. A family can get together and do that for a weekend. There are 50 communities in B.C. that do this now.

Let me go on to the issues and opportunities, because the difficulty with the recreational fishery is its scale. It's made of hundreds of thousands of people, with millions of boat days of effort, and it's a huge challenge to regulate a fishery such as this. I think this is the emphasis that you saw from Mr. Kristianson and Mr. Bird. I want to emphasize that the Salmon Foundation fully endorses their implementation initiative. It does have strong merit, and particularly money into catch reporting and stock assessment. They have initiated important programs as well. There are two examples I gave you: certified tidal anglers, which is about public safety when you employ a charter fisher, and the other is a fisher app. This is using smart phone technology to improve our ability to get messages out to anglers and for anglers' safety in terms of where they are and weather communications, and eventually into catch reporting.

The other thing is opportunity. I want to point out that the recreational conservation stamp has been $6 since 1996. With the current numbers of people, if we simply adjusted that for the cost of living, which we have in all of our annual statistics, it would be $9.80 or essentially $10 per stamp in current value. That extra $4 would be another million dollars to invest into the habitat community, which we could match with the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships programs. It's small steps like that because of the huge numbers that really provide the power of that recreational opportunity.

I wanted to endorse that one of the things the Salmon Foundation would certainly recommend is a continuation of the national recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. We do see it as complementary. I think there are five submissions that we made this year for it and they all involved restoration of the Strait of Georgia estuaries.

I want to finish by making a point that I started with and say that the recreational fishery is a part of the fabric of life on the west coast. We believe that so strongly in the Pacific Salmon Foundation that we have our largest project ever directed at restoring the recreational fishery in the Strait of Georgia. This is the Salish Sea marine survival program.

I can't go into the details of it. I gave you the website. All the information is there before you. The objective is to understand what happened to salmon production and how to restore it, because the Strait of Georgia alone used to support the most valuable recreational fishery in Canada, but that all stopped in two years in the mid-1990s, and we don't know why yet.

We are taking it on because we think that's the most important project we could undertake in B.C.

I simply want to say thank you again for taking this on. The Pacific Salmon Foundation and the recreational sector have worked closely together since the foundation began in 1989, and we think that you have taken on a really important component of resource management and use in Canada and for all Canadians. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Dr. Riddell.

Now Mr. Martin, the floor is yours when you want to proceed.

[Alan Martin]

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I certainly will focus from a B.C. perspective and echo the words of Dr. Riddell, in terms of the core values of fish habitat and fisheries to the people of B.C. from an economic, social, and cultural perspective.

As a bit of background, I represent the B.C. Wildlife Federation, a non-profit, non-partisan conservation organization. We have 46,000 members in over a hundred clubs distributed throughout British Columbia, and our members contribute over 300,000 hours annually to fish and wildlife stewardship.

I will say a couple of words about myself. I am a fisheries biologist by training. I am a member of the Hunting and Angling Advisory Panel. I am also a member of the provincial round table on the environment and the economy, and I am on the board of directors of the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and the coastal centre for aquatic health. I do have a background in fisheries, but as Dr. Riddell said, it's primarily focused on the freshwater side.

As an organization, the B.C. Wildlife Federation's goals are to promote British Columbia's use and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation. Certainly the sustainability of the resource and the sustainability of the opportunities afforded to the recreational fisheries are a fundamental interest of our members. Our priorities are to increase investment in fish, wildlife, and habitat management in the province; increase opportunities for hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation; and increase influence through partnerships and collaboration with government, first nations, stakeholders, and other organizations. We see collaboration with federal agencies, provincial agencies, and non-profit organizations, including the Pacific Salmon Foundation and others, as being essential to moving forward in terms of both long-term sustainability of the resource and maintaining opportunities for recreational fishing.

In terms of the importance of recreational fishing, 400,000 anglers fished 3.8 million rod days, both in fresh water and salt water. Anglers contribute more money to our economy than the total capture fisheries—$936 million in expenditures and $326 million in GDP—and create 8400 jobs in B.C., many in rural and small coastal communities. Of that, 56% is driven by the saltwater or tidal fishery, and 44% is contributed through freshwater.

In terms of conservation, recreational anglers contribute $3.2 million from fresh water through the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation, and approximately $1.4 million through tidal licence conservation stamps. Not to put too fine a point on it, non-tidal anglers—and there are approximately the same number of anglers—contribute twice the amount of money to the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation. As an organization of participants, we have an opportunity, I think, as Dr. Riddell has pointed out, to increase the contribution through the conservation stamps, and our members are already doing that with the contributions through the surcharges on freshwater licences.

There is an opportunity to increase investments, and what I am saying from an organization that represents hunters and anglers is that there is the appetite, desire, and need to invest more in recreational fishing in B.C. We think there is a tremendous opportunity. If your committee would take leadership on this, it would hopefully be able to accelerate that agenda federally.

In terms of angler profiles, basically there are 338,000 freshwater anglers and 228,000 saltwater anglers.

What do we catch? In freshwater we catch about 9 million fish per year, of which we keep about 2 million. In saltwater we catch about 3.2 million fish and keep about 1.6 million.

I think we need to increase investment in program priorities. I think those areas should be fisheries catch monitoring; hatchery transformation and modernization; and science, research, and development in projects such as the Salish Sea. We also think it is a priority to extend the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program.

What level of investment should occur? The Province of B.C. recently committed all the licensing money to go into recreational fisheries management through the freshwater fisheries program. I think a similar investment of investing all the tidal water licence revenue in fisheries catch monitoring; hatchery transformation and modernization; and science, research, and development, to the tune of $5 million a year, would provide some symmetry in terms of the approach both in terms of licence revenue and its application federally and provincially, and the investment of surcharge and stamp money for habitat-related activities.

So investment for management functions certainly has been reduced and there is a great need for stock assessment and harvest monitoring, species and ecosystem management, research and development, licencing systems, data management and analysis, public consultation and communication, as well as marketing and education.

What would this investment mean? I think certainly it will increase recreational participation and angler opportunity. As Brian said, increasing participation will result in healthier and more active families, increased stewardship and protection; increased leverage for conservation; more licence revenue; more jobs; a healthier rural and coastal economy; and a balanced, solution-based approach to recreational fisheries development.

The key outcomes that we're trying to achieve as an organization include, first of all, and fundamentally, sustainability of the resource through the conservation programs and also development of opportunities for recreational fisheries for the key social, economic, and cultural objectives. I think we need to collaborate nationally, provincially, and locally, and I think the investment is due. We need to implement, evaluate, and communicate our successes. As we've seen through the fisheries partnership program, there is a large amount of capacity out there waiting to be energized and waiting for an investment back both to the resource and to recreational fisheries.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

We're going to start with a 10-minute round. We'll begin with Mr. Chisholm.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentations.

There is certainly no denying by anyone who lives in this country how important the salmon and the recreational fishery is to not only the country but also to British Columbia.

Certainly there were some things that happened over the past decade. Dr. Riddell, you referred to the runs in the Fraser River or the sockeye in the mid-1990s and how things changed, and that led, of course, to the Cohen commission. It's very important to the sustainability of that stock to find out those particular answers.

One of the first questions I had was, are you satisfied that enough has been done to follow up on some of the recommendations by the Cohen commission? Or is there more that can be done relative to the sockeye?

[Dr. Brian Riddell]

We're really touching on two issues here. One I have to point out is that the sockeye, about every two out of four years, is a recreational opportunity. When the commercial fisheries open, recreational fisheries can retain sockeye, but it's not a driving force in most years and in most areas. In terms of the recreational fishery program I don't think that the Fraser sockeye issue is paramount.

In terms of the response to the Cohen commission and sockeye salmon production, more generally, I think most people would say that there has not been a comprehensive response. I think you'll find that many of the independent groups are taking on other responsibilities and taking on some of those roles. Certainly with the Salish Sea marine survival program, our first funders that allowed us to raise $8 million, were the Pacific Salmon Commission's endowment funds. They are under the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. They contributed $5 million of the $20 million required. We have dedicated some of these resources to understanding the dynamics of sockeye salmon.

As a particular group, we're definitely trying to address some of these things. One of the issues that continues to linger is the potential for interaction with salmon farming in Johnstone Strait. We're also working on that. This year we are implementing sort of a second generation of acoustic arrays, which is a specialized type of tagging program. It's an active tag that you can insert in salmon and then you use passive arrays on the bottom of the ocean. By this we can get direct measures of survival, migration rates, and migration timing around the farms and through the entire ecosystem. There's a lot of money being invested to continue the study of Fraser sockeye, but I think the common answer would be that most people on the west coast would not say there's been a comprehensive response.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I guess—and Mr. Martin will bring you this—I'm talking about the tidal waters particularly. With respect to habitat management by the DFO and habitation protection, there are some concerns that there's been quite a reduction in the capacity of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do that work. I know that the Pacific Salmon Foundation and other non-profit groups have been stepping in to some of that breach to do some of that conservation work.

I'm wondering if either one of you wants to comment on whether enough work is being done, number one, and number two, whether there's sufficient coordination of the work that is being done to make sure that over the long run that conservation work is moving forward in dealing with some of the habitat management issues.

Mr. Martin, do you want to start?

[Alan Martin]

Yes, certainly. In terms of implementing conservation projects, I think there is a great deal of coordination between the various non-governmental organizations in collaborating and implementing projects.

I think the larger issues around habitat and habitat management are the changes in the Fisheries Act and the fisheries protection program. DFO held a number of workshops, which have included NGOs and federal officials, on how the new fisheries protection program has been implemented and run out. I think they've made strides in communicating that.

I think there are two components to this. One is preventing damage to fish habitat and the other is remediating it. I think the jury's still out on how effective a fisheries protection program will be. There are certainly some high level cases, such as the Mount Polley case that is currently under investigation provincially by the Conservation Officer Service. It's important to note that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada are participating in that. Clearly there is federal-provincial coordination on that side of it. We'll have to see what the outcome is there.

I think fisheries protection will always be a work in progress, and prevention is a much higher priority over the long term than trying to recreate habitats that have been damaged. That's where the emphasis should be put.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Dr. Riddell, did you have anything to add?

[Dr. Brian Riddell]

Maybe just two quick points.

First, I'd like to emphatically support what Al just said about prevention. We talk very glibly about restoration, but really, effective restoration is costly and not high probability. We always tend to lose something. We have to be very much aware of that.

Second, I think the only thing I'd really add to what Al said is that NGO groups, private organizations, and universities can step in to a certain degree, and I really would call this a matter of scale. When you get a continuous barrage of development proposals, things like pipelines or major port developments, these are things that public groups would really struggle to deal with, and I don't mean just being vocally opposed to them. If you really have it coming and you have to do restoration and manage the impact, there is a certain scale where you simply have to have government leadership because they have the experts and the resources.

Even with the Salish Sea initiative that we're undertaking, we have 47 organizations involved in a network that's implementing this program, but the real leadership is in the expertise of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because of their laboratories and their staff. We simply can't do things independently of them because of their capacity. So there is a certain issue where you can depend on community organizations, and certainly, Ducks Unlimited would come into this sort of thing, Trout Unlimited in other areas, but there is a scale where you still need government assistance.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

The point about prevention, I think, is an important one. It was the case in the Fisheries Act that when there was an undertaking, when there was a development that was going to have an impact, you could get an equivalent offset and moneys could be allocated. The developer or whoever was putting in the pipeline or doing the development and damaging the habitat could pay for another project somewhere else. I know that in Nova Scotia, for example, where I'm from, they're having some difficulty getting the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to properly recognize the need to redirect money to areas that would be preventive, as you've suggested.

I'm wondering what your experience has been in British Columbia, Dr. Riddell.

[Dr. Brian Riddell]

Well, that requirement is still in the new Fisheries Act. So I don't think there is any fundamental change there. No, I'm sorry, I would say that the fundamental change is that the onus is on the developer and then reviewed by the department. But the requirement for offsetting still exists.

Now there's a lot of concern about how offsetting is going to be handled and they are still trying to work this out. Al made the point that there are a number of workshops that we've had, but there's one particular thing we're concerned about. In the past, people took some solace that if there was a major development, compensation would be in place and in kind; it had to be nearby, it had to be similar, and therefore it would support species similar to what were there before.

In some areas we're simply running out of those in-kind, in-place locations and so now we have this idea of habitat banking and offsetting elsewhere. That's a slippery slope.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

That's where you get into the problem with repair and prevention, because as you've properly said, if we don't stop the damage before it starts, we're running out of opportunities to find places to fix.

[Dr. Brian Riddell]

Well, we have opportunities to respond but some of the new regulations, in our opinion, are limiting our opportunities. I'll just give you one example that we're still talking to Fisheries about, and this is the 10% in cash compensation. We have locations where, if there's development, there's not a lot of habitat around that you need to fix. Rather than this idea that 10% can only be used in cash, it may be far better to take more of the compensation so you can do the science, the stock assessment and the management, and so that you can approve the use of resources available to us. That might be better compensation, but you will have groups who will say that it's a small ratchet; you continually lose pieces of habitat. It's a difficult call and I'm not sure that everybody's totally happy with the regulations at this point in time but they're still being worked out. We're still in discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Nashville has its country and western stars and LA.A. has its actors, and in British Columbia we have our B.C. Wildlife Federation and our Pacific Salmon Foundation. We're proud of you and we're proud that B.C. is a place where we venerate our salmon and our fisheries and our outdoors.

When you throw around these numbers, gentlemen—about 30,000 to 40,000 volunteers at the Pacific Salmon Foundation, and I think you said 43,000, Al—it's truly astounding. I'll never cease to be as amused as I was when the fisheries minister came out—Minister Shea—heard those numbers, and then walked into the Coho Festival in west Vancouver and saw thousands of people living the whole saga of salmon and paying tribute to our environment and outdoors. She really got it.

So thank you for the things that you do.

When we look at the genesis of the recreational fisheries program, what the government wanted to see was certainly a restoration of habitat, but also the inspiration of people to take to Canada's outdoors, to help support our habitat restoration and the things that we're doing. The things that you're talking about, a 10:1 investment, for instance...that's why our government wanted to restore the salmon stamp revenues to the PSF. It's happened, and we're very pleased at those results.

Our committee has done some things that I think respond to what you just said this morning. We did a study on salmon aquaculture that culminated a couple of years ago , and one of the recommendations was that we create a closed containment salmon aquaculture centre of excellence, and some of us are still working on that. We are encouraging our government to pursue this. That was a unanimous report by our committee.

In B.C. we've seen the fisheries minister come several times; you've hosted her. We have a great parliamentary secretary who is one of the longest serving parliamentary secretaries in any department, who knows the area inside out. And many special projects have been undertaken in the last few years.

Dr. Riddell, as to the Salish Sea marine survival program, I support it. I know that the B.C. government caucus supports it. We think this could be really great for the future of B.C. salmon.

As one of those who called upon the government to do something that generated the Cohen commission, I would just like to say that the government has said it uses the Cohen report to inform its decisions, and I hold our government to account on that. On the things we do in fisheries and the environment, I expect the government to take the Cohen report seriously. I do, and many British Columbians who participated in that commission do as well.

Let me ask you this question. Dr. Riddell. It's astounding—30,000 to 40,000 volunteers. Can you tell us what are some of the best practices that the foundation has developed to generate that kind of impact in the province of British Columbia? They attract all those volunteers.

[Dr. Brian Riddell]

Well, let me say that the source of those volunteers really does come back to a government program called the salmon enhancement program that was initiated in 1977. The Pacific Salmon Foundation was established in 1987 and it really got going in about 1989. We were able to really build off the community program within the salmon enhancement program. The nucleus was there in groups like the streamkeeper federation of B.C.

There was a good footing in place that was initiated by government. By having the seed money to support these community groups, we've been able to provide them with technical expertise. We do a very careful technical review of every project before we fund it and then we work with them to implement the programs.

I think the support for the endowment and why we've been successful in matching their money and bringing in so many donations from individuals and corporations is because we take managing people's money very seriously. We have a very strong, independent board of directors from business leaders throughout B.C. We have a required practice of technical review, and then board review, and then approval all the way up through the course. If anyone has a problem with why they weren't supported, we'll have an answer for them.

I think that accountability has really been one of the key elements to it.

The fact that we continually have money that we can invest because of the support from corporations and individuals has really built the nucleus of community programs. There are 345 community organizations in B.C. and the Yukon that we provide money to on a regular basis.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Martin, do you want to elaborate on how you attract so many people to support what you do?

[Alan Martin]

There are two areas.

First of all, people who participate in fishing and hunting and outdoor recreation certainly have an interest in their local watersheds and landscapes, and they take them very seriously. Whether it's the Pacific Salmon Foundation or the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation or other sources of income, there are very well-organized grassroots and local organizations that tap into various levels of funding, often collaboratively, to undertake projects of various sizes and scales. If you look at the drain that the Province of B.C. has put on the recreational fisheries conservation program, it's because of that capacity and its history that we're able to respond quickly to any opportunities.

Part of it is structure, as Dr. Riddell has pointed out. A lot of it is history, and both a diversity of local groups and a diversity of opportunities wherein people have the desire and interest to improve the environment around them.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Dr. Riddell, you described that 10:1 ratio. The foundation has never depended solely or even significantly on government funding for its operations. Would you care to discuss a little bit the tension between working with government and making sure that there's a healthy amount of financial support from the community?

[Dr. Brian Riddell]

That's the yin and the yang. It really depends on whom you talk to.

The only time the PSF has ever really depended on government money was for a major five-year program called the Fraser salmon watershed initiative. It followed from the federal government's green plan in the 1990s. The Fraser, of course, is our most important salmonid watershed. It's one-third of the province of B.C.

There was money driven by what's called the B.C. Living Rivers Trust Fund—I guess it was $22 million—established in 2006. We used that money to leverage $5 million of federal money and $5 million of in-kind labour for a five-year program, and it ran from 2007 to 2012, by the time we finished. That's the only time we used a directed fund like that.

The difficulty with it, of course, is that it doesn't encapsulate all of the people of British Columbia. There were large areas that felt they weren't getting attention. We had to be very careful to direct other moneys to balance that spending in other areas.

Money is tighter now, and I think we've matured as a foundation. We have the community program, we have science programs, we have educational programs. We have found that we've been able to generate enough money from corporations and individuals that we haven't had to rely on government.

Now, for the Salish Sea marine survival program, we have a request in for the final $2 million. This is where I say it's the yin and yang. You talk to some people, and they don't want to give you money if government is giving you money. Other people don't want to give you money unless government is involved, to show that there's an interest. The way people see federal money very much depends on whom you're talking to and what the issue is.

Overall, right now we include the stamp money as a federal contribution in our cost accounting. Many people don't see it that way; they see it more as money from people fishing on the west coast being returned. We don't depend on government funds at all right now, but if we get the money today with the federal budget, we will have raised $10 million in two years to complete the Salish Sea initiative in Canada. That's going to be a major step forward.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

To be clear on that, is it $8 million from the private sector?