Well, the catch reduction was that rather than reduce the catch in Alaska completely or pull more dams on the Columbia, Canada took a catch reduction to accommodate the U.S., and in exchange, they provided $30 million U.S. to mitigate the impacts.
There was only one fleet that actually lost any fish or took the impacts, and that was the west coast troll fleet. The expectation was that we would be provided these funds. In conjunction with the first nations, through the aquatic management board that Dan has spoken of, we presented a comprehensive plan 10 or 12 years ago as to how to spend that money, and how not to just dissolve the licences once they were bought back. You would actually bank them in the expectation that we do see a future and that we could maybe reissue these licences. There was money for enhancements, for science and for all sorts of things.
Instead of listening to the region, the department asked users who were not affected, which would be like asking P.E.I. what they should do with money that the South Shore fishermen in Nova Scotia are entitled to. That's what they did, and that's what they're doing again. They're asking fishermen from other areas what they should do with this money, who of course are saying “give it to us”, because everybody needs it.
We need a comprehensive plan, we need a vision and then we need to make those investments, particularly in promoting the Fisheries Act as the number one environmental act and that doesn't just deal with in-river habitat but with ocean conditions.