I agree with you in many regards that it can be done properly. I'll put it this way: when it comes to the difference between protection of human life and property and fish, human life and property always win. There's no question about that. In effect, I have worked on these issues for 25 years. I know those are the hard, cold facts.
I think that you have to go back in the history of the Fraser River in this area. Gravel removal is very valuable for the aggregate companies. There's been a lot of history with regard to aggregate companies trying to get their hands on these very valuable gravel resources. The local community and some of the aggregate producers were very frustrated throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, viewing the agency technical staff as interfering with gravel removal. So in 2003, the technical team—which I was part of—was disbanded and was, in effect, removed from the decision-making process. Staff were in fact reassigned.
I was basically—in part because of Fraser River gravel removal—taken out of the provincial government and actually seconded out of the government for a year and a half. And as the assistant deputy minster told me, there was nothing wrong with my science vis-à-vis these particular issues; it was only that the eastern Fraser Valley MLAs didn't want me meddling with gravel removal. She was very clear about that.
The politicization of gravel is very strong.