I'll start, and if someone else wants to leap in....
This is an area of considerable controversy. On this one, as usual, there is a view that gravel removal is essential to flood control. There are also great concerns about gravel removal in terms of salmon habitat.
In the context of some of these pressures, we've actually worked with the province and came up with an MOU a year or two ago—a little more than a year ago, in any case—to ensure that in fact we did address both of those concerns in an appropriate and professional way.
As far as I'm aware, for this year, from a DFO perspective, we were ready to move on some 800,000 cubic metres. Ultimately, I think a good portion of it didn't happen because of the economics of it, but the other point that the department has made consistently is that if there is a real flood risk, we're certainly prepared to put public safety first.
I do think there now is effort under way in looking at a flood control plan. I think dikes, and so on, from a flood perspective, are probably more important than gravel removal, as I understand it.
That said, we do have an MOU, we're prepared to work with the province, and we have been prepared to move on it this year. As I say, I think that will have a flood control plan superimposed on it shortly, and that would be quite helpful to everyone. I think governments also have to look at the economic aspect of this and figure out, is the gravel removal about flood control and therefore is it about the economics, or is it about flood control and therefore we figure out how to deal with the economics?