I have one last question for you, since you have not answered my previous one.
Could the work that you will be doing after the fact not have been done beforehand? Could you not have done enough work previous to granting the permit in order to prevent what did happen? That is essentially the question. The department has a mandate to protect the resource. Now you are telling us that you will look into it after the harm has already been done.
Would it not be possible to undertake this type of review before the work begins to ensure that this type of situation will not be repeated? I don't think this is the first time that gravel will be removed from the Fraser river. This is not a new idea. It seems to me that the review should have happened earlier. All of the committee members are wondering how this type of thing could have occurred. With all of the tools at our disposal, in 2006, this situation could have been prevented. But the review is being carried out after the work has been done, and not before. If I understand you correctly, the department is unable to forecast, but it went ahead and built a dam. That is the problem! And to top it all off, you have not answered my question.
Does the department have enough resources to determine if this type of construction can go ahead without reducing the flow?