Fisheries committee  As I indicated in my opening remarks, the issue of gravel removal on the Fraser River is contested. It is true, there are different perspectives on this within the science community, and obviously among different interest groups. That's why we supported a study that led to the framework I spoke of.

Fisheries committee  The issue, I think, from the view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, is that we understand that other agencies--in this case the Province of B.C., the municipalities, and so forth, but particularly the province--have certain views and expertise in this, and they are requesting that gravel be removed.

Fisheries committee  We can't--

Fisheries committee  I think that's actually a good question. Right now we are adhering to the actual framework I've described that we entered into with the province. We've been consistent with the framework, but the issue, I think.... That is a reasonable question, potentially, in particular sites.

Fisheries committee  Well, the challenge, as you know fully, is that we're bound by our policy, which is a policy of no net loss. So the challenge is exactly as you characterized it. There's a proposal to put in a small craft harbour. It's in a site that is occupied by eel grass. From our perspective, if that requires that eel grass be removed or destroyed, to be able to approve that we'd have to compensate.

Fisheries committee  No, I don't think so. As I've explained and as you've commented, appropriately, in my opinion, this is about managing risk, and we do have to take into consideration the benefits of these projects versus the risk to the environment. But in the end we have a responsibility as an environmental organization to adhere to these policies.

Fisheries committee  Okay, I'd like to come back to the why, and I need to explain it in two ways. First of all, the why. Why we allow gravel removal is for flood control and navigational purposes.

Fisheries committee  And the how is, we instituted a design of the causeway to try to facilitate water passage. Water was passed through the causeway, but it was not adequate, so it appears, to provide for sufficient water in some sites below the causeway. We were doing a review to determine to what extent the dewatering was caused by the causeway versus natural flow reductions.

Fisheries committee  I'm not sure if that's a question or an observation.

Fisheries committee  My comment would be along the lines that I've already characterized. We had a framework that we were operating under, which was based on science. Gravel removal on the Fraser is contentious, as I've noted. The particular framework proposed and identified an approach, which we have adopted, which has been signed off by the levels of government and the Fraser River council.

Fisheries committee  Are you referring to the subgroup, Mr. Cummins?

Fisheries committee  We have not provided any advice to the minister to date on what the exploitation rate for Cultus should be. We have advised him, though, on the deliberations that are occurring in the industry and elsewhere about what their recommendations might be. But we have yet to provide him any formal advice in terms of what Cultus's exploitation should be.

Fisheries committee  We've given them advice on what we think the late-timing population of sockeye should be, preliminary advice, and we've advised them that ultimately the fishing plan will have to be determined and approved by the minister. So the advice we've provided is provisional subject to the minister's final approval.

Fisheries committee  I think that's fair enough. We would agree that a risk-based approach is the right approach to take. Additionally, we have acknowledged that in managing any habitat development, there's always risk, and we have to try to minimize it. That point is well made, and we would not dispute that.

Fisheries committee  I'd like to come back to why we authorize gravel removal on the Fraser River. This is not—