Fisheries committee  There was an authorization that included an opportunity for a causeway or a mechanism to get the gravel across, but this particular design, as we read the authorization, was not authorized. The issue surrounding the mortality of fish was not authorized. There's no indication that DFO knew that there were fish downstream of the causeway.

Fisheries committee  From my perspective, I think it's the cavalier attitude of the senior management toward the Fraser River. The Fraser River has been sort of treated separately in terms of its habitat values. It has not been recognized in terms of its extraordinary fish community, so it has been treated very separately.

Fisheries committee  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.

Fisheries committee  A large channel.

Fisheries committee  This was a 2000 extraction about the same size as one that occurred in a channel downstream. It was about a quarter of the total Fraser River flow, and the DFO authorization included a requirement to have a flow-through. What we would suggest is that even a bridge, which was originally suggested for this particular causeway—and a bridge would have gone in a hole of about that size—still would not have met the obligations to protect fish habitat, because the channel is so large, so wide, and the discharge was so immense that a small cut through like this didn't meet the grade.

Fisheries committee  The habitat component.... This particular site was more along the lines of unauthorized destruction of fish.

Fisheries committee  DFO never authorized the destruction of fish. They authorized the causeway construction, and my understanding is that there is a requirement for an authorization under the Navigable Waters Protection Act as well, which was never authorized. The real key on this particular site was that a huge number of fish were destroyed through de-watering, and that was never authorized.

Fisheries committee  I think the point that you make is really important, and the issue on the Fraser River in regard to Fraser gravel removal is that the decisions are taken out of the technical field because it's been so politicized, and the direct decisions of where and how gravel will be taken out is being made at the senior executive level or senior management level.

Fisheries committee  And this isn't the worst site. There are other sites upstream that were done this year, where fish weren't killed but habitat was destroyed and there's absolutely no benefit to flood protection, there's no benefit to gravel aggregation.

Fisheries committee  There is this perspective or view that the Fraser River is aggrading. In other words, there is sediment from upstream areas filling up the river and causing dike deficiencies. The view is that sediment has to be removed to lower the river bottom in order to increase the flow-away capacity.

Fisheries committee  No, the causeway was constructed to get the vehicles across to a bar from which gravel was being extracted. In effect, this gravel is being taken out for aggregate. The aggregate companies are very anxious to get their hands on as much gravel as possible in the eastern Fraser Valley, because of the extreme development that's going on there now.

Fisheries committee  No. There are two levels of government working here. Land and Water B.C. is part of the provincial government, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the overseer of habitat issues. They authorized it through section 35 of the Fisheries Act of Canada. Through the provincial emergency program, Land and Water B.C. paid to have this causeway put in.

Fisheries committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting us here. I'd like to talk to you for a few minutes about the Fraser River and gravel removal situations that are occurring there currently. In major part, I would like to discuss what I feel is DFO's inability to meet its statutory obligations in regard to the Canada Fisheries Act, and specifically section 35 of the Canada Fisheries Act with regard to habitat, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.