Fisheries Committee on May 27th, 2010

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Can I interrupt you just for one second on that? To get to the point that if you have four years of an understanding, there are four years to correct that misunderstanding—if it's there. The test of a reasonable person would be that after four years there's an opportunity for DFO to correct a misunderstanding. Also, the point here is that if a change is being announced and if it's simply the status quo, what happened in 2005 in revisionist history is that there was never any change to the management plan; it was the 2004 plan rolled over again. Would that be a correct interpretation?

[Nellie Baker Stevens]

I don't know if I would say the status quo, because I'm sure that others would argue that. They would say no, it is not status quo. We went from 32%, and you were lucky if you hit 38%. We were 32% and we're down to 30%. It went to equal licences, so they're going to say yes, there was a change. It is equal licences now instead of having 30% here and.... They no longer look at percentages; it is equal licences. But I'm sorry, I look at percentages, because we lost 2%, so that is important to me.

Be careful with saying status quo, because I'm sure you're going to hear arguments that it isn't status quo. Actually it has changed, because now it's equal licences.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. In a way, I am very happy to see you again.

I would like you to explain or clarify several points for me. The first thing concerns appendix b, in the famous letter we discussed earlier. Did you finally figure out what it was?

[Nellie Baker Stevens]

Actually we all have copies of the independent report, so I dragged it out, and I wondered what he was talking about. I went to it. It's a table. I started going through it and asking what he was talking about. It very clearly shows that 50% of the quota goes to us and 50% goes to them. The only thing that didn't quite compute is that based on the future, when we would have 31 licences and the traditionals would have 31 licences, if you shared 50% of the quota with each of us--guess what? It would mean you would have equal licences. Do you see what I'm saying?

The problem was because they held off that 9,700 thing, when we became permanent we put our licences together to make what a traditional permanent licence was--let's say 55 tonnes. It took 20 of our individual quota holders to make up 55 tonnes, because they were sharing--I don't know--for tonnage or whatever, so we got only 16 licences. We didn't end up with 31 licences. They had a master plan. They had decided how they would like things to be: we'd share things equally, 50-50. To me, I put a ribbon on the bow: why don't we make them both exactly the same number of licences? That way, it's much simpler. You give out the quota, and it's the same amount per.

I've been staring at this for the longest time, having discussions with DFO on this, and this seems to be the thing that's holding them back. I shouldn't say that. This is their excuse for not going forward with what was in the plan.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I imagine that if the document in question has not been tabled, you will table it so that we can apprise ourselves of it. You only have to give it to the clerk as well as any document you have or any document you may wish to provide to us following today's meeting. If you believe that the members of the committee would be interested in such and such a document, do not be shy. Sometimes we think of certain things in the moment and the next day, we think of something else. Please do not hesitate in this regard.

There's another point I'd like to raise with you which is the minister's discretionary power, the 100% power. Certain people may say that this is interesting because it allows one to correct a mistake right up to the last minute. However, there are all sorts of levels of lobbying, of power. I wonder, in the final analysis, if there shouldn't be a type of power-sharing. We wouldn't want the minister or the people surrounding him or her to be able to do whatever they please. The same thing is true concerning the people who could possibly influence that person.

There could be a sort of multilateral committee where the people concerned by a particular problem could sit. I am raising this with you because this could eventually be one of our recommendations. I would like to know your opinion. Do you see this favourably, or not? If you think this is a good idea, why?

[Bernie MacDonald]

I'd like to answer that. One of the biggest problems we've got down here—and I referred to it before when I was talking—is that we have all these advisory meetings and we spend a lot of time in advisory meetings. I know I do, and everybody here does. But when push comes to shove, what we come up with in advisory meetings we have no way of knowing if that's what the minister is getting to read, because a bureaucrat writes a briefing note, and because it's interdepartmental communications we're not allowed to see it.

I think the advisory board should be involved in writing the briefing notes to the minister, and then, when the minister makes a decision, we know she made her decision on the facts she read or it's just a personal decision.

I'd like to just let you know another consequence of this decision, and it's too bad. This whole fleet has a great rapport with science and we work with science well and we fund science. But because of this decision that the minister made of all the core licence holders, we're not paying for science any more. There was a bit of money from the Larocque decision that's been going into science, but as far as I can see, when that's done, science is done for this snow crab fishery down here, because until we get equal sharing, there are a lot of people who are going to say they're not paying for science—they're not getting enough out of it, so why should they pay to get other people more crab. It's too bad.

[Josephine Kennedy]

Just to go back to this appendix B, here in area 23, the future that the independent panel saw for area 23 at the time was that the permanents had 37 licences. There were to be 37 licences created for area 23. That would make everybody equal. But instead they created 21 licences. So that threw the numbers off. We are not equal. So appendix B doesn't hold water.

All through these documents, everywhere—all DFO documents, DFO minutes—it goes back to how the sharing formula was to break down at the 50-50 in the eastern Nova Scotia snow crab management plan, which DFO told us was the bible. This is how we were to abide, and the only things that would change would be traps or season opening and closing, soft-shell protocol. On page 41 it states the approach:

When the TAC reaches 9,700mt the distribution of quota will be calculated as follows. The permanent licences existing prior to 2005 will equally share 50% of the TAC and all licences converted to permanent status in 2005 will share the remaining 50%. Of the 50% provided to the licences converted....

The slope edge comes into effect, which is another story in itself.

But it clearly states through every document, from the independent panel's recommendations and acceptance by the Minister, Geoff Regan, completely through until we found out that DFO stole our crab. We are wanting our crab back—nothing short of the 50% that was mandated in this document that cost the people of Canada probably hundreds of thousands of dollars.

To touch on whether the people at DFO misinterpreted it, whether they found something different, this document goes from 2007 to 2011. The reason it was late getting into our hands—and this is DFO's statement—was that it took DFO's lawyers, French and English, DFO policy advisors, French and English, to make sure it was translated and that everything was followed in the way it was set down through the independent panel by the acceptance, everything, so there would be no misinterpretation. Then lo and behold, in 2009 there was a misinterpretation. They dusted it off and found a word, and they refer to the word “equity” several times. They picked up on that in the independent panel's report. But as they picked up on the “equity” word, they left out the meaning of the word “equity”, which had two points to it: procedural and substantive. Without both you can't go on the equity principle. As it states here:

At the procedural level, the equity principle requires fair and consistent application of access criteria through a decision-making process that is open, transparent and accountable and that ensures fair treatment for all. At the substantive level, the equity criterion is premised on the concept of the fishery as a common, public resource that should be managed in a way that does not create or exacerbate excessive interpersonal and inter-regional disparities. Failure to respect both requirements of the equity principle will generate widespread perceptions of unfairness and exclusion.

That's exactly what they did. They excluded us. They broke an agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Ms. Kennedy.

Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to say that I'm very happy to be here in Cape Breton, and that I'm from the west coast. I'm the MP from New Westminster—Coquitlam, just outside Vancouver. When I heard there was a motion to look at the snow crab issue on the east coast, I thought this was an important issue that this committee should be looking at. I thought it was really important that this committee come to the Atlantic provinces and hear first-hand from you.

I do appreciate your taking the time out of your busy schedules to come to talk to us and tell us what you feel are the issues. I appreciate the background information, the clarifying information. I do get a sense of the frustration of the last number of years, where you felt agreements were in place and contracts had been broken. Agreements have been broken and aren't being implemented as all that work that was put into those arrangements should be implemented.

Could you mention in a minute what your recommendations would be, and if you could, try to be specific? I know there are the history and the issues, but I've already picked up a number of things from Bernie, for instance, a comment about not paying for science until there's equal sharing. That's the kind of thing I would like to hear. If there are some specific things that either you foresee or that you want to see happen, if you could each mention those things, maybe starting with....

[Nellie Baker Stevens]

Josephine is correct. They are correct. We have been let down and robbed, and that doesn't leave a very good taste in your mouth, I'm sorry.

We had been stable. We had been working very well together. We were putting our money toward science because we were integrated. We were working together as one because we had an agreement. Now, with what the minister has done, we're not feeling that any more. We're feeling we went back to the old days, when we sat across from each other and sparred. We're not stable any more. I don't know where she got that, but if she had that written somewhere that this was going to make us stable, no, not when you break an agreement.

So there will be discord with the fishermen on the science, on everything. In the past, and you would have had to be there.... When we first started sitting down at advisory meetings with the other fleet, it wasn't a good thing. We weren't getting along at all. So now we're going back to that day, and that's a terrible thing after having all these years of trying to get....

Look at our fleet. Look at our quota. Look how well we're doing. When we were stable look at how well we're doing. We never saw levels this high, and the quota looks good for the next few years. We're working as a unit and toward one purpose: to stabilize the resource to be sustainable for all. Now she has taken that away from us again.

We spent this whole year trying to get attention to what was done to us. How much time? We didn't log it, but we've been spending a lot of time trying to get attention for this to get changed. That isn't what we should be spending our time on. We should be spending our time on working together as one fleet, as we had in the past four years. I'll tell you what: it doesn't take as much energy when you're all getting along and everything's coming together.

So now we're back on opposite sides, and it's them and it's us. That is not a good place to be. We had thought we resolved that with the independent panel. That was why it was put in place. It took the politics out of the fishery. Now the politics are back in the fishery, so this is why we have you here. Apparently, they don't want to listen to an independent panel where a decision was made and implemented for four years; we have to do this the political way.

You were asking, is there a better way for decisions to be made? There has to be a better way, because this is terrible. This is a terrible way for the Minister of Fisheries to make decisions on different species. Whatever she just did was so wrong on so many levels.

I don't have the answer for you on what we need, but we need something different.

Was that more than a minute?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Please be brief, Ms. Kennedy.

[Josephine Kennedy]

We are one of the ones who are holding out from paying science. As Bernie said, why should we pay for science? When we do find extra crab, we don't get the agreement and the amount of crab we're entitled to. We worked hard for this management plan. Back in 1998, when we first were temporaries and shared on crab, we were mandated to go at least 80 miles from shore. We did the science work. We proved the crab were out there. This led to an increase in TAC. We've done this every year. As Nellie said, we sat around the table and bit and barked at each other. DFO ministers had enough of that and they mandated the independent panel. There was acceptance of the recommendations, the management plan was put in place, and we abided by it for four full seasons. We never went back to any of the ministers, whether Liberal or Tory. We never approached them to ask them to change the management plan sharing formula. We lived with it. We prayed every night that the TAC would surpass 9,700 tonnes. In 2009 our prayers were answered. The only thing is that DFO didn't deliver on them.

I know the minister gets most of the flak and the black eyes from this. But DFO officials in Halifax are the key boys. They're the ones who should have their knuckles rapped on this. The minister can only take advice from her advisors and she follows that advice and believes in those advisors. The sad thing is that some of these advisors aren't to be trusted. We well know what happened here. Gus van Helvoort wrote a personal note and it resulted in this. I would say they pored through this document for months and months and came up with the “equal”, hoping that we wouldn't hold on to documents, that we would just discard them because we had a management plan and, hey, we were trusting that DFO would give us our 50-50 if and when the day happened. We held on. We held on to all notes. We held on to every document. As I stated earlier, Gus van Helvoort tried to convince me that DFO misinterpreted its own documents along with statements that, oh, we agreed to give our crab away. How stupid would we be? If we lobbied to get crab, are we going to give it up easily?

In e-mails between, as I stated, Mike Eagles of DFO, Gus van Helvoort of DFO, Gordon MacDonald of the permanent fleet, and Fred, who is here today, it clearly shows that back in April of 2005, through the communication back and forth, they understood that 50-50. There was no talk about the 50-50. The only thing they were worried about was why the Millbrook 250-tonne allocation was tucked into the CFA 23 when it shouldn't have been there. It was just words twisted around. They did not question the 60-40 or 50-50. They were accepting, but they were also praying that it would never go over the 9,700 tonnes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. MacDonald, do you have a quick comment?

[Bernie MacDonald]

My idea is pretty simple. To make it better it's true co-management--not this farce that's going on now, but true co-management, where the industry really has a say in what's going to happen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for being here. It's always good to be out in this direction. I'm also from British Columbia, as some of you know. It's my first time to Cape Breton, so I appreciate the chance to be here.

You made a point near the end, Josephine, that since the independent report in 2004, I guess it was, and then the decision of the minister of the day accepting the recommendations, as you put, that everyone accepted that as the way to go. Is that really the case? That's not the information I've heard, that it has remained contentious since 2005. I think you have said that everyone thought that was fine, the traditional fleet as well, and they were just reluctant to get there, hoping that the quota didn't hit that magic plateau. We will have an opportunity to ask the other sides of this debate as well as the DFO officials involved, which we will do.

Is that your perspective, as you've said, that everyone liked the arrangement as laid out in that report?

[Josephine Kennedy]

No, we didn't like the arrangement that had been accepted when it didn't go through with the full recommendation of 50-50 from day one.

You said you received information that since 2005 it has been contentious. We haven't had any problems or issues, other than arguing with DFO over what the exploitation rate would be in any given year. So whoever fed the minister the information that there has been disharmony and instability since 2005, that has not been the case.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Of course this is what we're here to clarify. As I said, we will be asking other participants in this as well, but your perspective is that everyone accepted the 50-50 arrangement and there was no disagreement from 2005 until now.

[Josephine Kennedy]

No. If you go back and look through DFO's documents, we protested in 2005 when the minister decided to go forward instead of putting in the 50-50 immediately. His documents said the sharing arrangement was to be maintained until the increase of 9,700 tonnes, which at the TAC levels at a 50% share would give the quota holders the same quota they enjoyed in 2004, and that was just to give them time to adjust to a 50-50 split. That's why he maintained the 60-40 and put that codicil in there that it would be at 9,700 tonnes.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I understand why you weren't necessarily fully pleased with the delay in implementing the 2005 agreement. Is it your understanding that once the 2005 arrangement was public and accepted in some way, at least by the minister of the day, everybody was fine with that--the other side, the traditional licence holders, the first nations, for example?

[Josephine Kennedy]

In my understanding, everybody who walked away understood what the arrangement was going to be if it reached 9,700 tonnes. Nobody approached us--

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

And they were okay with that.

[Josephine Kennedy]

--and said they would be disenchanted if it hit the 9,700 tonnes, and that there would be issues.

We had no idea that discussions or anything was happening until after the fact, and we picked up licence conditions for 2009 and found out we were shortchanged 10%. We had no idea--

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Sure, and that's fair enough. Thank you, Josephine, for that information.