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.