Sure. I'm a Cape Breton Newfoundlander, you know.
You must remember that this was in early 2005, I believe. Minister Thibault's decision was in 2003, the licence was to be issued in 2004, and this was in early 2005.
There was no dispute that the panel was referring to Mr. Rhyno's case. Mr. Rhyno and his representatives interpreted this passage as an indication that the panel was sympathetic to his case.
The next issue is what I call the confirmation of the decision. In an attempt to ensure that the facts were clear, Mr. Rhyno's representative spoke to and wrote to former minister Thibault to confirm the understanding that Mr. Thibault had indeed decided to issue an exploratory licence to Mr. Rhyno. I've included that in an attachment to the committee as well.
Mr. Thibault wrote to Minister Regan stating that the facts, as outlined, were essentially correct--i.e., the decision to issue an exploratory permit in 2004 was the clear intention.
I'd just like to read to you the excerpt from the letter to Mr. Regan:
The original recommendation by DFO officials was to increase by two licences in 2003. To be cautious, I decided to ensure the viability of existing licenses by increasing their quota and issuing one additional license. It was the stated intent that should stock advice support additional effort, that the second additional license would be added in 2004, and further that any additional allocation would be divided equally amongst all license holders.
Mr. Rhyno and I were hopeful that this might clarify the situation and solve the problem. However, despite this verification that the clear purpose was to proceed with the issue of a licence, the department refused to fulfill the condition.
The next issue is the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board. Mr. Rhyno was next informed by DFO that he had the right to appeal his case to the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board, or AFLAB. Mr. Rhyno and his representative made a written submission and appeared before the panel in July 2005. The panel recommended to the minister that Mr. Rhyno's appeal be allowed and the licence issued. Once more we were optimistic.
However, yet again, despite a recommendation from the minister's own third-party panel, the department still refused to issue the licence. In a letter to Mr. Rhyno in August 2005, a copy of which I have here to leave with you, the assistant deputy minister confirmed that AFLAB recommended that the appeal be granted, but that Mr. Rhyno could not be issued a commercial licence because he did not participate in the exploratory part of the fishery.
Now, I'll just get you to bear with me for a moment, because that reply simply stands logic on its head. The very basis of Mr. Rhyno's appeal was that an exploratory licence should have been issued in 2004. If that had been done, and AFLAB recommended that it should have been, Mr. Rhyno would have participated in the exploratory fishery and would have received the commercial licences, as did the other participants who received commercial licences. The logic of now refusing him a licence on the basis that he did not participate in the exploratory fishery, when that was the very subject of his appeal, simply does not stand up to reasonable analysis.
The last issue is the issuance of the licence. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Rhyno is a very determined fellow. He simply refused to quit. Over the next few years, Mr. Rhyno and his representative contacted and met with numerous officials and pressed the case. The details outlined in this brief were forwarded and presented to many DFO officials, MPs, MLAs, ministers and their staff. All expressed support, and many did so to the federal minister or his staff.
Two aspects of this case particularly troubled Mr. Rhyno. Firstly, the DFO was not following the spirit of its stated policy of openness, including the principle outlined in its policy framework: "Fisheries management decision-making processes must be, and must be seen to be, fair, transparent and subject to clear and consistent rules and procedures”.
Here was a case that followed that principle. The entire process was squeaky clean, conducted in the public eye, under close scrutiny of the stakeholders. A decision was made, and that decision was widely known. To not proceed seemed to Mr. Rhyno to be a complete abandonment of principle, fairness, and transparency.
The second and much more fundamental issue strikes at the very heart of our system of government. A minister of the crown made a decision; that decision was communicated to the parties involved by senior officials, ministerial staff, and the former minister himself. Mr. Thibault's letter confirms that intention. An independent panel appeared sympathetic, and the minister's own appointed appeal board recommended that the minister proceed to issue the licence to Mr. Rhyno.
Yet despite this process and independent reviews, the department continued for some reason to refuse to implement the decision. It seemed a total breach of faith to Mr. Rhyno. Finally the case was brought to the attention of staff in Minister Hearn's office. After a long period of verification within and outside of DFO, they came to the conclusion that an injustice had occurred. In 2009, when Mr. Rhyno appeared to be at the end of the line, Mr. Hearn recognized the merits of the case and took the action that should have been taken five years earlier. Mr. Rhyno was issued a snow crab licence for the 2009 fishing year.
If I may conclude by returning to the comments made by various individuals about this case over the past year, and most recently in the past few weeks, firstly, comments that Mr. Rhyno received this licence out of the blue or as a gift are incorrect. It followed a long, open, transparent process concluding in a public draw before all participants and observers.
Secondly, comments that Minister Hearn issued the licence contrary to the advice of his own independent licensing board are incorrect. That comment is on the record several times in the House of Commons, in this committee, and in the press. In fact, the decision of the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board was to allow Mr. Rhyno's appeal and issue a licence.
Thirdly, comments that Mr. Rhyno did not deserve this licence are particularly hurtful. Mr. Rhyno is a professional fisherman who followed a public process and was successful within the strict parameters of that process.
Fourthly, comments that Mr. Rhyno lurked around back doors and behind people's backs to obtain his licence are false. Mr. Rhyno did nothing wrong in this case; on the contrary, he did everything he was told to do and he followed every step outlined by DFO in order to acquire the licence. And he pressed his case relentlessly until he achieved the justice to which he felt he was entitled.
Finally, comments that it was a political decision in the patronage sense are way off the mark. There was nothing political about it. Neither Tim nor I have any political clout whatsoever. What we had was a good case that was recognized on its merits by every independent party that reviewed it.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present our case.
Mr. Rhyno would like to say a few words, if that's possible, after which we will answer any questions.
