Understood.
Evidence of meeting #21 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rhyno.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #21 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rhyno.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
As an Individual
Secondly, I have no intention of commenting on that letter you mentioned, Mr. Byrne.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Yes, February 18, 2009. Mr. Rhyno is actually referenced specifically in the letter, by the way.
4 p.m.
As an Individual
What I'm talking about took place in 2003. I'm talking about a commitment that was made in 2004. I'm talking about a decision that was not implemented.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Understood.
Okay, we'll move to something else. But I'll just say, for the benefit of my committee members, that the witnesses are making a case based on a trail of evidence as they're presenting it to allow an interpretation of the will of the parties. It seems to me if we were to accept that, given that Mr. Angel is a former Department of Fisheries and Oceans employee--and in his day a senior member of that department as well--if we were to make that assumption that a letter actually rejecting the application is valid.... Anyway, the only correspondence from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is that it should be rejected. I'll just simply note that it doesn't seem to apply in the reverse direction.
The next point is when Mr. Rhyno went fishing originally, was he under a contract of services to any other organization, and was he remunerated? Was he paid for those services?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes. The way the fishery started, there was an offshore fishery for zones A, B, and C, and the farther you go out the higher the number. We were put out in the D zone.
Basically, that year each association.... There were nine associations, and in the infancy of the fishery we would go and catch quota for other associations.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Rhyno. So you were indeed paid for your services.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
That's important to note.
In terms of the interpretation of the decision, Mr. Angel, as a former departmental official, if you're suggesting that it was the will or the contract of the department to issue the second licence, why didn't Mr. Thibault actually issue it? Because we know he did not. What he said was that if science merited a decision to actually allow a second licence, then he would do it. In other words, when anyone comes forward who feels as though the minister made a verbal commitment to issue a licence, those licences should all be honoured if we were to follow this pattern.
Mr. Angel, as a former departmental official, you would know better than anyone that until a licence is issued, it's not issued. Would that be correct?
4 p.m.
As an Individual
No, you were asking me about Mr. Thibault's decision.
First of all, Mr. Byrne, I never mentioned the words “contract” or “binding contract”. I thought I made it clear that this was a decision made by a minister that we felt should have been implemented, and it wasn't.
Secondly, Mr. Thibault did say that it was his intention to issue a second licence the following year if the science was favourable, and nobody has ever disputed that. I just want to make it clear to the committee that the business about the science being favourable has never been disputed, ever.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
But the issue of delivering a licence or not is based on the minister's decision, and he did not grant the licence, and he was not bound by any contract to grant a future licence. He did what he did, and the fact of the matter is, he did not grant a licence. I think those are the facts that you have helped us to make very clear.
In terms of the science--and again I'll come to the point of you being a former senior departmental official--what we heard in this committee is that the science branch does not provide specific recommendations of quota increases or decreases. What we have been told as a committee is that they provide the minister and the department with options that could indeed be exercised. So I don't think it's quite accurate to say that science recommended the new licence. I hope you're not making that inference either. In other words, the science provided a certain range of options, and the minister of the day decided, if I'm interpreting correctly, that a licence would not be issued, because in his or her opinion the science did not warrant it.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Just let me finish. We have never been able to find out why that licence was not issued. I have asked countless times. I have asked if it was the science. No, it wasn't the science. Could you please tell me what was the basis of the refusal of the licence? We have never been given that information.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Mr. Angel, you reference that AFLAB, the Atlantic Fisheries Licence Appeal Board, did indeed provide a recommendation that the licence be issued. An access to information request was indeed forwarded to the department requesting all documentation of communications between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Mr. Tim Rhyno of Scottsville, Inverness County, Nova Scotia. There's no mention of any communication from AFLAB in any of the releases. In fact, the release is non-existent. It's a blank page.
According to the information we have received, AFLAB never communicated anything to Mr. Rhyno about any licence approval. Do you have any documentation that you could table, a communication between AFLAB and Mr. Rhyno, the applicant, as to what specifically the recommendation was that they provided?