Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rhyno and I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to appear to clarify matters surrounding the issue of a crab fishing licence to Mr. Rhyno in 2009. We are pleased to be here today to set the record straight on that event. I will make a presentation that should take about 12 minutes, so I hope you'll bear with me. I will leave that submission with the committee, together with the supporting information I will reference during the presentation.
Tim Rhyno has been a professional crab fisherman for some 20 years and has devoted considerable time and resources to the development of the snow crab fishery. He was one of the first to explore the slope of the Scotian Shelf in crab fishing areas 23 and 24. Until recently, he did not hold a snow crab licence. He fished crab for other quota holders. The information on this case that has been circulated in this committee, in the House of Commons, and in the media by various individuals has been largely inaccurate and misleading, causing great distress to Mr. Rhyno and his family.
I'm sure that many of you live in small towns and villages and understand how fast information travels and the impact it can have on the citizens of those communities. Mr. Rhyno has tried to ignore these flare-ups in the hope that over time they would go away. He is now at the point at which he feels he can no longer stand by and tolerate these inaccurate accounts being circulated.
There are five issues that are important for a full understanding of how this licence was issued. The first issue is the process for the expansion of the slope fishery. In the year 2000, DFO sought to expand the crab fishery on the slope area of the Scotian Shelf in crab fishing areas 23 and 24 through the use of the emerging fisheries policy. This policy consists of a three-step process: a science-based evaluation, an exploratory fishery, and finally, a commercial fishery. The intent of the policy is to award commercial licences to the participants of the first two stages, should the fishery indicate commercial potential.
Mr. Rhyno participated in the scientific stage and was one of a few who satisfactorily completed the 2000 DFO survey of area 23. By 2003 it was evident that an increase in effort was warranted, and DFO decided to go to the second step, an exploratory fishery. A public, open process was conducted. Criteria were published. A call for proposals was made and submissions were evaluated. A public draw from among the qualified candidates was held, and the names drawn were put in order of priority for entry into the fishery. Mr. Rhyno was second on that list.
The then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Honourable Robert Thibault, issued a permit to the first person on the list for the 2003 season, and further decided that a second permit was to be issued to the second person on the list, Mr. Rhyno, for the 2004 season, assuming a positive stock assessment. That intention is outlined in a hand-written note by the DFO assistant deputy minister in a briefing note to the minister dated May 30, 2003. I have that with me today, and I'll leave it with the committee.
Unfortunately for Mr. Rhyno, in May of 2004 Mr. Thibault's successor, the Honourable Geoff Regan, chose not to proceed to issue the second exploratory permit. Mr. Rhyno was never informed why Mr. Regan chose not to proceed as planned.
The second issue surrounds the Gardner panel. The next step was begun by a letter from the assistant deputy minister to Mr. Rhyno in May of 2004 confirming that the licence would not be issued but that Mr. Rhyno's situation, and I quote, "as the next in line for access will be considered when the long-term plan for 2005 and out years is established".
At DFO's suggestion, Mr. Rhyno and his representative made a presentation to the ad hoc panel created by the minister to develop advice for 2005--that was the Gardner panel. In its final report, the Gardner panel addressed Mr. Rhyno's case in recommendation number eight:
If the slope edge is integrated into CFA 23-24 as recommended, no additional access should be permitted into this CFA,
--and this is the point I would highlight for the committee--
subject to the outcome of the application process of the next in line for access. The Panel heard a submission from an individual who presented a case for access based on what was described as a commitment in writing from the Department. The Panel was not struck to adjudicate individual cases, but this application seems to be a matter the Department must resolve.
Now remember, this was in early--