This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Collapse of snow crab fishery in Glace Bay Hole, Nova Scotia

Petition: No. 220

Issue(s): Compliance and enforcement, environmental assessment, federal provincial relations, and fisheries

Petitioner(s): Area #22 Offshore (Glace Bay Hole)

Date Received: 26 October 2007

Status: Completed

Summary: The petitioner alleges that the collapse of the snow crab fishery in an area known as Glace Bay Hole, in Nova Scotia, is due to overfishing in three crab-fishing zones. The petitioner also alleges that agreements between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Area #22 offshore fishermen that related to co-management and a sustainable development strategy were breached. The petitioner requests a meeting with the Minister to review concerns about the breached agreements, the science advice provided, and the management of this unique area. The petitioner also requests that the boundary line that delineates the fishing area for the snow crab fishermen be reinstated, according to the agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Finally, the petitioner asks the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to review the actions of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to determine whether the Department respected mandated policies and principles.

Federal Departments Responsible for Reply: Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Petition

October 24th, 2007

Attention: Ron Thompson
Commissioner of the Environment
Government of Canada

Please accept these concerns as a petition under Section #22 of the Auditor General Act.

My name is Neil Mac Mullin I am a fisherman and Snow Crab Representative for Area#22 Offshore, also referred to as Area #22 outer or the (Glace Bay Hole). I am informing you of a serious Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada mismanagement issue and over fishing in three crab fishing zones. The events that followed totally destroyed the livelihoods of 16 license holders and crews from Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. We will provide you with a cover letter, documentation and hopefully a clear explanation of the events which occurred over the past number of years. Also included in the package is a copy of the signed agreement and two letters from (former Minister Geoff Regan).

Brief History:

In 1980 management created Crab Fishing Areas (C.F.A.'s) in Eastern Nova Scotia. These lines were determined and proved to be of no biological significance .Crab Fishing Areas were established from Areas 20-24 stretching from Dingwall along the shoreline to Halifax.In 1996 science trawl surveys were conducted in Area's 20-24 to provide management and fishers with accurate biomass assessments of the snow crab population.

Introduction of the line:

The separation of Area #22 was achieved with no assistance or input from D.F.O. and the terms were established through a gentlemen's agreement in 1996. That season 27 fishers chose to fish the offshore resulting in a serious over capacity problem causing a collapse in the fishery. Early trawl surveys combined. with geography provided science and management with strong indicators that 20, 21, 22 inshore were harvesting the same biomass, while the Glace Bay Hole is a different population. Biomass estimates were easily assessed in 20-22 inner having similar bottom configuration as the Southern Gulf, whereas the Glace Bay Hole was much more dynamic leading science to numerous experiments to resolve these complexities. Capitalizing on the gentlemen's agreement D.F.O. implemented the line on a permanent basis in 1997 with fishers choosing which zone they would fish annually.

Agreement:

In order to secure a multi-year plan in North Eastern Nova Scotia a separation of Area #22 was necessary because of the two distinct fishing zones. During the winter of 2000 a management board was formed to deal with matters pertaining to 20-22 inner. Area # 22 offshore met as a single unit managing their own fishery with separate advisories and board meetings. Scientific experiments executed in the late 1990's proved deep warm water temperatures off the Laurentian Channel to the north and 30 miles of shoal hard bottom to the west weren't suitable for large migrations of crab between the Offshore and 20-22 inner. Although there were gutters and troughs to support the theory the crab were migrating from area 23 to the Glace Bay Hole to mate or spawn there was no conclusive evidence. The Glace Bay Hole was a separate entity and dealt solely with offshore concerns.

For two prior years there were large fluctuations in catch volume between the inshore and offshore, so we wanted a commitment in writing from DFO that the Glace Bay Hole would be ours to manage, for the long term. DFO scheduled a meeting to resolve this issue.

During this meeting the inshore refused to accept the transfer of boats from the offshore, which would equalize the quota. Therefore the inshore secured their 10,000 lbs. above the offshore and in return reached a consensus on a split of the area with the license holders choosing which area they would fish for the long term. The details of this agreement are outlined in a signed document from the Regional Director General Neil Bellefontaine.

The elements of the plan are in place waiting to be implemented, the document clearly states the number of fishers per zone and that consultations will resume three years after the plan is in motion beginning in 2005-2008. Our fleet has exercised a conservative approach and sacrificed 15,000 lbs. to the inshore with the expectations of securing a multi-year plan. Both sub areas couldn't function efficiently as a group in the past, therefore the offshore fleet feel there is no future working with the inshore as a single management unit. This agreement would give the fleet's stability in numbers and the opportunity to manage their own resource.

Summation of the past 3 year's events:

In December 2004 a panel was appointed by former Minister Regan to address 5 issues and develop a long term management plan for Area's 20-24. It was necessary for all areas in Eastern Nova Scotia to reach consensus before Ministerial approval of a long term plan delaying progress the Glace Bay Hole achieved .There was never a presentation by D.F.O. or stakeholders in 20-22 inner to amalgamate with the offshore. After making a presentation, forwarding a copy of the signed agreement to the panel, and listening to presentations from other areas this recommendation blind sided and totally shocked the offshore fleet. Although the panel was mistaken with its interpretation of the agreement, they did state we had one more year left, before the deal expired. Pg. 20 Panel Report, "A decision to eliminate the line separating the inner and outer areas should be put off until the agreement fishing access between the group ends. The Panel is of the view that a reasonable man would assume the agreement took affect when the parties intended it to. It therefore has one year left to run. The panel is reluctant to disturb the substance of the agreement, because it represents one of the few examples in the Eastern Nova Scotia snow crab fishery where different groups have managed to reach an agreement on this issue."

The panel was not commissioned to make assumptions. Also DFO ignored the Panels recommendation and removed the line anyway.

Panel Report, p.20, "The panel was not asked to address the larger question of the removal of the lines dividing crab fishing areas 20, 22 outer and those dividing crab fishing areas 23 and 24."

Our only focus was the permanent separation of the inshore and offshore of Area #22. With this decision, quotas were equalized in all four areas (20, 21, and 22 inner and outer) reduced from 47,000 lbs. in 2004 to 15,000 lbs. in 2005, 12,000 lbs. 2006 & 6,900 lbs. 2007. A clear description of the panel proceedings is included in the attachments*.

In attempts to reverse this decision the 16 fishermen held protests in Ottawa, Halifax and Montreal and even contacted the United Nations and discovered this institution could only get involved outside the 200 mile limit. Exploring the legal avenue we were informed that the Minister of Fisheries & Oceans Canada possesses a clause in the Fishery Act called "ABSOLUTE DISCRETION". This gives the Minister a wide range of powers that only other Minister's in Canada dream of having. This discretion makes it almost impossible to defeat the government in court on a mismanagement case. It forces fleets like ours to protest, lobby and shy away from the legal avenue. The main obstacle with the Regan administration was his reluctance to confront the bureaucrats. D.F.O. repeatedly advised Minister Regan that this decision transpired because of a tagging study and the science presentation to the panel. Our fleet refuted both reasons and there was still no movement from the Department or the Minister's Office.

After additional cuts to 12,000 lbs. in 2006 the fleet continued their attempts to reverse this decision through consultations with senior bureaucrats in Ottawa and the Minister's office.

During a meeting with Minister Hearn and Minister MacKay we were assured Ottawa would decide on reinstating the boundary line and it would not be referred back to Halifax Regional Office. Contrary to those assurances the Halifax office once again reviewed the boundary line issue and in July 2007 three weeks prior to the opening of the season. For two years D.FO. defended the argument that area #22 offshore and 20-22 inner were the same biomass. In July 2007 they agreed that the results in Area #22 offshore were inconclusive but still NO CHANGE.

Results of this unjust decision were apparent to the Minister and his staff with a record low snow crab quota of 6,900 lbs. and gross income of $15,000 (2007) per fisher compared to 46,000lbs. quota and $132,000 gross income in 2004.

After expropriating 90% of our crab and battling this decision for over 2 years that drained our fleet financially, physically, and emotionally, the most discouraging aspect of this dispute was realizing good relations between various D.F.O. departments and the Minister's office took priority over the resource and its stakeholders.

Management gambled with the Glace Bay Hole being able to support 62 additional license holders who ignored science advice for three consecutive years that recruitment was declining and to conserve for the future.

Stock Status Report (SSR) p. 9. 2002. "Based on survey size frequency information, the decline is greater in pre-recruit sizes, which suggests the decline in adult crab will accelerate in future years. The prognosis for the coming years is not promising." Trawl surveys are not a snapshot but a long range forecast for managers and harvesters to prepare for lean years. In the private sector this type of irresponsible decision making would not be condoned and there would be consequences. This gamble failed miserably at the expense of 16 fishers. Arguably the collapse of the cod is the most horrific ecological disaster on the planet, fifteen years later the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are still untouchable.

The Area # 22 offshore fishermen should have been a model for D.F.O. and industry for adopting aggressive conservative measures when necessary.

With the implementation of the boundary line in 1996 the snow crab stocks were in a precarious state and the fleet began exercising a prudent approach to harvesting. On three separate occasions throughout the years emergency meetings were scheduled during the season and the fishermen of Area #22 Offshore voluntarily ended the season in the Glace Bay Hole (without participation from D.F.O. ) when they felt their industry was in jeopardy. Other snow crab areas or fisheries weren't demonstrating such responsible fishing practices.

The Glace Bay Hole fishers were the only fleet to take the initiative of discarding soft shelled crab with intentions of marketing high quality product and protecting recruitment for the future. D.F.O., recognizing the benefits of this significant step applied it as a legal requirement for all areas in Northeastern Nova Scotia the following season.

We were punished by the Department for all the conservative measures exercised throughout the years and the consultations that produced the only signed agreement in the entire snow crab fishery in Eastern Nova Scotia.

On August 23, 2004 Minister Reagan stated "I appreciate that your area has been successful in reaching an agreement with D.F.O. on the long term management of this fishery, and I'm confident that other industry groups will follow this example and reach a consensus within their respective areas."

D.F.O. chose to transfer the problem (3. collapsed areas) instead of confronting it and excepting responsibility and imposing appropriate decreases in quotas when necessary in areas 20-22 inner. This contradicts everything the Department supposedly stands for.

These actions disregarded the Atlantic Policy Review, Independent Panel on Access Criteria and the Federal Fisheries Resource Council recommendations which are intended to guide management decisions.

Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review (AFPR) states "Resource users need the assurance they will be the primary beneficiary of their efforts to conserve the resource". This principle was totally violated with the removal of the boundary line.

AFPR former Minister Reagan states "to create sustainable fisheries we must break the cycle of uncertainity and allow resource users to plan their business operations with more certainty." Some fishermen in the Glace BAY Hole purchased new vessels not anticipating the drastic cuts DFO had prepared.

Independent Panel on Access Criteria [IPAC] advises that new entrants should only be permitted if there is a substantial increase in the resource. The snow crab fishermen in the Glace Bay Hole dropped from 46, 000lbs to 15, 900 in 2005 when the boundary line was removed. Historical dependence wasn't addressed for the Area 22 offshore fleet.

The report by Federal Fisheries Resource Conservation Council of Canada [FRCC] was totally ignored by DFO. Their recommendations of sustainability, precautionary approach and to protect spawning and mating areas weren't applied. A major concern for the FRCC was over capacity pg.32 "Typically, when resource decline occurs in the affected area focuses on gaining access to other fully exploited stocks and attempting to change the management regime to allow fishing effort to shift to more productive fishing grounds for snow crab. DFO must be cognizant of the pressures that will develop to solve the failures of certain fleets by providing access to other fishing areas." The removal of the boundary line absolutely defies this recommendation.

D.F.O. violated the principles of sustainable development strategy of which they are required to respect. Transparency, sustainability and viability from an economic and environmental position have been totally ignored.

The precautionary approach of which science bases its recommendations on was disregarded in 2005 in Area #22 offshore. In May 1997 the Moncton Science Branch of D.F.O. conducted the first science trawl survey in the Glace Bay Hole discovering a snow crab biomass of 200 metric ton. In July of 1998 they surveyed 6,511 metric ton in our area. The following year their biomass estimation for Area #22 offshore was 101 metric ton. This abnormal snow crab behavior wasn't witnessed anywhere before by this group of scientists and they treated this sensitive area in a cautious manner. Once again in 2002 (provide density maps) this huge fluctuation of crab was discovered in the summer and not there in the spring or fall. Timing was critical because the movement appeared to be for mating or spawning. In attempts to resolve the complexities of the Glace bay Hole the Moncton science branch performed triple trawl surveys (spring, summer & fall) tagging studies , underwater camera surveys and trap surveys are examples of their dedication and commitment to the precautionary approach. In 2004 after eight years of research and their final science assessment still couldn't determine conclusive results for the area. This zone was anomaly and the recommendation was to proceed with caution for both managers and fishermen.

Peer Review 2003 Dr. Mike Moriyasu "If the amount of money we have to conduct surveys increased, we could survey the GBH monthly. There is a high amount of activity in and out of the Glace Bay Hole."

In 2004 Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat (CSAS) stated "There is also the seemingly inaccuracy of the trawl survey method to estimate biological parameters of the snow crab in the Glace Bay Hole. In addition, timing for the fishery seems to be of great importance in GBH where anecdotal evidences showed the lack of large commercial crab concentration until just before the fishery".

CSAS 2005 Dr. Jai Choi. "It is possible that the extremely low numbers of mature females found on the Scotia Shelf are literally forcing males in to highly aggregated core areas for the sake of breeding. Sexual pheromones released by a few females can be a very effective male concentrating mechanism. This may perhaps in part be responsible for the very high catch rates found on some isolated crab holes such as Glace Bay Hole".

On the contrary accurate biomass estimates were provided for areas 20, 21, & 22 inner and also areas 23& 24. Survey results were consistent in 20, 21 & 22 inner and if the huge migration from the Glace Bay Hole was entering the northern areas it would have been noticeable in the survey or the fishery.

In 2005 Halifax Regional Science replaced the Moncton science branch in Eastern Nova Scotia. Two months following peer review and prior to the panel announcement the boundary line was recommended to be removed. This occurred at the advisory meeting in 2005 that angered fishermen who funded science for eight years with all the efforts being discarded. How is it possible that senior officials in Ottawa along with ministers and their staff, who promote the precautionary approach internationally, support this decision?

Documentation from PEER Reviews and advisory meetings etc. will be supplied to support our side of the facts.

Sustainable Development Strategy- Co-management agreements:

We will provide a copy of the agreement D.F.O. breached with the Area #22 Offshore Fishermen. If you can't rely on an agreement signed by the Crown who can you trust. Although there is a provision in the agreement (second last paragraph) that the Minister has the authority to change plans at any time to ensure conservation. This provision is included in all management plans for all species. There was not a negative impact on the snow crab stocks in the Glace Bay Hole, because of this agreement, or there was not scientific information to combine us with Areas 20, 21 and 22 Inner.

On May 26th 1998, Valerie Bradshaw, Senior Adviser to Snow Crab stated: "Log records and fishing from 1997 indicate these three areas, 20, 21, 22 inner may be fishing a continuous crab ground."

On August 21st 2002, expert opinion prepared for the Minister by: Dr. Moriyasu stated: "However we note that all commercial snow crab in Northeastern Cape Breton come from one fishing ground, this ground is spread over three areas: CFA's 20,21 and 22 inner."

Stock Status Report 2004, Dr. Moriyasu stated: "The Northeaster Nova Scotia area is assumed to contain s single population since the habitable bottom is continuous between all inshore areas and snow crab movement occurs between these areas."

He goes on to state: "Movement of crab amongst CFAs is expected but was not explicitly considered in this assessment. Some areas such as Glace Bay Hole seemed to be more dynamic in their movement pattern."

Peer Review Proceedings, March 1st, 2nd 2005, Dr. Jai Choie, Halifax Science stated: "The Glace Bay Hole does behave differently. Unable to say if Glace Bay Hole is its own stock."

It's obvious this agreement wasn't broken for scientific reasons but for DFO attempt to compensate three [20, 21 22 inner] over fished and mismanaged zones at the expense of the Glace Bay Hole snow crab fishermen.

WE HAVE TEN REQUESTS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA

  1. Given the commitment, August 2006, this Government would not follow a similar pattern of the previous Government of which repeatedly referred the decision back to Halifax Regional Office. Why did the Minister deviate from this course and authorize Halifax Regional Office to make the final recommendation on an issue that he was aware they had no intention of changing?
  2. For 2 years Halifax Regional Office held firm on the position that The Glace Bay Hole and 20-22 inshore harvest the same population of crab. Finally this summer Halifax Regional conceded and agreed that the scientific results in the Glace Bay Hole were inconclusive. Following the inconsistencies D.F.O. forwarded to your office and they reversed their position regarding the scientific analysis. How could the Minister of Fisheries of Oceans Canada continue to support their recommendation and not reinstate the boundary line in Glace Bay Hole?
  3. If D.F.O. decides to change to their original position declaring that Area 20-22 including Glace Bay Hole shares the same bio-mass would you please present the Peer Review documentation that supports their argument?
  4. 6900 lbs, is perhaps the lowest quota in Canada or even North America for a permanent traditional license holder. What makes this even more ridiculous is that some fishermen weren't even capable of catching 6900 lbs of snow crab. Even at this low level the bio-mass was over exploited which means there will be additional cuts next year. Given the fact that your office, senior management in Ottawa and Halifax were aware of what was happening doesn't that contradict the responsibility you have to protect a public resource.
  5. What action will the Honorable Minister of Fisheries Loyola Hearn do to correct the breached agreement, ignored sciences advice, and the mismanagement of this unique area?
  6. Will the Minister personally agree to meet the fishermen of the Glace Bay Hole to review these concerns?
  7. We request the boundary line in the Glace Bay Hole to be reinstated exclusively for the 16 snow crab fishermen with whom DFO had an agreement?
  8. Due to the fact the Government of Canada breached an agreement with the Glace Bay Hole fishers and prematurely removed the boundary line without conclusive scientific evidence which decimated the snow crab stocks and livelihoods of 16 fishermen and crews .We are requesting the Government of Canada reimburse us for the loss of income which occurred because of this questionable decision.
  9. If the Government is reluctant to support our position, considering the hardships incurred by the fishermen, and their reputable history in the snow crab fishery combined with the fact that overarching principals of the department were abandoned, would the Government of Canada at least appoint a tribunal to address points 7 and 8?
  10. Will Treasury Board Secretariat agree to review the actions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of Canada, to determine whether the department violated their own policies and principles, which they are mandated to follow in decision making processes, and provide me with their comments?

[Original signed by Neil P. Mac Mullin]

Thank You,

Neil P. Mac Mullin
Area #22 Offshore (Glace Bay Hole) Representative
(902) 736-2048

*[attachments not posted]

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Fisheries and Oceans Canada

29 February 2008

Mr. Neil P. Mac Mullin
Area #22 Offshore Representative
172 Lamond Street
Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia
B1V 1V9

Dear Mr. Mac Mullin:

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the management of three crab fishing zones. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development forwarded your letter to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) on November 1, 2007, as Environment Petition #220.

Please find attached my response to the questions which relate to DFO's Mandate.

I would like to thank you again for your concerns.

Sincerely,

[Original signed by Loyola Hearn, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Loyola Hearn, P.C., M.P.

Attachment

c.c.:

The Honourable Vic Toews, P.C., M.P., President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, FCA, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development

Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Response to Petition 220—Three Crab Fishing Zones: #20, 21 & 22

Ten Requests for the Government of Canada

1.

Given the commitment, August 2006, this Government would not follow a similar pattern of the previous Government of which repeatedly referred the decision back to Halifax Regional Office. Why did the Minister deviate from this course and authorize Halifax Regional Office to make the final recommendation on an issue that he was aware they had no intention of changing?

Answer: I followed an appropriate and responsible course of action: industry presented their case and I then requested all background information on the issue. The impact on the Glace Bay Hole (GBH) was specifically addressed and I made the final decision to maintain the removal of the lines.

2.

For 2 years Halifax Regional Office held firm on the position that the Glace Bay Hole and 20-22 inshore harvest the same population of crab. Finally this summer Halifax Regional conceded and agreed that the scientific results in the Glace Bay Hole were inconclusive. Following the inconsistencies DFO forwarded to your office and they reversed their position regarding the scientific analysis. How could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada continue to support their recommendation and not reinstate the boundary line in Glace Bay Hole?

Answer: Trawl surveys have shown that the GBH area was more dynamic than the inner areas. However, being more dynamic does not establish the GBH as holding a different population. All scientific advice since 1999 has presented a single abundance estimate for the Crab Fishing Areas (CFA) 20-22.

The uniqueness of the GBH was fully reviewed in June of 2007. The summary statement for that analysis was: "All of the 15 available indicators useful in determining snow crab stock uniqueness (seven habitat, one movement, six stock structure and one physical-biological ocean model of larval mixing) indicate spatial and temporal similarity, and overall connectivity of larvae and fishable snow crab between the GBH and ENS as a whole. Therefore, there is a very low likelihood that the GBH is acting as a separate biological/reproductive unit."

This position is consistent with that held since the trawl survey results were first accepted for the 2000 season. Based on this analysis, the boundary line separating the GBH that was removed in 2005 will not be reinstated.

3.

If DFO decides to change to their original position declaring that Area 20-22 including Glace Bay Hole shares the same bio-mass would you please present the Peer Review documentation that supports their argument?

Answer: DFO has not changed from its original position that the GBH shares the same biomass as the inner areas. The results of all trawl surveys undergo an annual peer review from which a Stock Status Report (SSR) (more recently named Science Advisory Report (SAR)) is produced. The biomass estimate from the trawl survey was first accepted by peer review for the 2000 fishing season. By regulations, the GBH was part of CFA 22 and a single exploitable biomass of 1,477t was estimated for Areas 20-22 (DFO Science Stock Status Report C3-02(2000)). All peer-reviewed SSRs between 2000 and 2005 have presented a single biomass estimate for the areas of CFA 20-22 (DFO Science Stock Status Report C3-02(2001); DFO Science Stock Status Report C3-02(2002); DFO Science Stock Status Report 2003/029; DFO Science Stock Status Report 2004/028; DFO Science Advisory Report 2005/032).

4.

6900lbs, is perhaps the lowest quota in Canada or even North America for a permanent traditional licence holder. What makes this even more ridiculous is that some fishermen weren't even capable of catching 6900 lbs of snow crab. Even at this low level the bio-mass was over exploited which means there will be additional cuts next year. Given the fact that your office, senior management in Ottawa and Halifax were aware of what was happening doesn't that contradict the responsibility you have to protect a public resource?

Answer: A lack of recruitment in this area has been identified by DFO Science since 2000 and caution was required. Extreme measures have been introduced resulting in individual allocations of 6,900 lb.

This occurred as a result of the department protecting the resource by decreasing the total allowable catch (TAC) since 2003 in response to the limited recruitment and the decreasing biomass estimates. In early 2007, the Science Branch indicated that a new recruitment pulse will be entering the fishery over the next few years but until the trawl survey results are analyzed and peer reviewed in February 2008, no predictions on TAC levels for the 2008 season can be made.

5.

What actions will the Honourable Minister of Fisheries Loyola Hearn do to correct the breached agreement, ignored sciences advice, and the mismanagement of this unique area?

Answer: In the 2003 letter from Neil Bellefontaine, enclosed in your petition, it clearly states that this is an agreement for access to the Glace Bay Hole between two industry parties and that the department had committed to support for a period of three years, after which it would be open for review by the industry sectors. Departmental support for your three-year agreement was also provided in the 2004 correspondence from Minister Geoff Regan.

The letter from Mr. Bellefontaine also states that the Minister has the authority to change plans to ensure conservation and orderly management of the fishery. Science has provided advice for CFA 20-22 as a single unit that included the Glace Bay Hole. The removal of the line supports both the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (FRCC) recommendation for management based on stock areas in support of conservation and the Advisory Panel recommendation for the removal of the line as it applies to the orderly management of the fishery.

While you state that the agreement remains in effect, the other party involved has indicated that it ended in 2006. Since it is clear that the department has not ignored science advice, did not breach an industry agreement and the GBH has been managed in an appropriate manner, no additional actions are required.

6.

Will the Minister personally agree to meet with the fishermen of the Glace Bay Hole to review these concerns?

Answer: Ministerial and departmental staff have met with your representatives on a number of occasions to review this issue. This petition has not presented any new information to be communicated therefore further meetings at this time are not planned.

7.

We request the boundary line in the Glace Bay Hole to be reinstated exclusively for the 16 snow crab fishermen with whom DFO had an agreement?

Answer: As identified above, the agreement was not with the department but with the other group of CFA 22 fish harvesters. Reinstatement of the line would be contrary to: the recommendations of the FRCC, which has recommended management based on stock areas; the Advisory Panel, which recommended the removal of the line; and information provided by the Science Branch indicating that this is not a separate stock area.

8.

Due to the fact the Government of Canada breached an agreement with the Glace Bay Hole fishers and prematurely removed the boundary line without conclusive scientific evidence which decimated the snow crab stocks and livelihoods of 16 fishermen and crews. We are requesting the Government of Canada reimburse us for the loss of income which occurred because of this questionable decision.

Answer: As discussed in question 5, the Government of Canada has not breached an agreement with the GBH fish harvesters and the removal of the line was based on scientific evidence and recommended by independent parties. The removal of the line did not decimate the snow crab stocks; however, the lack of recruitment has forced the department to reduce quotas. There are no provisions for the government to offer compensation for loss of income in any fishery.

9.

If the Government is reluctant to support our position, considering the hardships incurred by the fishermen, and their reputable history in the snow crab fishery combined with the fact that overarching principals of the department were abandoned, would the Government of Canada at least appoint a tribunal to address points 7 and 8?

Answer: Although it is unfortunate that the fish harvesters are currently undergoing hardships, the department has followed its principles and mandate in this issue. Therefore, DFO does not see the need to appoint such a tribunal.

[top of page]

Minister's Response: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

12 March 2008

Mr. Neil MacMullin
Representative
Area 22 Offshore Snow Crab
28 Lamonds Street
Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia
B1V 1V9

Dear Mr. MacMullin:

I am writing to provide you with a response to Environmental Petition No. 220, which you submitted to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on October 27, 2007, regarding your claim of overfishing and mismanagement of the snow crab fishery in Glace Bay Hole, Nova Scotia.

Among your requests, you asked that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat review the actions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to determine whether it violated its own policies. While departments are required to adhere to Treasury Board policies, the matters you raise fall out of the scope of the Secretariat’s role. Deputy Heads are accountable to the Clerk of the Privy Council with respect to adherence to its own policies and decisions specific to their respective departments.

I am aware that your petition was also sent to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and I am confident that he will consider this matter carefully and provide you with an appropriate response. I would like to thank you for expressing your concerns and bringing this issue to my attention.

Yours sincerely,

[Original signed by Vic Toews, President of the Treasury Board]

Vic Toews, P.C., Q.C., M.P.

c.c.: Mr. Ronald C. Thompson, Interim Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development