Fisheries Committee on April 28th, 2014

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I didn't mean the buildings.

[David Gillis]

No, I know that.

That evolves from time to time. But I wouldn't draw any correlation between any of those kinds of changes that we would make and the management system itself.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Robert Chisholm]

Mr. Kamp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen, for coming. It has been helpful information and we appreciate it.

Back a couple or three years ago we studied snow crab. I think some of you were involved in that as well. At the time, we were told that particular species was cyclical in a sort of true cyclical way.

Can you tell us if that's true of shrimp as well, or do we just see fluctuations rather than a cycle?

You may have answered this and I might have missed it. On the whole coast there, do you consider northern shrimp a single species, or is there more than one population there?

[David Gillis]

Just before I turn it over to Pierre, the earlier session you're referring to I believe, if memory serves, was focused on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. That is an area where the snow crab certainly does have a well-established cycle at least over the last 25 to 30 years.

I'm not sure the cyclic behaviour is as evident on the Newfoundland shelf, but I'll turn to Pierre.

[Dr. Pierre Pepin]

Off Newfoundland the cyclic nature we see in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is definitely not evident to quite the same extent. There are some fluctuations. They do appear to have a certain periodicity to them, but we have not gone through several cycles to say these are actually cycles. In order to validate cycles, you have to have several ups and downs in order to be able to say with any confidence we are in a cyclic period.

The same can be said for shrimp in our region. We have basically seen a substantial increase following the collapse of the groundfish stocks in the region and the shrimp increased substantially. They appear to be declining now. The environmental relationships we have been able to establish to explain some of these patterns are applicable not only to our region but also have been found to occur in other parts of the world under different jurisdictions than DFO.

These patterns of variability and environmental relationships have been reproduced in comparable ecosystems, so it gives us some confidence that at least the cycles we do have, or the relationships we can establish, are actually there.

I hope this answers your question.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

That's helpful. I was going to ask that question a little bit later, but maybe let's stay there then.

The relationship between groundfish and shrimp, and snow crab, for example, where we see one going up and the other going down, appears to be some sort of correlation at least.

Are you saying that, scientifically, we don't know what explains that, or do we have some, at least, tentative explanation for that?

[Dr. Pierre Pepin]

The reality is that we do have some indication of the relationship between the relative consumption of cod, shrimp, crab, and so on and so forth. However, the Newfoundland ecosystem is actually more complex than we like to think about it, and it's not dominated by cod in the same way as it was in the 1980s and earlier periods.

In fact, we're seeing a number of species preying on shrimp in reasonable numbers. They include Greenland halibut, redfish in particular, and American plaice, which seem to be eating fairly substantial amounts of shrimp. This is part of the sort of natural cycle of productivity that we see in that area. Remember as well, we do have a lot of seals and seals do eat shrimp as well.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Okay.

I have a question on your very interesting graph, on page 7 of your deck, the one called environmental conditions in the Newfoundland and Labrador area.

Now do I read this correctly, that, say, back in 1965 the ocean temperatures were quite warm, though maybe not quite as warm as what we found back in 2010-11 or something like that? Did we see the same kind of stock fluctuations with respect to shrimp and with cod back in 1965?

[Dr. Pierre Pepin]

Your interpretation of the graph is actually quite accurate.

In fact, we did see some warm conditions in the sixties that persisted for some time. However, the stocks were in a very different state at that time, with the overall abundance of cod. The northern cod stock had in excess of a million tonnes in spawning stock biomass. The capelin biomass at that time was in excess of two million tonnes.

We were dealing with a very different ecosystem. The opportunity for a new species to take advantage of the situation, because there is reduced competition pressure and reduced predation pressure, was not the same. At that time, the capelin stocks and the cod stocks were actually quite healthy. They were growing at a fair rate.

Now we have a situation where most of the groundfish stocks are still quite depleted. Their productivity seems to be low, and the capelin still haven't come back. This is a great opportunity for shrimp to actually continue to blossom, in one sense, because there is plenty of prey and there is relatively lower predation pressure.

However, I'd like to point out that since the early 1990s, we've seen some noticeable increases in the biomass of the groundfish stocks. They're definitely not where they were, but they are substantial.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Are you saying that in general the conditions should be relatively good for shrimp, but they're not?

[Dr. Pierre Pepin]

They're good, in the sense that there are no competitors and there are relatively few predators. Unfortunately, the ocean environment and the environment in which their larvae are launched seem to be poor for them overall.

We've seen a trend for earlier spring phytoplankton blooms in the last decade or so. They're variable, but they've progressed by as much as a month in terms of timing. Most large species, such as shrimp, capelin, cod, and so on, have a hard time adjusting their spawning cycle to match the changes in the productivity of lower trophic levels.

There is a hypothesis in the scientific literature that's called the match-mismatch hypothesis. If you match up with the right food environment, you do better, and if you mismatch that environment, you do more poorly. This is basically the situation that seems to be occurring in the case of shrimp.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

That actually makes some sense, I think.

I apologize if you've already told us this, but do we think that acidification has anything to do with the declining shrimp?

[Dr. Pierre Pepin]

We haven't been able to address that issue at all. In fact, I haven't mentioned it.

Ocean acidification is a cause for concern right now. We see a global trend that is quite significant. However, we've had very few measurements of the state of the ocean acidification, and particularly the carbonate saturation levels of the ocean for the continental shelves. In fact, we're hoping to do that in the foreseeable future. We have applied for funding to answer part of the question that you've asked here.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I think that would be a very interesting study.

I have a couple more questions.

I assume that, as scientists, you're involved in the eco-certification process that industry takes the lead on. Could you tell us a little about that and how you think this new information on the status of the stocks and the decline—the fluctuations at least—plays into the eco-certification programs?

As a final question, in the science that you do in Newfoundland and Labrador, I think you said you partner with others. Is one of those partners the province itself? Are they showing a greater interest in doing their own science, in collaboration with DFO?

[Dr. Pierre Pepin]

I can answer the second part of the question, but I'll have to ask somebody else to answer the first part of the question because I have not been involved with the certification process.

I can tell you that there is increased activity on the part of the province in doing some ocean research in the area. They have been looking at the distribution of cod and migration patterns, and so on, through the Centre for Fisheries Ecosystems Research at the Marine Institute. I am collaborating with a number of people from that location on several different projects and they are doing a great deal more as well.

[David Gillis]

As you've mentioned, the certification process is a mix of management measures and scientific measurements and limits and other settings that come together to provide a package for certification.

The important thing for certification, from a stock-status viewpoint, is that the limits of the stock are established and recognized and that there is a responsive management program set up around it to respond and do the right thing, and to keep the key measures like exploitation and biomass within certain ranges. It will be for the certifying bodies to continue to review these fisheries to make sure that the rules that have been set up and the responses that are set out to be taken under the certification program for shrimp are respected.

They will make the final determination, but certainly the information that is needed to inform those decisions, by both the department and the industry, and ultimately by the certifying bodies, is available.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Robert Chisholm]

Thank you, Mr. Gillis. Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. MacAulay, go ahead.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen.

This eco-certification has always concerned me. I understand—well, I guess I probably do not understand science—that it's always difficult. It's easy to blame scientists and it's easy to blame a lot of people. But I have a number of concerns about eco-certification. Just for one example is the lobster stocks on the south side of Prince Edward Island. I think some of you will be aware of this. Not last year but the previous five years before that, the catch was very small. Last year, the catch was fairly large.

My concern about eco-certification is that the bodies that are informing—whatever body makes the eco-certification decision, and who gets it, and who does not, and who has the label, and who does not—would have a difficult time giving certification to the lobster fishery on the south coast of Prince Edward Island in the last five years, excluding last year.

Would I be correct? How would you get around that…because you're just human beings. I think it's great to be able to criticize government, not that I do it, but the fact is eco-certification has taken the control of what happens in the fishery away from the government.

Am I out to lunch or am I correct?

[David Gillis]

Eco-certification is, as you say, an independent process. These are not government agencies or companies that do it. There are independent organizations at the world level—the Marine Stewardship Council is foremost among them—that establish the parameters for certification, and they are the ones that certify.

What you say about the change in the landings, or maybe the condition of the resource, is interesting. In my experience, from some of the certifications I've looked at, it's less about what the condition of the resource is but more about how well you understand it and how you react to what the condition of the resource is. That is important for certifiers to see.

They understand, as we see in the Newfoundland shelf, that resources can and do change over time for both controllable and uncontrollable reasons. They factor that into their certification. Otherwise, I think it might be unfair to penalize industries that are trying to do the right thing but the resource is simply not responding for reasons that can't be controlled.

Resource levels are important at some level, but what you do in reaction to those resource levels is much more important.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Could you expand a bit on what you do? The fact is that when there are no fish and the only way that the people hang on to their boats is by going to western Canada to work, I would think that whoever's involved in the certification would be looking at the resource. That's my concern. You don't feel that it could be a factor that would remove certification from a product that in fact should have certification. That's my concern, and the government would have no say in this.

[David Gillis]

It is a factor at some level, but as I say, it's a mixture of understanding what is going on with the resource and being able to inform yourself about what your limits should be—that's the science-informed part of certification—and then assessing how well the management system is developed and in place to respond to what the science is telling you. It's the broad combination of those two sides of the equation, as well as a general appreciation for the policy framework in which the fishery operates. Those all come together to make a successful certification.

So it is important, but there is no one factor in isolation.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Again, not to belabour it, but the fact is that without the certification, you do not sell fish. That's what's going to be down the road, for sure, and nobody at this table can change that. That's how it's going to be, I would expect. Am I correct or am I wrong?

[David Gillis]

Certainly, industry seemed to find value in seeking certification because there are markets—and it would vary a bit between fisheries, as you mentioned—that are getting quite demanding in terms of needing certification in order to be able to sell into those markets.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

I don't know if I know any more yet or not, but the fact is that it has been and will be a concern of mine.

Dr. Pepin, on page 4 you have indicated that the fishable biomass index decreased by 48% in 2013. Is that in one year, and if so, is it still in the healthy zone?