Science and Research Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 67 of the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders, and therefore members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using Zoom.

For those participating virtually, I'd like to outline a few rules.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for the meeting. You can choose, at the bottom of your screen, to have either floor, English or French. If the interpretation is lost, please inform us, and we will make sure we have a brief suspension while we sort that out.

For members in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in the committee room. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you're on video conference, click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. In the room, make sure your mike and earpiece are separated so we don't have feedback and therefore cause injuries to our interpreters.

This is a reminder to all that all comments by members should come through the chair.

To get going, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 18, 2023, the committee resumes its study on the integration of indigenous traditional knowledge and science in government policy development.

It's now my pleasure to welcome Reverend Michael Lyons, priest in charge, as an individual.

We also have, from Mokwateh, Alexandra Cropp, senior manager of operations, on video conference. From the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, we have Laurie Swami, president and chief executive officer, by video conference, and from the Chacruna Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicines, we have Joseph Mays, program director, indigenous reciprocity initiative of the Americas, by video conference.

Each witness will have a maximum of five minutes for their remarks, after which we'll go to our question round.

Mr. Lyons, you'll be up first, and I'll prompt you when you're getting close to the end by letting you know you have 30 seconds left.

[Reverend Michael Lyons, Priest in Charge, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The criminalization of substances such as LSD—lysergic acid diethylamide—peyote, psilocybin and the like in the last half century or so brought to an end a very fruitful period of research into the clinical and therapeutic benefits of these substances in both medical and psychiatric contexts.

I would contend, based on my research in light of this, that psychedelics and their criminalization flowed directly out of the countercultural movement experienced in the 1960s and 1970s across Canada and the United States, something that did not take into account the potential therapeutic benefits that were borne out by the data that informed my research and that built my thesis.

In light of this, I would suggest that these things need to be seen in context. Morphine in a medical context is an effective pain management tool, but heroin, the synthetic form of that same substance, has caused untold suffering and countless deaths.

Unlike opioids, psychedelics, as the data will show, do not have any addictive properties but do seem to have therapeutic benefit, and therefore I would suggest that it would be in the interest of the government to consider legislation that would loosen regulations around these substances in order to foster and enhance research into them and into their implementation as clinical components in our health care system.

In my research into LSD, I saw that the encountering of the divine suggested to Abram Hoffer and Humphry Osmond, among others, that these substances contain an ability for our health care model to bridge the gap between this realm and the next. In this life, this holistic model that people like Hoffer and Osmond discovered and researched in the 1950s and 1960s and those that have been further enhanced in the psychedelic renaissance over the last 30 years or so would suggest that there are inherent medical and clinical benefits, and the government would be well advised to invest time and legislative energy into this as opposed to the movement towards legalization and ready access to substances such as marijuana for recreational use.

In addition, psychedelic plants such as peyote in the Native American Church context, as well as ayahuasca in the context of the South American shamans, have been used by indigenous peoples around the world in the integration of their holistic model of health and healing, something that is not accounted for within the western medical paradigm. Therefore, I would suggest that the integration of these substances and therapies offers a wonderful opportunity for the federal government and Health Canada to begin to bridge that gap, as these substances dovetail so well with that more holistic integration and ways of knowing of our indigenous peoples.

Something that has been borne out in the research is that natural substances such as psilocybin have been shown in the last 30 years to show remarkable capacity to both ameliorate and have patients come to terms with anxieties around end of life, something that cannot necessarily be completely conceptualized within the concept of our western medical paradigm, which does not necessarily account for the spiritual as well as the physical.

As a final disclosure, I speak today not as a member of the Anglican Church of Canada or as a priest serving in the Diocese of Saskatchewan but rather as an individual speaking to my own academic research for my thesis, which was published in 2018.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to Alexandra Cropp from Mokwateh.

[Alexandra Cropp, Senior Manager of Operations, Mokwateh]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Alexandra Cropp. My given name is Banaso Ospo Ken Iskew—Thunder Bird Pipe Woman—from the Turtle Clan, and I am from the Norway House Cree Nation.

I come to you speaking from a policy perspective and speaking from my experience of working for my nation for over seven years, supporting new partnerships and programs and co‐leading the development of the new Norway House Cree Nation Health Centre of Excellence. The centre has leveraged indigenous ways of being, science and knowledge, not only from its inception but also in putting many other indigenous and western medicines together, forming one holistic model of care.

Throughout my time with Norway House Cree Nation, I had the opportunity to partner with post-secondary institutions that were very keen to understand indigenous ways of being and to incorporate that knowledge and those systems into the curriculum, not only by supporting the development of indigenous ways of being within the faculty of nursing and the midwifery programs there but also by understanding the need for integration and including those rightful individuals at the table, ensuring they are able to speak to their lived experiences and support the development within that curriculum.

In 2022, I moved on to a new firm called Mokwateh. It's an indigenous-led consulting firm based out of Sand Point First Nation. It's led by JP Gladu and Max Skudra. JP Gladu, alongside Mark Little, former CEO of Suncor, championed a 5% federal procurement target for indigenous businesses, which was integral to ensuring that the federal government committed to that 5%.

In my role with Mokwateh, I was able to support two nations in their submissions to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ensuring we were engaging the nations at an early phase and understanding that it was done in a respectful and meaningful manner in order to have a better understanding of what their priorities were. We were able to incorporate that knowledge, their lived experiences and their day-to-day challenges within the current system by identifying the changes that needed to be made, while not only respecting the articulated actions within UNDRIP but identifying areas where indigenous practices and policies could be leveraged to better inform those laws.

During my time with my nation, I had the opportunity of collaborating on several innovative and forward-thinking initiatives that leveraged our indigenous ways, our science, and our knowledge in a way that catalyzed transformational changes within their health care system.

That unique work really stemmed from the importance in highlighting the necessity to include indigenous knowledge and traditions throughout each phase of that project, not only supporting the conception and planning but continuing through the construction phase and going forward to long-term sustainability.

This was done at an early stage, not only understanding the importance of community members and those individuals who are going to be touched by that project but also understanding who is going to sustain that in the future, following our seven generations, including our elders, youth, staff and, of course, chief and council.

Embodying our indigenous ways of being is so critical as we look to build policy development, not only when it's community-led but community-managed in a way that actually is respectful. It incorporates everything that needs to be done to support our ongoing generations as we grow into it.

While I may not have had the opportunity to grow up in my nation and may not be versed in the intricacies of our trap lines and historical sites, which are critical in any infrastructure planning, my experiences have taught me the most paramount lesson of all, which is to include our community members and the indigenous leaders from the beginning by facilitating an essential exchange of information, enhancing our understanding of the traditional territory, and intertwining our indigenous knowledge and science within that space.

This is such a learning journey. It respects and acknowledges the indispensable indigenous knowledge of our systems. It not only respects this valuable information but also legitimizes our sources of information, requiring a deep understanding of the historical and cultural ties indigenous peoples have with our land, resources and ecosystems.

Indigenous peoples embody a profound foresight in their decision‐making, not merely planning for the immediate future but considering the impacts on the next seven generations, recognizing that today's choices will significantly shape the world for future leaders and guardians.

In the pursuit of establishing inclusive policy-making, it is crucial to ensure the active involvement of our indigenous communities from various regions within Canada.

It is essential to understand that indigenous peoples are diverse. Our knowledge systems differ significantly from one area to another, and while the process may not be flawless at its inception, nor will it satisfy all, it is imperative that we take deliberate steps to properly engage our indigenous peoples. We can ensure that resilient policies are built in partnership with indigenous peoples to better serve everyone within Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you for your remarks. They were right on time.

Now we'd like to go to Laurie Swami from the Nuclear Waste Management Organization for five minutes.

[Laurie Swami, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Waste Management Organization]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs and members of the committee.

My name is Laurie Swami, and I am the president and CEO of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, or the NWMO. It's an honour to appear before you today to discuss how the NWMO works to engage with indigenous communities and how we align with indigenous knowledge in the work we do.

I would like to begin by acknowledging we are meeting today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

The NWMO's mandate is to implement Canada's plan for the long-term management of used nuclear fuel in a manner that protects both people and the environment. There is national and international scientific consensus that used nuclear fuel should be managed in a deep geologic repository in a location with a willing and informed host community. Our future site will safely store nuclear fuel for the long term, so it's important that the NWMO's siting decision is made based on the best available knowledge, including both western science and indigenous knowledge. Incorporating indigenous knowledge into our work is a humbling learning journey that requires non-indigenous decision-makers like me to ensure we are working with indigenous peoples in a way that honours and lifts this work up.

While we are still on a learning journey, there are a few lessons I want to share, based on our 20-plus years of work.

First, before we can create policies that incorporate indigenous knowledge, we must understand what indigenous knowledge is. This requires trust and good relationships. The starting place for NWMO's learning has been building relationships with indigenous communities and knowledge holders, who have been our incredible teachers in this process. We have a council of elders and youth that has acted as a crucial resource to help us approach our learning journey in the right way. Each year, the NWMO holds an indigenous knowledge and western science workshop with indigenous knowledge holders, elders, youth, scientists and industry professionals to deepen this work. These relationships have been the foundation on which we have built policy to incorporate and respect indigenous knowledge in our work.

Second, the lessons indigenous knowledge and western science offer us are complementary, yet we must embrace each as a fundamentally different way of knowing, seeing and moving through the world. While western knowledge gives us a framework for generating knowledge through experimentation, the knowledge it creates is sometimes not complete, is often inaccessible for indigenous peoples, and often places us alone as humans at the centre of its findings.

Western science and ways of knowing are one way of knowing, but they are not the only way of knowing. Indigenous knowledge offers a potentially diverse perspective in which humans are part of a greater relationship with the environment, a relationship that gives us insights into the workings of the world and the ethics of our decisions. Both ways of knowing provide us with valuable, complementary insights from different perspectives. When we consider decisions that have long-term impacts on the environment or communities, we need both of these perspectives.

Third, respecting indigenous knowledge requires us to understand systemic barriers that make policy and relationships difficult. Respecting indigenous knowledge requires that we always remain aware that western concepts of ownership and intellectual property don't align with indigenous knowledge, which is meant to be shared in the community and across generations. If we listen to indigenous knowledge holders and communities, we can overcome barriers by generating policies based on fairness and respect, ensuring that our relationships will last.

In closing, indigenous knowledge cannot be an afterthought when working on major projects like ours. However, policy-makers and decision-makers need to be aware of the importance that relationships and trust play in learning about and engaging with indigenous knowledge, and in generating policy on respectfully incorporating indigenous knowledge into decision-making.

I look forward to answering any specific questions on how the NWMO aligns with this important knowledge in our work.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Wonderful. Thank you very much for your comments.

Now, for the next five minutes, we'll go to Joseph Mays from the Chacruna Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicines.

Mr. Mays, the floor is yours.

[Joseph Mays, Program Director, Indigenous Reciprocity Initiative of the Americas, The Chacruna Institute for Psychedelic Plant Medicines]

I work at the intersection of traditional knowledge systems and biomedical science. I work for the Chacruna Institute, a non-profit bridging the worlds of clinical research and traditional plant medicines, which was founded by both an anthropologist and a clinical psychologist.

I work closely with over 30 indigenous groups in seven countries, supporting indigenous knowledge by nurturing ecological well-being. My partners are fighting for their land, water, food, medicine and cultural sovereignty, because without these basic material necessities, we can't have traditional knowledge systems.

As a practising scientist, I'm familiar with the tension between science and traditional knowledge. It's about not only integrating these systems but also understanding that indigenous science deserves to be taken seriously. What often sets indigenous knowledge apart is an emphasis on relationality and reciprocity, an understanding that our existence relies on the gifts of other beings.

Science, as conventionally practised, is an important tool for sustainability. Its explanatory power comes from an emphasis on reductionism and a strict separation of the scientist as observer from the observed—in this case, nature or the environment.

However, we also know that the observer only exists in, by and through a relationship with communities that produce our food and infrastructure and steward medicinal and ecological knowledge and the land and water that are the sources of all that we depend on. That relationship comes with certain obligations and responsibilities to be honoured.

Science reaps the benefits of ethno-pharmacological discoveries generated by indigenous people. Ecologists recognize the global correlation between traditional societies and biodiversity, since indigenous territories have more biodiversity than protected areas. We also know that encounters between Europeans and indigenous political philosophers contributed to the Enlightenment and the movement towards democracy that was spurred by thinkers like Rousseau and Voltaire.

My fellow panellist has already established the direct continuity between this promising new field of psychedelic-assisted therapy and indigenous traditional knowledge. He mentioned Abram Hoffer and Humphry Osmond, who only coined the term “psychedelic” after their experience sitting in a Native American Church teepee ceremony.

Whether working with plant-based compounds or synthetics, there's no escaping this relationship. This is all the more important to recognize in light of the profound gap between the promises of psychedelic medicine as defined by clinicians, researchers and investors and then the material needs of indigenous communities. That these empirically effective medicinal compounds—or land management strategies, or social governance—result from traditional knowledge systems that allow for gratitude towards the land and the recognition of personhood in the environment runs counter to the dominant assumptions of western science.

Western science explicitly separates values from outcomes and works from the basic assumption that there is no agency in nature. This works for certain questions, but it also creates an intellectual monoculture. For the socio-economic and environmental questions we face, we need a reorientation to focus on relationships. We need interdiscipline and pluralism, rather than monoculture. We need other ways of knowing.

This is what it means to use science and traditional knowledge together: to re-engage with relationality, subjectivity and agency to allow us to properly address ecological crises holistically and to question the unexamined assumptions of our institutions, recognizing where colonial mechanisms are still at play and how to guard against them.

Canada has already taken some strides in this through its Truth and Reconciliation Commission findings to confront these power dynamics. Recognizing that relationship with plant medicines and psychedelics is another move in this direction towards reconciliation.

Many of my indigenous partners are not interested in talking about traditional knowledge or psychedelic plants. They're interested in having their human rights and territories respected, even through the extension of human rights to forests, springs and rivers, such as with the rights of nature established by Ecuador's Constitutional Court.

Our program, the indigenous reciprocity initiative, is based on the recognition that a ground-up structure emphasizing local agency is the most meaningful way to support indigenous and local community autonomy and the most impactful way to support biodiversity. This is all best achieved by partnering with existing indigenous and local organizations on their terms, moving slowly and building trust.

If we can recognize and reorient ourselves toward the work of others, rather than taking over the spaces or processes of indigenous and local peoples, then we stand a better chance of achieving ecological well-being, a safe and healthy environment for current and future generations of humans and non-humans alike, and a diverse biosphere. Then, perhaps, we can come to see the relational world of diverse beings we inhabit. As we attempt to grapple with this dawning realization, we can move away from cynicism and helplessness and embody reciprocity in all that we do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to rounds of questions.

I'm looking at the time we started. With the indulgence of the committee and the witnesses, if we're able to go for a few minutes after the half hour, then we can try to get some full rounds in.

We also have next Monday. We've set up committee business in the second hour and we'll be able to handle some of the committee business then.

Hopefully, over the next couple of weeks, we can get some really good questions and answers on the floor from this study.

It's over to you, Ms. Rempel Garner, for your six minutes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

In this study, we are examining best practices on how to incorporate traditional knowledge into science. I find that even that mindset is very rigid, but in using the concept or trying to look at, for example, the use of psychedelics in medical therapy and psychotherapy as one example of how to do that, I'm wondering if I can explore with the witnesses a few assumptions—or maybe misassumptions—that our current systems utilize.

Mr. Mays, I think you touched on some of them.

Particularly when I look at the dialogue on government's approach to the regulation of substances or the use of substances like psilocybin, potentially in psychotherapy, first of all, there's a stigma about it, which is that somehow this couldn't be used. I do wonder if that's born partially out of racism, due to the fact that it has been incorporated in traditional practices over time.

Conversely, I also wonder, as western practices are seeking to incorporate the use of those substances in traditional practices, how we avoid cultural appropriation during that process as well. I think that as westerners we're often inclined just to think, “Okay, well, if we stick this thing into a pill and give it to somebody, it's going to work the same way as a full traditional ceremony.”

Taking what you said up to a 100,000-foot view, and using psychedelics as an example of how to incorporate or how not to incorporate or to respect traditional knowledge in, let's say, western medicine, how can we avoid some of these things? What are the best practices? Can you point us to some of the work you've undertaken that the committee should perhaps look at for additional sources?

[Joseph Mays]

Thank you.

I think it's a good example that you chose—psilocybin—because one of the communities that I work with is the Mazatec community in the Sierra Mazateca in Mexico, who are recognized as being the people who introduced the west to psilocybin mushrooms.

Actually, I posed this question to some of my partners there: What does it mean to them that there are people taking synthetic psilocybin in a pill, and does it work the same way? One of the leaders I work with leads a community organization there, and he also leads traditional ceremonies. He doesn't say that it's not going work or that it's bad or wrong to do it that way but just sort of comments on what it is like for a Mazatec mushroom harvester. They go out on the mountainside and they pick wild psilocybin mushrooms, and those mushrooms are going to be coming from a different context, one that reflects all of the relationships that are in place on that mountainside where they're growing.

I think that with psychedelic medicine in general, if we look at psychedelics versus other herbal remedies, over three-quarters of our pharmaceuticals that come from plants originate in indigenous and traditional societies. How can we avoid appropriation or the commodification of these things in this case? I think that recognizing the roots of the practices and trying to get ahead of the alienation of these plants from their places of origin and from the knowledge systems that inform them is one way: just having a better education around the histories, the cultures and also the contemporary struggles of the people who stewarded those medicines and are still stewarding them. I think—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. I don't have a lot of time left, and I would like to build on your answer with an additional question and perhaps also direct it to Mr. Lyons.

I think that in the context of government in legislation, in corporate practice in western societies, in regulations, we often do shy away from talking about the spiritual components of traditional knowledge. I think you alluded to that a little bit with regard to the harvest practices, or the terroir practice, let's say, of a source.

How can we incorporate the spiritual aspect from traditional practices that's often lost or derided when considering incorporation of knowledge? How do we be respectful of that?

Perhaps I will give it to Mr. Lyons briefly. I think I only have a few seconds left.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have 30 seconds.

[Rev. Michael Lyons]

Certainly. In the context of my own research, the thing I found is that Christian clergy were brought into the context. That represents certain problems, of course, in terms of cultural appropriation and the like, but I think bringing in western professionals alongside indigenous healers in guiding that practice would be one way that we might consider the answering of that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Great. Thank you very much. That's fascinating.

We'll go over to Mr. Lametti for six minutes, please.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today or being here virtually.

I would like to turn a bit of the discussion towards UNDRIP, which Alexandra Cropp mentioned. I think that the passage of UNDRIP and the working out intensively of an action plan over the following two years remain the highlight of my career.

How important, Ms. Cropp, do you think it is that not just the federal government but also the provinces and territories take on UNDRIP, as well as municipalities, first nations leadership groups and communities, etc.?

[Alexandra Cropp]

Thank you.

It's highly important. As we look at this and we explore these with our nations and with the federal government right now, we're making great recommendations. The recommendations are coming from community members through extensive engagement approaches and opportunities for members from diverse backgrounds to speak to some of the challenges that they've faced within the existing laws at the federal level. Let's focus there.

From there, indigenous people and those I have had an opportunity to speak to have felt that some consistent policy areas are meant to discriminate and that those policies are meant to hold them back. In doing so, they have failed to give them an opportunity to really take on, let's say, an economic development role within their nation, or really build on the education or build on the languages that are from their nation that should be passed on from their elders.

The larger thing as well is that we have done a great first step, of course, in engaging the indigenous peoples and having them work with their partners to make significant recommendations.

I think another component is that as we work to ensure that our indigenous peoples have a fair and equitable approach in the larger justice system at the federal level and the provincial level, they are not being labelled as something that will further prevent them from seeking employment in large projects that are typically in partnership with their nations or within their region.

As we look to understand how UNDRIP can meaningfully impact indigenous peoples within Canada and the scope within their respective regions, I think it's important that the federal government continue to move forward on these significant changes and significant opportunities for nations to speak their truth and to speak to the need to ensure that their knowledge is being respected, that their cultures are being respected, and that they are able to practise those traditional ceremonies.

I can't speak too much on psilocybin, but we need to ensure that our indigenous people have access to the traditional medicines that they can afford and that they can leverage their trapping lines.

I think the federal government has taken a great first step, but I also think we need to make sure that we're pulling in the provincial government, that we're pulling in those municipalities to ensure that we're all walking in step together while being led by our indigenous partners to support what can be and what will, hopefully, be one day.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you. Kinana’skomitin.

I agree, I think, with every word you said, but I don't think I could have said it quite as elegantly as you did.

For you, Ms. Cropp, and for Ms. Swami, I struggled for my whole career as an intellectual property professor to try to understand how two paradigms could sit together: indigenous traditional knowledge—which, as you pointed out, Ms. Swami, is collectively held but also is embedded in culture and ritual—and an individualized system that is at the heart of, say, patents in the western intellectual property system.

You have traditional knowledge, which in theory can't be patented, and yet you can pull a string out of it and then patent that. That seems to be not only unfair in result, but disrespectful of indigenous traditional knowledge.

How do we square that? Can we square that? The two systems could exist quite well in isolation, but they don't exist in isolation. How do we bridge that?

Any thoughts are welcome.

[Alexandra Cropp]

I'll jump in and then hand it over to Ms. Swami.

I think there is a way we can move forward together. I think the first step, as one of the other witnesses identified, is building that trust and that relationship with those partners. For a long time, indigenous peoples have continued to give, and we don't see the reciprocity in that exchange. I think that as long as we ensure that any....

Let's say we're looking at indigenous medicines and finding ways to leverage those medicines within the pharmaceutical space. How are we going about it in a manner that, to that point, respects the spirituality and the culture that is associated with those rituals and also ensures that the indigenous peoples can trust that once they share this knowledge, it's not only going to be an influence and support to indigenous people, but also to other Canadians within the country? How can we ensure that we're giving back to the nation, that we're supporting it, and that we're investing in our capacity-building and education systems so that we can then ensure that those people have safe access to forage for the medicines and continue that practice, and then of course participate within the larger western pharmaceutical space?

Ms. Swami, I will hand it to you if you'd like.

[Laurie Swami]

Thank you very much. You said that quite well.

At the NWMO, we've had an indigenous knowledge policy since 2016. We were one of the first to implement something of that nature in North America.

Why I am really proud of that is that it embeds in our work that we will respect indigenous knowledge and the owners of that knowledge. It really is indigenous people's thoughts and their work and their contribution. We need to be very respectful if they gift it to us to allow us to use it in our work. We accept that gift, but we also respect that it is still theirs to protect and that we need to protect it with them.

I think you can do both. I think that when we're working in the communities we're working with, we're building a relationship with the people there. We want to build a trusting relationship and we look forward to that.

With that trust—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

I'm sorry; we've over time, but thank you for those thoughts. It looks like there are some solutions for the analysts to include for our study.

Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses who are taking part in our study, and I thank them for being here.

My first questions are for Ms. Swami.

Ms. Swami, you emphasized the importance of respecting indigenous knowledge.

How do you define scientific knowledge or indigenous knowledge? How do you determine whether it's a belief or a knowledge?

[Laurie Swami]

Thank you for that question.

I think it is an indigenous knowledge system and a way of bringing knowledge to a situation. I think that western science offers one viewpoint, whereas indigenous knowledge actually makes it richer and makes it a better product at the end of the day as we align the two systems that we work in.

In my personal experience, I've found that it has really enhanced our thinking around the work we have in front of us.

In fact, I think of water, which is a very important system for indigenous people, and it is very important for the NWMO to protect it. We have worked very hard with indigenous people and with our western scientists to tell the story of the journey of water. We've taken it from an indigenous perspective and we've aligned that with our western way of understanding water and the knowledge that it holds. We've brought that together.

We had advice from our elders on how we could best incorporate those two ways of knowing. We've presented that to our communities and to our western scientists as a way of making sure that we're addressing water concerns the best way we can with the communities we're working with.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Swami.

I want to make sure I understand the mechanism for linking indigenous knowledge with western knowledge or western science. Sometimes, certain aspects can contradict each other.

What are you going to prioritize? What mechanisms do you use to make decisions if the subjects are contradictory?

[Laurie Swami]

From my perspective, we've learned from indigenous people. We have indigenous people working on staff who have brought us that knowledge through their way of knowing. We have western scientists who bring their perspective. It's enriched our ability to actually understand things. In fact, while some may think it's contradictory, as you learn more and more and you go into the depth of both systems, you can see how they complement each other. They in fact give us a better way of implementing projects as we go forward. It's not that they're contradictory; I think they actually bring two knowledge systems and two ways of thinking to bear on problems.

Take the problem of nuclear waste management. It's a generational project. Bringing those knowledge systems together is quite important and critical so that we're implementing this in the best way for people and the environment, and also from a safety perspective. To me it's very critical.

I don't think they're contradictory. I think they're just a necessary part of how we can do the best for everyone.