Science and Research Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannings, you have six minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I wish we had all day here. This is very interesting.

I'm going to start with Mr. Gonet.

You talked about indigenous knowledge systems invoking a relationship between man and nature—caribou, salmon. I would just like to get an example of how that might work in terms of bringing indigenous knowledge to help us with policy.

When I was in the Yukon back in the 1980s, I would eat chinook salmon at Mayo. The chinook were plentiful then, it seemed, and it's certainly not that way now.

I'm just wondering if you might give an example of how indigenous knowledge could better manage the relationship between salmon and people in the Yukon River system.

[Jared Gonet]

Thank you.

I know one example right now is they just started an indigenous knowledge committee of the Yukon River Panel, and this is bringing elders and knowledge-holders together to really impress upon people just how important salmon are to the indigenous people here.

That's part of what science loses, or dominant forms of science. When you think about an indigenous scientist or an indigenous knowledge-holder practising science, they're well aware of how important salmon is to culture and to the people, and they can bring that into the decision-making process. The fact that as we lose salmon, we're losing part of our identity and we're losing part of our health creates a lot more impact in your processes.

I'll leave it at that for now. Thanks.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'll ask the same question of Dr. Parlee.

Another example you mentioned is that beluga populations are doing okay in the Beaufort. I'm wondering how using indigenous knowledge in those policy-making decisions around how we manage species like beluga, if we can use that terminology, is different from the standard western science way of going in and trying to count things, finding a level that you can harvest them at and just seeing what happens.

[Dr. Brenda Parlee]

My comment earlier was that there's a long-term monitoring program that involves or is led by the Inuvialuit communities. Over 40 years of data has been collected about mercury, among other things.

That program began or was designed around answering key questions that were important to communities. Beluga is so fundamental to food security in the region, to the culture and livelihood of the communities, so the kind of science that's being done is science to answer critical questions about human health, about food, about culture and livelihood, and I think that's different from many science-driven programs.

The other key difference is that the other kinds of indicators, the other kinds of knowledge that are being collected at the same time are much more holistic than many other monitoring programs that are science-driven and that have a much more narrow focus.

Finally, there's the extent to which the monitoring work itself, the research work itself, is embedded in culturally valued processes like harvesting, in which the process of research, the process of doing science, building knowledge, co-producing knowledge is one that is ingrained and valuable to the communities, including youth.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I will quickly turn to Dr. Bobiwash.

Again, it's the same question. How do we bring indigenous knowledge and weave it in with western science? I read that you study pollinators. You've been working on questions around pollination of blueberries. You've worked in vineyards, very close to my heart, in the Okanagan.

How can you bring your indigenous knowledge systems into those questions?

[Kyle Bobiwash]

I'll even highlight that I've actually worked with the member's brother, Syd, with the Canadian Wildlife Service in some pollination work.

One thing that I think is really important is that.... Again, we might have perspectives, western ideas of biodiversity based on typical taxonomy or something like genetics and phylogenetics. In a lot of our work, we try to explain some of those drivers that result in certain species being there or certain species not being there, certain species being able to provide some sort of ecosystem service, and again, we're utilizing very western conceptual ways of understanding landscapes.

What indigenous knowledge and indigenous science bring us is more alternative hypotheses, more alternative types of data, ways to characterize landscapes, ways to characterize biodiversity and those relationships that, say, a pollinator might have with flowers or that caribou might have with certain foraging areas or, similarly, that the beluga might have with particular areas.

Bringing that knowledge is really important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you for getting that in.

Thanks, Mr. Cannings.

We have enough for three minutes for the Conservatives, three minutes for the Liberals, and one and a half each for the NDP and the Bloc. That will take us to the full 60 minutes. Of course, it's been more than 60 minutes, but that will at least get some fairness to this part of the study.

Now we go to Mr. Tochor for three minutes, please.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

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

It was unfortunate that we had to pause there for the closure. There is one other matter that we need to handle before we get into some more questions for you.

There was a development and we put a notice of motion on Friday. I move:

Given that: the Openmind Research Institute decision to partner with Huawei, and considering the dangers of advanced AI falling into the wrong hands, and given the risks posed by the People's Republic of China which have advanced to such a level that the Director of CSIS has publicly warned that “Everything that they're doing in our universities and in new technology, it's going back into a system very organized to create dual-use applications for the military” and, given that this committee has received expert testimony characterizing this as an “existential threat” to Canada, while the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has consistently failed to proactively protect Canadians from the risks posed by companies with ties to the Chinese Communist regime such as Huawei, while insisting that “Our government's commitment to research security was further affirmed” the Science and Research Committee expresses its deep concern with this partnership to the House.

I'm asking for a quick vote, and then we'll get back to testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

There is a motion on the table for discussion.

Mr. Cannings.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I have just a quick point here.

What I would like to.... Here is a motion that says that we read about this in the paper and we should express our disappointment or whatever. This situation that we see with a researcher doing open AI research where Huawei is involved is an example of something that certainly I kept bringing up in this study, but we never had anybody to speak to it, it seemed.

I would really like to amend the motion to say that we bring that researcher to this committee for testimony so that we can find out what his work involves and how he got Huawei involved. I think that's really important for our study. Then we can make the decision to express our disappointment or whatever, after we know more.

I would ask that we amend that to hear from him here at this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Okay, there is an amendment now. We can speak to the amendment.

I saw Ms. Rempel Garner had her hand up first, then Mr. Tochor and then Mr. Turnbull.

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

I guess it's a point of clarification for Mr. Cannings.

When he is talking about the study or that he wants somebody to speak to this as part of the study, is he talking about the current study we're in right now? Through you, Chair, may I just ask him for clarification on that?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'm sorry. I meant the study on the issue of research involving China.

We may have completed the witness part of that, but I'm suggesting bringing in this researcher to add further testimony to that study because we haven't had the report yet. I just think it would be a valuable addition, because we talked about it but we never had direct testimony.

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

I'm not finished yet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

The floor went to him.

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

I was just asking for clarification through you.

If that's the case, then, I would make a subamendment to Mr. Cannings' amendment.

I agree with his suggestion. I would amend it so that the witness be invited to appear prior to December 15, 2023.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Okay. I see he is nodding his head.

We'll go to Mr. Tochor, and then Mr. Turnbull.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

We'll vote in favour of Mr. Cannings' amendment to the motion and the subamendment.

I want to highlight to our witnesses that we do have resources until seven o'clock. If you're available, please do not leave because we do want to have a full round of questions with you guys on what's left.

I would just say that I think that's an excellent amendment, and I would ask for a vote on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Unfortunately, you can't just ask for a vote, because there's a speaking list.

I'm just wondering why the Conservatives brought this motion back to the table when we have scheduled committee business, which is after the valuable time that our witnesses have given up to be here today for testimony. To me, that's troubling, when we have a dedicated time to discuss these matters, and it makes no sense to use up valuable time with our witnesses. It interrupts the study that we're currently undertaking, and we actually have scheduled time to discuss motions like this.

I have a number of issues with the motion, but I would suggest to the committee that we adjourn debate on this and get back to it in committee business once we've asked the witnesses all the questions and had our valuable time with them.

I move to adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

That's a dilatory motion, so we'll go to the vote on adjourning debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We'll go back to the witnesses. We had Mr. Tochor for about two and a half minutes.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Yes, I'd like to learn a little bit more about the birds talking to humans and humans talking to birds, to understand that a little bit more.

[Mark Bonta]

In the last few years, we've had a lot of research in ornithology, given some rather advanced tools we have, to understand that birds have advanced communication systems within species and across species. There's always been this traditional belief that one could communicate with them or that there was communication back and forth.

I think the best example I can give is a bird called the honeyguide in east Africa. It has a type of speech—this is coming from the anthropologists who study it—and it seeks out honey, but it uses people to do so, and vice versa. There are several studies that have shown that the Hadza people, hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, have a type of language where they communicate with birds. Birds will come to them and basically guide them to where the honey is.