Evidence of meeting #107 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was terms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
Thank you.
We're over our time, but that was important. Now we'll go to the five-minute round—
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Parent, I wanted to begin with you and where we stand in terms of indigenous research: in the training that's necessary, the funding that needs to be in place and the independence to be able to carry out this research from an indigenous perspective. What's the state of the land?
Co-Chair, Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research
Thank you very much for that question.
I think it's important to really provide some further context to the development of the SIRC plan itself. This plan is directly connected to the progressive expertise and feedback that we have received from generations of indigenous research leaders and is informed by research studies and data as well.
What we've been able to see is a sort of incremental progression in terms of the work and the priorities that have been embedded into the strategic plan. Of course, it's not a perfect plan, but I can say that it has taken us decades to get here. I think that's a really important starting point.
When I look at what has emerged with the capstone, I can say that the SIRC plan didn't evolve over three weeks. There is a really strong disconnect between the consultation process that has happened with the capstone versus what we've seen within the SIRC plan itself and also in terms of representation and representation of diverse indigenous rights holders.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
It might surprise you, but I'm not a scientist. I got 48% in grade 10, and they told me to start another career, so I became a politician.
However, I was an organizer for the Algonquin nation and what I learned very quickly was that knowledge is power, because the only time they ever wanted indigenous information and traditional ecological knowledge, they said, “Here, we'll give you some money. Do some research and then bring it to the table and we'll negotiate.” Who were we negotiating with? We were negotiating with forestry companies, mining companies and hydro companies. The departments were never our friends, but knowledge in the communities was what gave them strength.
How do we ensure that the indigenous research that's being done...? There's the whole question of IP. In the nations, it's collective knowledge. How do you make sure that we are adequately funded, but that we also have provisions to ensure indigenous empowerment in how their research is handled and who benefits from it?
Co-Chair, Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research
Thank you. That's a beautiful question.
I can say also that I don't have a full science background, but many within the circle do. Some of us are trained scientists, and we represent what we would consider transdisciplinary expertise. That includes members of our circle who have health and science, education, social sciences and language and cultural revitalization expertise.
Yes, you're certainly correct that our knowledge is embedded in communities. I think that's one of the tensions we feel in recognizing this large, overarching structure of the capstone and its imposition at this point. Recognizing indigenous knowledge and languages and our support for indigenous research, which very much helps with that revitalization, lies within communities and community governance structures. Certainly, that's the trajectory of where we are with the SIRC plan.
In terms of overall recommendations, yes, I would totally agree with you that there needs to be ongoing development to support the protection of our intellectual and collective intellectual property rights. An important starting point is for Canada to adhere to UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. There is a specific clause in there.... I don't know if I have time to share that with you or if that's enough, but it's article 31.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
We may do it in the next round.
What we've heard about is the whole role of graduate students and post-doctoral fellows on the governance board, and how they're always at the low end of the stick in any kind of research. I'm wondering if you've looked at it from an indigenous perspective, ensuring fairness and equity, to make sure that they are also able to be part of decision-making.
Co-Chair, Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research
For sure. That is one of the core pillars of our current strategic plan, which is enhancing indigenous research leadership capacity. Even when you look at the circle composition, which I think is a healthy model of respectful indigenous engagement, we have several members who are graduate students and we have a post-doctoral research member with us.
A lot of our work really questions how effective we are at the ground level and how we are training the next generation that comes behind us, but also considers succession planning and makes sure that there is diverse representation across all different training levels and positions in terms of what is needed to fully support indigenous self-determination in all capacities.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I think that's super important because, again, it is about building up this next generation, so if we're getting students to the post-doctoral level, we're making sure that they have the support and we're not losing them in indigenous communities. That's super important.
I want to end this round.... I don't know whether the government's offering a whole whack of new dollars for research. We have world-class institutions that are going to be competing, yet many of the indigenous programs that I'm aware of are the smaller ones. They're in the far north, but they're doing vital work that nobody else is doing.
Do you see that we have to have a special carve-out to make sure that we get fairness, or is it just going to be gobbled up by the usual players?
Co-Chair, Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research
I really appreciate that question.
One of our first recommendations is the retention of existing indigenous research funding. I have done some research with my Canada research chair program but also in my role here.
First of all, I think it's important to applaud the additional investment that was made in the spring by the Government of Canada in the spring budget, but we also would encourage that the current budget be maintained and increased. We're currently at $268.75 million of the tri-agencies' larger budget, and that's roughly 5%. What's not included right now is the $13.2 million per year that should also be allocated from the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
I have much more finite data that I can share with the committee once I've completed this here today. I really hope this research budget is maintained.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Valerie Bradford
That's almost a minute over, but I'm sure someone else might want to pursue that.
Thank you. That was great testimony.
Now we will turn to our second round of five minutes, and we'll kick that off with MP Lobb.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to our guests today. The first question is for Ms. Parent.
In your opening statements, you commented about the lack of consultation. I'm just curious. Is it zero? Is it some? Do you believe that they should start over and go through it until they get it right?
Co-Chair, Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research
I will start off with this: Yes, I would agree that there is insufficient indigenous engagement to date, and we don't see a proper form of engagement proposed at this point by ministers Champagne or Holland.
Just to provide a bit of historical context to our awareness of the capstone, we only became informed about the Bouchard report on June 21, 2024. That's three months after the spring federal budget announcement. The first thing we did as a circle was to review the Bouchard report. We learned at that point that there was only one indigenous representative who was a part of the advisory panel. That was Dr. Vianne Timmons, and some folks may be familiar with her.
Of course, we learned right away that Dr. Timmons, at the end of 2023, came out as a pretendian; she was an ethnic fraud. That means that there was no indigenous representation that supported the development of this report.
In addition, we also saw a lack of engagement with our circle directly for the development of the Bouchard report, despite our outlined responsibilities in the SIRC plan. Therefore, when I hear Dr. Nemer respectfully share her testimony, I do think that important data and voices are still missing and that we can't rush to any decisions.
I also just wanted to point out again that there really is not enough consultation for us to be in alignment with UNDRIP, and that can pose some serious significant legal risks if we proceed without proper consultation with all indigenous rights holders. That includes first nations, Métis, Inuit, indigenous organizations, indigenous-controlled institutions, indigenous researchers and existing oversight bodies within the tri-agencies themselves.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
On your website here, talking about your organization, $824 million over 10 years, was that yours?
Conservative
Co-Chair, Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research
Which department are you speaking about?
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
You got me there. It says that it's to support indigenous research and research training in Canada.