Science and Research Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 68 of the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

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

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 this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure that interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

Members participating in person can proceed as they usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. To those in the room, your mic will be controlled, as usual, by the proceedings and verification officer. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you're not speaking, your mic should be on mute.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These usually occur when the microphone and earpiece are too close together, so please, for the sake of our interpreters' safety, make sure your earphones are well away from your microphone when you're handling them.

I will remind you that all comments by members should be addressed through the chair.

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

It's now my pleasure to welcome Dr. Anne Salomon, professor of applied marine ecology and social-ecological system science; Kii'iljuus Barbara Wilson, Haida scholar and matriarch of the St'awaas Xaaydaga, Ruling Eagle Clan, Cumshewa; and Bruce Maclean, director of Maclean Environmental Consulting. They are all here via video conference and as individuals.

Also by video conference we have, from the Council of the Haida Nation, Chief Nang Jingwas Russ Jones, hereditary chief. We also have, in person, from the Torngat Wildlife, Plants and Fisheries Secretariat, Dr. Jamie Snook, executive director.

Each organization or individual will be given five minutes for remarks, after which we will proceed to rounds of questions.

We'll get started with Dr. Anne Salomon and Kii'iljuus Barbara Wilson, Ruling Eagle Clan, for five minutes, please.

[K_ii'iljuus Barbara Wilson, Haida Scholar and Matriarch of the St'awaas X_aaydaG_a, Ruling Eagle Clan, Cumshewa, As an Individual]

Thank you for your efforts to improve Canada's government policy by including indigenous knowledge. We appreciate what you're attempting to do.

[Anne Salomon, Professor of Applied Marine Ecology and Social-Ecological System Science, As an Individual]

We're here to provide you with information, recommendations and encouragement. The work that you're doing here is going to be of great benefit to our country and to the world.

[K_ii'iljuus Barbara Wilson]

In our ancient ways, the natural and social sciences put food on our table and a roof over our heads. They supported travel, trade and treaties among distant nations. When they were incorrectly developed or poorly implemented, people died. We had and still have strong incentives and responsibilities to develop the knowledge and governance principles to sustain resilient relationships with the earth and all parts of our world.

On Haida Gwaii, Kil Yahda—or laws—of Yahguudang—respect, 'Laa guu ga _kanhllns—or responsibility—and Isda ad diigii isda —reciprocity—govern our relationship with all parts of our world.

Our halibut hooks, for example, were a specific size. They were big enough to let the juveniles escape and small enough to protect breeders. Conservation was built in. Naw náaGalang—octopus houses—were created to cultivate octopus for halibut bait and food in times of need.

A chief's responsibility requires that they uphold and respect the governance principles and protocols that support the relationships throughout their territory. This is an example of Giid tlljuus—balancing—the Gina 'waadluxan gud ad kwaagid —interconnection—among people, halibut, octopus and all other beings.

[Anne Salomon]

Indigenous nations across the Pacific developed a diversity of fishing and mariculture technologies, such as the octopus houses you just heard about from K_ii'iljuus, and clam gardens and fish ponds, all of which maintained the persistence of populations of a diversity of marine species. These technologies were tailor made in place, and they were developed through time based on careful observation and experimentation.

[K_ii'iljuus Barbara Wilson]

These examples inform our three recommendations to the standing committee.

One, indigenous sovereignty must be recognized in Canadian government policy development before the inclusion of indigenous knowledge. Canadian policies must not only include indigenous knowledge: They must also recognize indigenous rights and responsibilities to access resources and to manage them.

[Anne Salomon]

Indigenous knowledge can't be extracted from the people and processes that govern this knowledge. Just as evidence becomes legitimate through peer review in Eurocentric knowledge systems like the one I operate in, indigenous knowledge also is developed and governed through nation-specific protocols.

[K_ii'iljuus Barbara Wilson]

The second recommendation is to recognize diversity and sovereignty among knowledge systems. Each indigenous community generates and governs its own knowledge and laws specific to their social and ecological environments. Government policies need to reflect the unique context in which indigenous knowledge is generated and governed.

Indigenous and Eurocentric knowledge systems are inherently different. They cannot and should not be integrated or assimilated. Instead, they should be considered side by side.

[Anne Salomon]

Our third recommendation is that indigenous knowledge can be and should be used to develop solutions to contemporary challenges and crises. Today's challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and social inequities are by no means new, although their magnitude is certainly unprecedented. Indigenous communities have a long history of responding to extreme climatic events, ecological change and socio-political disruptions.

[K_ii'iljuus Barbara Wilson]

Our world is our basket. We need to trust that our food and our places are safe for future generations. When a basket has a hole in it, things leak out. We need the strong fibres of our knowledge woven together. For this reason, we have consulted the Iitl’lxaaydaGa—chiefs—and the k’uuljaad—matriarchs—for these recommendations, as they carry the knowledge, the responsibility and the caring for all parts of our world.

Háw'aa.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

That's great. Thanks to both of you for your presentation.

Now we'll go to Bruce Maclean, director of Maclean Environmental Consulting, for five minutes, please.

[Bruce Maclean, Director, Maclean Environmental Consulting, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Bruce Maclean.

I'm certainly very grateful for the opportunity to share some of my practical experiences with respect to these important questions in front of the committee.

I have spent approximately 20 years working with indigenous people and scientists on these very questions with a specific lens of environmental monitoring and management.

I have been leading development of indigenous community-based monitoring programs. These are designed using indigenous knowledge and elders' knowledge with science to understand impacts in the region. I work in bitumen exploitation, hydroelectric development and climate change.

I'm currently helping build what we're calling the Nipîy Tu Research & Knowledge Centre. It's a not-for-profit. It links Cree, Dene and Métis knowledge and people of Fort Chipewyan in Alberta with Parks Canada, and it's in the Wood Buffalo National Park area, which is also a UNESCO world heritage site.

The Nipîy Tu Research & Knowledge Centre is one of the first ventures that's going to co-manage a national park, applying what we're calling an integrated research and monitoring program. It employs indigenous and elders' knowledge together with science to inform park management. That is a unique approach.

I'd like to focus specifically on question number one in front of the committee, the use and integration of ITK into policy.

Because most of Canada's policies were intentionally or systematically designed, really, to exclude indigenous people from decision-making spaces, and now we're asking to acquire it for use, we need some extra steps to make up for that.

I have been employing something since about 2006. I call it a basic framework that looks at.... We're trying to build a foundation for meaningful involvement of indigenous people, not just their knowledge. I'm sure you've heard that already in front of the committee.

Capacity is at the heart of the issue. If you want to integrate ITK into policy, you somewhat need to invest in it at a reasonable level, at least somewhat towards what you do for science and technology.

What I'm saying is that building this capacity means having indigenous people existing in spaces to do this work and with the means to do the work. This implies training, core staff capacity, salaried people, honoraria of dollars to meet with elders, infrastructure and equipment, and data and data support.

A really good example of this would be the broad support for the first nations national guardians network. In the case of my work with Parks Canada, they've provided dollars for indigenous knowledge coordinator positions and direct contribution agreements, again for involvement, for people to exist in those spaces.

If you have capacity, then you need to work towards broad participation and open, transparent and effective communication. We're looking at, again, access to information, data, procedures and some plain language summaries. We're looking at protection of ITK and rules around its use as well as some kind of mediation process as you're getting started.

This is really the relationship phase. You need to be flexible in approach. You have to work at trust and building the rules so that you can explore the ITK collection and share. In the case of Parks Canada, with the nations, they developed an indigenous knowledge use and ownership agreement that was signed. There was support for task teams and working groups. This is building the bridge.

When you get to the point where you have people to do the work and the trust is built, this is when we do the collection and sharing of ITK. This brings up indigenous values and community sustainability. Going back to what I said earlier, the policies need to meet the nations' own vision for themselves. It's not just Crown and government. It's not industry. This looks at considering the unique needs of the indigenous communities and their values. We mentioned section 35 rights, or treaty and aboriginal rights where there are treaties.

Rather than integrating ITK, we're looking at a co-development of policy. In our case, the Nipîy Tu with Parks Canada are co-developing the monitoring programs: where to look, what to look for, when to look for it, how to manage data, how to assess findings and how to communicate findings. It's a braided approach.

With that foundation, once the homework is done, I strongly believe that indigenous groups will be able to be meaningfully involved in that policy co-development using their own knowledge.

To conclude, in the case of the work I've been doing with Nipîy Tu and Parks Canada, early capacity was given to communities and commitments were made up front to work on co-management. That means that the work was able to unfold.

Nations don't just share their ITK for someone else to use and interpret; their traditional knowledge becomes part of that meaningful process of self-determination. That's what I came here to share with you today.

Thank you very much for the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you for sharing.

Now we're going to the Council of the Haida Nation and Chief Nang Jingwas, Russ Jones, for five minutes.

Welcome to our committee.

[Chief Nang Jingwas Russ Jones, Hereditary Chief, Council of the Haida Nation]

Sii.ngaay ‘laa. Good day, everyone.

My name is Nang Jingwas, Russ Jones. I am one of the hereditary chiefs of the Haida Nation. I am joining you today from the village of Skidegate in Haida Gwaii on the west coast of Canada.

I have worked for first nations and the Council of the Haida Nation in the area of fisheries and marine policy for more than three decades.

I will briefly talk about my experience with incorporating Haida traditional knowledge into two collaborative initiatives involving the Haida Nation and Canada. The two projects were to develop a marine spatial plan for Haida Gwaii and to develop a rebuilding plan for Haida Gwaii herring.

The first project, the Haida Gwaii Marine Plan, was completed by the Haida Nation and the Province of British Columbia in 2015, and it is in its eighth year of implementation. Traditional knowledge was a major source of information in the development of the marine plan. I shared a copy of an academic paper with the standing committee, which describes the collaborative government-to-government process we went through to develop four marine spatial plans for northern coastal British Columbia. The marine spatial plans were co-developed by first nations and the Province of British Columbia. We used a nested approach to planning that started at the scale of first nations' territories.

The Haida Marine Traditional Knowledge Study was completed by the Haida Nation over three years, from 2008 to 2011, and prior to the formal start of planning. It involved marine chart-focused interviews with about 56 Haida. We recorded information and Haida knowledge about more than 4,000 locations and 150 marine species.

A few days ago, I provided a brief summary of our work to the standing committee, which we captured in a publicly available map of Haida Gwaii and in a brochure. The traditional knowledge studies supported the zoning and management direction in the marine plans. These plans were approved in 2015 after three years of intensive work with government and stakeholders. This work has also been contributing to the development of a marine protected area network for northern coastal British Columbia with the federal government.

Next I'll touch on the Haida Nation's work with Canada over the past five years to develop the Haida Gwaii herring rebuilding plan, which is in its final stages of approval.

The plan was co-operatively developed by the Haida Nation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Gwaii Haanas protected area staff. Haida traditional knowledge about herring was documented in a number of studies that were led or co-led by the Haida Nation. These are described in an appendix to the rebuilding plan, which I also provided to the standing committee.

Traditional knowledge, or TK, informed the establishment of reference points for fisheries management. These are target levels for rebuilding Haida Gwaii herring stocks based on ecological, economic and socio-cultural objectives. TK helped us understand spatial dynamics of stocks, and we adopted finer stock structure for management purposes in order to improve socio-cultural outcomes. TK led to a better understanding of the effects of fisheries, and we incorporated the lower impact of the commercial herring spawn-on-kelp fishery compared to the sac roe fishery in fisheries models. TK also documented ecosystem changes that may be a result of climate and predator changes. Finally, TK supports and informs co-management decision-making and reconciliation processes.

In closing, I'll touch on four of the lessons learned.

First, the two projects I mentioned required many years of discussion and negotiation, and they encountered many barriers before they came to fruition. They could have proceeded more quickly if there had been enabling policies and resources.

Second, barriers to the acceptance and use of TK can be addressed through collaborative governance processes that support the exploration and sharing of indigenous traditional knowledge and science. Key elements are forming relationships and developing trust between the partners. It helps the relationship to formalize key understandings and decision-making structures through written agreements.

Third, traditional knowledge studies are ideally led by indigenous groups. However, many indigenous groups lack resources and capacity to engage fully on resource development issues. This limits their potential for documenting and applying traditional knowledge in research and management

Lastly, traditional knowledge about ocean spaces provides an invaluable baseline for assessing changes in the marine environment that are of particular importance as we experience unprecedented climate-related changes.

[Witness spoke in Haida and provided the following text:]

Dii gii dalang gyuusdlas sGaawdaagii dalang Gaa hl kil 'laa ga.

[English]

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

That's great. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Finally, we will go to the Torngat Wildlife, Plants and Fisheries Secretariat and Dr. Jamie Snook, executive director, for five minutes.

Welcome.

[Jamie Snook, Executive Director, Torngat Wildlife Plants and Fisheries Secretariat]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and all members of this very important committee.

My name is Jamie Snook. I was born and raised in Labrador on the easternmost part of our country. These are traditional Innu and Inuit lands. Personally, I have both Inuit and settler ancestry, with my Inuit ancestry coming from the south coast of Labrador and the NunatuKavut Community Council. My settler roots came from England and settled in the southern region of Labrador.

I've spent my professional career working in indigenous and northern leadership, public services and municipal politics. For the past 15 years, I've been the executive director of the Torngat Wildlife, Plants and Fisheries Secretariat. This is the co-management organization that emerged from the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement that was settled in 2005. The area is now known as Nunatsiavut.

We're now approaching 20 years since that land claims agreement was signed. For context, there are 26 different comprehensive land claims agreements that have been settled in our country.

I wanted to bring attention to the extensive network of co-management boards in Canada, particularly across the north, which make substantial contributions to integrating indigenous science and western science. For people not familiar with these boards, they are generally similar, but there are nuanced differences based on the locations where and the time when they were negotiated, and what policies were being followed at the time. The first agreement, obviously, was negotiated in the early 1970s in Quebec.

In essence, these boards are made up of appointees from the federal government, provincial or territorial government and indigenous government. They are true intergovernmental collaborations, mandated through treaties.

In some circles, they are referred to as institutions of public government, but I like to emphasize that they are created through treaties with indigenous peoples. For example, for the boards that I work with, I like to emphasize that they are, and I refer to them as, Inuit co-management boards, to put them in their proper context.

If you could, envision a shared space where all of these appointees come together, work with the best available knowledge and reach consensus.

Despite the strengths of these co-management boards and the opportunities for their leadership and inclusion, their recommendations and decisions are often not implemented or used to their fullest potential in government decision-making.

This network of co-management boards has mandates, legitimacy, structure, funding and experience, and an immense amount of indigenous knowledge and science is utilized in these processes. Indigenous knowledge on these co-management boards comes in many different forms. These boards have indigenous knowledge holders appointed directly to their boards. Their work involves extensive community consultations and engagement with communities and rights holders, and there are often extensive hearings and legal processes.

These boards are also engaged in and lead research, and regularly complete indigenous knowledge studies to gather diverse forms of knowledge and ways of knowing.

Co-management boards across the north can play a significant role in making sound decisions that prioritize the health, well-being and culture of people, while supporting thriving ecosystems. All of this is happening by using both indigenous science and western science. Unfortunately, these co-management board decisions are often not implemented and are subject to ministerial discretion and final decision-making.

An interesting recent example of co-management decision-making and the integration of indigenous knowledge was captured in a recent court case between the Makivvik Corporation and the Government of Canada. In this case, Makivvik Corporation, which was representing Inuit in the Nunavik region, felt strongly about how knowledge was handled by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

This case ultimately happened because the minister overturned the board decision. I am asking committees like this one to question whether that overturned decision was necessary or if the decision should have been left to stand to respect the process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but we are about 30 seconds over time. Maybe we can work that into the question portion of our meeting.

[Jamie Snook]

Did you want me to finish or just hold for questions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

I think we will hold for questions because we're well over time, but thank you. You can submit what you have in front of you to the clerk for testimony.

We will move into our question period now.

We'll start off with Mr. Lobb for six minutes, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thanks to everybody for being here today. Whether it's in person or virtually, it's great.

My first question is for Mr. Maclean.

Going forward, looking back—whatever way you want to go about it—if you were developing a policy, whether for resource development or environmental assessment approaches, that tries to include the most rigorous standards possible for the environment but is open to resource development at the same time, if that's possible, what, in your view, is the most appropriate way to include traditional indigenous knowledge and marry that with science and technology in government policy?

[Bruce Maclean]

Thanks for the great question.

I would go back to building those spaces for indigenous people to exist with the means to answer those questions. I think of something like the standing up of the Canada water agency. This is an opportunity to hardwire spaces for indigenous people. I think the lesser policies can evolve from that, as long as you get it right at the foundation.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

You just mentioned about creating spaces. For creating meaningful spaces, what's the most appropriate way for government policy to create a meaningful place for the indigenous knowledge?

[Bruce Maclean]

Again, that's an awesome question.

First, involve knowledge-holders and elders throughout, from the building to the assessment to the evaluation to the decision-making.

Second, hold information sessions that allow for two-way dialogue. Going into northern communities or first nation communities, we often think that people want what people in the south want. They don't always, so you really need to park some preconceived notions of the outcome, really sit and listen and come away with something that you didn't expect.

Third, I would say to establish something like an ITK oversight body or something like a COSEWIC—something that we've tried before in other elements.

Those are three options I sat to think about to share with you today.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Ms. Wilson and Ms. Solomon, would you like to add to that?

[Anne Salomon]

Sure. I'll echo some of the topics that Bruce has brought up and I'll add.

Fundamentally, I think you need to ask first. The first thing you need to do to start building any relationship is ask for the interest and then the formal consent. That can only be given by specific people within a community, so you need to ask who the people are who make the decisions. Who are the leaders who give the consent to go ahead with an initiative that might be information gathering to support a particular policy?

In addition to that, one thing I've been taught to do is to really make sure that the information needs and the questions from community are front and centre. That's asking what those questions ought to be and what sorts of data we should start collecting together. That's just it; it's the initiation of the trust and the building of the relationships.

I would love to pass the mic to my collaborator, K_ii'iljuus Barbara Wilson, who taught me a lot of that.