Science and Research Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[Hugo Asselin, Full professor and Director, l'École d'études autochtones, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, As an individual]

Thank you, meegwetch.

Good morning, kwe.

My name is Hugo Asselin, and I'm a full professor and director of the l'École d'études autochtones at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue. I have been working in collaboration with indigenous communities and organizations for nearly 20 years on a variety of topics and on a multidisciplinary and intercultural approach.

Today, I am pleased to present to you a summary of a knowledge synthesis published earlier this year and conducted by a research team of which I was a member, funded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec and conducted by my colleague Émilie Deschênes, who is also a professor at the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue. I have already sent you an abridged report of just under 10 pages, but if you want more details, the full 88‑page report is available free of charge through the university's institutional repository. I sent the contact information to the committee staff.

In this project, we conducted a review of written and oral data, from indigenous and non‑indigenous sources, from scientific literature and other sources, as well as transcripts of interviews of witnesses, experts and calls to action from the major commissions of inquiry in recent years. We have also had exchanges with indigenous experts in education, health and urban reality, as well as with representatives of the Government of Quebec, in connection with indigenous affairs, health, education, justice and agriculture.

Our research has been guided by three themes: issues, success factors, and inspiring practices for knowledge mobilization in indigenous public policy development. We considered all stages of the knowledge mobilization process, which is important to mention: the production and sharing of knowledge, the selection of the knowledge that will be used, its ownership and, finally, its use and mobilization in the development of public policy.

We established a diagnosis of the current situation and we defined a desired situation, based on the review of the literature and discussions with experts. With respect to the current situation, we have made four main findings, which I will summarize.

First, research knowledge flows one way, from producers to policy‑makers and then to policy recipients. Indigenous peoples, who are the recipients in this case, have few opportunities to participate in the production, selection and mobilization of knowledge. In a way, knowledge is being imposed on them.

Second, the mobilization process is primarily consultative, whereas it should be based on co‑construction. Rather than just seeking the opinion of indigenous peoples, often when it's a little too late, we have to work upstream and always with them.

Third, policy‑making is based almost exclusively on academic research knowledge. Co‑production of knowledge with indigenous communities is unfortunately still rare.

Fourth, the links between producers, users, and recipients are weak. As a result, the intermediate steps of mobilization, that is to say the sharing, selection and appropriation of knowledge, are less effective. It's more complicated.

In terms of the desired situation, we have identified a few potential solutions, which I will list for you, in no particular order. First, reciprocity, openness, cultural humility and dialogue are essential conditions without which the rest of the work cannot be done.

Next, we need to have a relationship that goes both ways, and we need to consider scientific and indigenous knowledge on an equal footing, as we heard earlier, by favouring the dual‑perspective approach. The process must be led by, for and with indigenous peoples and authorities at all stages, with a view to self‑determination—which is very important—and in compliance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Traditional governance and consultation, research and ethics protocols developed by indigenous governments must be accommodated.

Moreover, it's not enough to simply adapt existing policies; they must be overhauled in a co‑building approach. Preventive policies that address problems at the source must also be encouraged, rather than being reactive and applying temporary solutions without preventing recurrence of problems. At the same time, it's important to look at history and context and not impose one‑size‑fits‑all solutions.

Indeed, we must not model approaches for indigenous peoples on the basis of those for other groups. You have to look at all indigenous groups as different. The approach must be inclusive and not limited to working with the chief or band council. We even have to go and see marginalized groups, such as women, the elderly and young people.

We have to take a holistic view, look at the interactions between policies and departments, assess issues in a comprehensive and long-term way. Indigenous people must be included in the staff of policy departments and included in all decision-making structures. We must provide sufficient support for initiatives at all stages of the process and always have the objective of reducing inequalities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you for your presentation.

Now we go over to the Canadian Mountain Network and Braiding Knowledges Canada. We have Joe Dragon and Monique Dubé.

I believe, Mr. Dragon, that you are going to start us off.

[Dr. Joe Dragon, Chairman, Board of Directors, Canadian Mountain Network/Braiding Knowledges Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Member spoke in the Denesuline language and provided the following translation:]

Hello. My name is Joseph Ignace David Dragon. I live in the Northwest Territories. We call our land Denendeh.

I am Dene, a descendent of the Denesuline, the people of the land. My mother is Jane Mercredi Dragon, who made the gift for you today. Mahsi. My father is David Pascal Dragon.

Mahsi for having us today.

The Canadian Mountain Network is a network of centres of excellence that began in 2019, pioneering ethical and equitable ways of conducting natural science that respect indigenous peoples, leading to better scientific and community outcomes.

CMN has submitted a proposal to the strategic science fund to formalize a transition to Braiding Knowledges Canada next spring at the conclusion of its NCE—network of centres of excellence—five-year term. The results of this competition will determine the next steps in planning, commencing this fall.

In only four years of operation, CMN has led groundbreaking research in the braiding of western and indigenous knowledge that has positioned Canada with an increased understanding of climate and biodiversity crises.

CMN was the first NCE to fund indigenous-led research, with 60% of the projects being indigenous-led or co-led, involving over 200 collaborators, 200 partner organizations and 43 universities in Canada.

Having recognized the historical devaluation of methodologies that do not match western research approaches, indigenous peoples have made a clear and repeated call for the federal government to respect and reflect indigenous ways of knowing, doing and being.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments are working to achieve this inclusion; however, inequities, exclusions and partialities persist because of the complexity of the challenge and, more fundamentally, because federal mandates and priorities must, by definition, be national in origin, scope and accountability. Indigenous knowledge and practices are often not reflected in research and decision-making in Canada, which are primarily influenced by conventional colonial science approaches, non-indigenous governance practices and economic drivers.

The ethical alignment of federal responsibilities with place-based and self-determined indigenous knowledge represents a defining question of Crown-indigenous relations in Canada.

Mr. Chair, it is both a challenge and an opportunity for reconciliation. Increasing the presence of local indigenous knowledge at the national level and national impact at the local level is how Braiding Knowledges Canada, the evolution and expansion of CMN beyond the Canadian mountain regions, will offer value to indigenous communities and the Government of Canada. We have demonstrated that research organizations can facilitate reconciliation through research and can help the Government of Canada successfully implement many measures outlined in the June 2023 UNDRIP action plan.

CMN has shifted mindsets and is building understanding by creating ethical spaces for knowledge co-production, a critical contribution to Canada’s commitment to reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

We’ve invested over $10 million in research and partnerships nationwide that combine natural, health and social sciences with humanities and place-based knowledge to address knowledge gaps and improve policy outcomes, including indigenous-protected and indigenous-conserved areas, or IPCAs; indigenous stewardship of bison restoration in Alberta; recovery of caribou in the central Rockies; reassertion of indigenous place names in the north; the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in transboundary Yukon salmon agreements; the inclusion of Mi’kmaq knowledge of aquatic ecosystems in Quebec; and community-based monitoring of climate and health in Nunatsiavut.

Mr. Chair, there is a need for experienced non-profits like ours—non-profits that are supported by first nations, Inuit and Métis researchers and communities and non-indigenous contributors to the research ecosystem—to facilitate linkages between indigenous-led, place-based, community-driven research and various cross-cutting federal priorities.

Following an organizational expansion, we can offer the collaborative space and opportunity for federal departments to connect with local knowledge and initiatives in a streamlined, meaningful and impactful way.

Our model has proven to be agile, yet very complementary in achieving a rapid success to date across disciplines and in achieving the support of federal, provincial and territorial governments.

Marsi, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Dragon.

Now, for our six-minute rounds of questions, we'll start with Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to direct my questions to Mr. Dragon.

Give my regards to Jane. I think about her frequently.

In academia, there's the term “publish or perish”, and the publication process is very much predicated on a very strict peer review process. The same thing goes for the granting process.

I'm really curious to get a little bit of insight on how you and your network interact with that process and try to braid indigenous knowledge with the peer review process. I don't have a lot of time, but if you have a recommendation for the committee on that, I think it would be important.

[Dr. Joe Dragon]

I was thinking about this. Having gone through the western academic system to get a Ph.D. studying caribou, I had to prove that I had the credentials to be in that type of government position as a wildlife biologist. From an indigenous perspective, I think when I first got that proof....

You mentioned publishing. Well, my proof was when I was 10 years old and shot my first moose. With my father, I had to go through and be able to process that whole moose by myself. Now, it was a cow moose; I didn't have any antlers or anything to show, but my great-aunt made me a shell bag out of the ears, and that was my proof. That was my cultural proof.

I keep on learning. Now I pass it on to my generations. I have my daughter here, and her brothers are now going through that process. That's how we teach in our culture, but we don't need to publish it; it's a part of who we are.

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

Maybe you can tell my son-in-law the same thing. He just forgot that he needed a truck after he attempted to harvest a deer last week. Now he's shamed on the record. I've feel like I've done my part.

Maybe what I'll do, just because I don't have a lot of time.... I do think that it's important for the committee to understand that intersection point between the research funding process, the peer review process, the publication process and the incorporation of indigenous traditional knowledge. With the time that we have, do you have any specific recommendations on how to accomplish that? If not, would you be willing to perhaps table something with the committee or reach into the broader network with that question being asked?

[Dr. Joe Dragon]

It's a really good question. As an indigenous scientist, I had a hard time actually....

This idea of publishing is very hard in the indigenous culture, because everything changes. Once you put it on paper, then it becomes real, just like that, but in our culture, we experience it all of the time—such as the effects of climate change.

Dr. Dubé, who has published a lot, would really be able to comment on the idea of braiding.

Marsi.

[Dr. Monique Dubé, Executive Director, Canadian Mountain Network/Braiding Knowledges Canada]

There are many indigenous academic scholars who face this challenge all of the time. Those scholars live, every day, the challenge of publish or perish. One of them is a co-research director with our network.

I think what is important is to understand that these academic scholars need to be supported to change requirements with respect to tenure, understanding that when you are braiding knowledges or when you're publishing indigenous knowledge, relationships and time.... It takes time and it takes attention, in that a colonial system requires a deeper look.

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

I spent time in academic research administration. One thing I noticed is that sometimes when you get in a “publish or perish” silo or you're chasing a grant in a certain silo, it really precludes you or the community that is working on the problem from looking for alternative solutions or looking at an approach to a problem in a different way.

Is there anything you're working on in your network right now that you could point to for the committee as something you actually looked at from an indigenous traditional knowledge perspective, and it led you to open up a new area of research? I think it's really important to show successes.

Would you like to expand on that line of thinking? I think it's something this committee needs to consider as we're going through this study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

We have about 50 seconds, so you have some time.

[Dr. Joe Dragon]

I'll start, and then Monique....

I think one of the important lessons learned in this initiative that we've done is that you can't make indigenous science so that it's right across Canada. You have to look at the communities that are asking for the science and are being involved in it.

I can give you my perspective as a Denesuline citizen. I'm Dene, but even within the Northwest Territories, there are 12 different languages. There are 12 different cultures. There are so many areas that they're looking at that you have to go deeper into that conversation and actually ask the people from their specific region how they want to be involved. Then, all you have to do is bring that indigenous conversation up—not asking to be different, just asking to come up to the table. That's all.

Marsi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

That's beautiful. Thank you. Meegwetch.

We'll go to Ms. Metlege Diab for six minutes, please.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here this afternoon.

I want to thank your daughter Olivia—and you, Dr. Dragon, and your mother as well—for the beautiful gift that you've presented to everybody here in the room today. I notice it's braided as well.

Just talking about braiding, can you give us a bit more information on the concept of braiding as it relates to climate? You talked about climate and biodiversity crises, so it's about climate action.

It's to you, Dr. Dragon, or to you, Madame Dubé.

[Dr. Joe Dragon]

I'll start and then I'll pass it over.

It's on purpose, the braiding. It was mentioned earlier that it makes it stronger. However, if you look at the braid, and you're holding it, you can see that there are very distinct pieces of yarn that make up that braid.

I hear “blend” lots of times. Our knowledge, the ability for us to be a part of this conversation, is within our indigenous being, and that is separate. It's different, and it has just as much value as western science.

This braiding, making it stronger, is the opportunity for us to give that lens that we need to be able to provide an opportunity to see science from a different perspective, and then we can make good decisions on that science.

I'll turn it over.

Marsi.

[Dr. Monique Dubé]

An example is that the Klinse-Za caribou herd in northeastern Alberta and British Columbia was on the verge of extirpation. Provincial and federal governments, and their management practices, were unsuccessful in sustaining that herd. We funded research that was led by Clayton Lamb at the University of British Columbia and Chief Roland Willson, who is with West Moberly First Nations. They have quadrupled the size of that herd through the braiding of indigenous and western knowledge, working together to recommend management practices with respect to the reclamation of linear features, which we know is a significant issue with energy development and other development.

That is an an example of how the power of the knowledges together has advanced a significant issue with respect to caribou abundance in an area of Canada, with the objective of eventually establishing a harvest to re-establish the rights to harvest caribou.

In my experience as a scientist in Canada, rarely do I see the science transform into management practices to mitigate impacts on rights in terms of re-establishing the right. In this case, it is to harvest caribou.

That is an example of the power of braiding.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'm learning a lot from this particular study. It's not one that I was familiar with, particularly all of the terminology that's been used. I'm going to relate it to another study that we did earlier on in our mandate, which was about citizen scientists.

We heard from many witnesses on the importance of getting knowledge from the local community. In your own words, right now you talked about experienced non-profits facilitating linkages.

I want to give you the opportunity to advocate a bit more for the need for this type of knowledge and what the Government of Canada needs to do. Also, what are the linkages between the different levels of government, academia, perhaps business and so on?

[Dr. Joe Dragon]

Thank you for the question.

When you look at the opportunity to do this in a collaborative and inclusive space, when you're bringing in academia, when you're bringing in indigenous organizations and groups that want to be a part of these types of initiatives, I can tell you that the relationship the government has had with indigenous people has not been great. That initial reach-out of being involved in research, when you have western scientists coming on our lands, poking and prodding and then leaving, and then maybe sending a report later on saying what they've found in language that does not mean anything to the community member, is not a real relationship. That's just sharing information.

The opportunity that we have—it was mentioned earlier by one of your presenters—is that if we create the space with appropriate funding to be able to allow indigenous peoples to be in this conversation, I think you're going to be able to find value in that. We have very good evidence so far in a very small sample size. We're only talking five years. That's why we're looking at having it expand.

Holistically, if you're looking at it, we started this project in the mountains, but what we really found very quickly was it transcends beyond mountains, so we needed to include more in the conversation so that more of this voice could be heard.

As was mentioned earlier, it has to be funded. The studies we're doing in these remote locations are very expensive and cost-prohibitive. You have to be able to align that conversation.

The Canadian Mountain Network has provided an access point for people to come in and start. It's just starting.

Marsi.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Great. Thank you both.

We'll go to Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to welcome the witnesses who are joining us for this second hour of study.

Mr. Asselin, thank you for joining us. You are the director of the École d'études autochtones at the Université du Québec en Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. I read some of your interviews. In them, you mention in particular that the university is well positioned to generate meaningful dialogue between Quebeckers and first nations.

Can you tell us more about the role that the university can play in bringing indigenous and non‑indigenous people together?

[Hugo Asselin]

Thank you.

Indeed, the university offers this opportunity to bring indigenous and non‑indigenous people together in the same class or in the same research projects, and to do this braiding of knowledge that we've been talking about for a while.

That's what we do at the École d'études autochtones, a unique multidisciplinary school in Quebec. We aren't a school of anthropology or sociology; we're a school of indigenous studies. The programs we develop and the research projects we conduct are dictated by the indigenous partners we have in the jurisdictions or communities, and we conduct them with indigenous people.

So it's really important to always have collaboration from start to finish and, as we've been saying since the beginning of the meeting, to consider indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge on an equal footing. That knowledge is not generated in the same way, but it has the same value. In both cases, empirical knowledge is generated by trials and errors, more or less. It's still the same principle, even if the approach is a little different.

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

Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

You say that traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge must be put on an equal footing, but how can we separate the beliefs from knowledge?

I really believe that indigenous knowledge can add to western science, but how do you actually untangle that and come up with a scientific process that is valid on both sides?

[Hugo Asselin]

It's very important. Earlier, in response to a similar question, Ms. Salomon raised some important points.

First of all, we must avoid always thinking that indigenous knowledge must be validated by science. Otherwise, you would have to accept that indigenous knowledge validates the science, and that constant reciprocal validation would become ridiculous. So we really have to consider what we're talking about.

The difference between belief and proven knowledge is easily found by talking to several people. If I talk to one indigenous person and they tell me one thing, it's anecdotal information, and I don't know the veracity or the value. However, if I talk to 10, 20 or 30 indigenous people who are recognized by their peers as experts in a given field and they all tell me the same thing, we're dealing with a widespread knowledge that has a value comparable to scientific data.

Similarly, if you carry out just one scientific experiment, in which you make a mistake, and not out of dishonesty, you can make mistakes for a long time if you just rely on that one experience, until someone tries to replicate the initial experiment and realizes that the results were wrong. So it's always a matter of repeating and multiplying knowledge and evidence that the right ground is found.

People in the natural sciences often make the mistake of thinking that the social sciences are based on a simple talking point, but that's incorrect. It's by talking to a number of people, as I've just explained, that we develop knowledge. If this knowledge is shared by a lot of experts, you either accept that it's valid or you decide that it's a conspiracy and that these people agreed before meeting with me to tell me the same lie. Once again, I'm demonstrating this by the absurd, but it's clear that there are plenty of concrete examples of this knowledge.

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

Thank you, Mr. Asselin.

What is done to separate western science from indigenous knowledge when the two contradict each other? If it happens in the context of a legislative process, is there a knowledge hierarchy that needs to be established?

[Hugo Asselin]

I don't think there's a hierarchy. The first thing to do is to listen to one another and, if there is a difference, to ask why. We also have to ask ourselves how the measures were established on each side or how the information was generated.

Let me give you a concrete example. A few years ago, in the Northwest Territories, if I remember correctly, government surveys showed that a caribou herd had disappeared. There was an uproar. People wondered what had happened and whether the caribou had been wiped out. Indigenous people in that area said that they hadn't disappeared, but had migrated to another location, which is uncommon. Indigenous people had to repeat this explanation several times before government employees flew by helicopter over the precise spot designated by the indigenous people and found the caribou herd. No caribou were missing.

Sometimes we have to admit that one of the two methods was wrong. In my example, science was wrong, but sometimes it's indigenous knowledge. No one is perfect. When there are discrepancies, the idea is to conduct separate audits to try to determine where the error is. Normally, if there is a phenomenon, there should be a convergence.