Science and Research Committee on Feb. 13th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Now we'll move to Ms. Metlege Diab for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

Mr. Simon, you started to say that there's a new indigenous division. Would you please elaborate on that and tell us when it started, what it does and how you use indigenous traditional knowledge in the decision-making to develop policy?

[Patrice Simon]

Okay.

Maybe I'll go back a little bit.

Environment and Climate Change Canada has been working collaboratively to collect indigenous knowledge for quite some time. It was done on the part of western-trained scientists for some time. Then, over time, we got people who are more expert, like Dr. Henri, a social scientist, to really kind of focus on that but also help the rest of the group to do that.

I think it was about 12 months ago when an indigenous science group was started up, and it's still building. Directors and managers have been hired, as well as some research scientists. I have a bit of an element of their work plan; they're working on a diversity of things, not only on wildlife but also on ecosystem health, on predicting weather, on assisting in identifying targets for biodiversity objectives and these types of things.

The group is building up, and this is just to inform decisions by using various knowledge systems. For a long time, it was focused on western science, and we are developing more capacity to look at indigenous science to, again, inform policy and decisions based on these too.

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

Thank you.

Dr. Henri, can you tell us what you do and give us some examples specific to your work and what you do, just to give us an idea?

[Dr. Dominique Henri]

Certainly. I'll speak about polar bears for a moment.

For the past eight years, I've been engaged in a study working together with local hunters' and trappers' organizations based in Nunavut to collaboratively sit down to speak about the expertise that Inuit polar bear hunters have and that women specialized in polar bear hide cleaning have to write this knowledge down and to assess polar bear health using metrics and indicators that are used by hunters on the land, such as looking at polar bear bodies' condition, how many bears there are, how fat or how skinny they are, etc. At the end of the day, we write down all this evidence and we submit it to decision-makers and policy-makers who will establish, for example, polar bear harvesting quotas based on indigenous knowledge, based on the evidence we gathered through the study and based on western science as well.

As Patrice mentioned, under comprehensive land claims agreement areas up north, you have co-management systems whereby it is a mandated responsibility, mandated legislatively, to have indigenous knowledge and western science both included in the decision-making process, so that's where research supports the process.

I think this is a great model of how resources are invested to support the building of evidence from both sides. I think a key to the future of this approach is really to invest in capacity, as we are doing right now within ECCC with the indigenous science division. For a long time, western sciences have had a lot of voice, and I think it is imperative nowadays that indigenous sciences and knowledge systems have equally powerful voices in the research realm and in the policy realm.

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

How has the indigenous science changed what would have been done without it, in your opinion?

[Dr. Dominique Henri]

Are you asking me?

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

Yes, I am, because you're working on the ground with it.

[Dr. Dominique Henri]

Indigenous experts living in communities and travelling on the land offer year-round observations of ecological phenomena that are oftentimes carried and shared through generations. Often, western scientific studies offer snapshots in time, and inventories are conducted periodically but only during certain seasons, whereas indigenous hunters and experts are the eyes and the ears of the environment and the changes we see. Especially at a time of rapid climate change in the Arctic regions, I think people on the ground provide us with really in-depth expertise.

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

Ms. Johnson, I know you didn't get a chance. Can you tell us what you do in the department?

[Dr. Cheryl-Ann Johnson, Researcher, Wildlife Ecologist, Department of the Environment]

I work on species at risk. My main research is focused on generating the knowledge to inform recovery strategies and then the required monitoring that comes after you develop a recovery strategy or an action plan.

My experience with indigenous knowledge, like Dr. Henri's, has occurred mainly through partnerships with Inuit communities. I work with 10 different Inuit communities that are implicated in the recovery of Peary caribou, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, but we're at time.

Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas, go ahead for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses.

Mr. Simon, I carefully examined Bill C‑69, which would require your department to do a lot of work. The bill would ensure that indigenous experience or indigenous knowledge was taken into account under the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act.

You referred to two knowledge systems in your opening remarks, western science and indigenous science. The review process is different for the two systems. Could you explain the difference between knowledge that is acquired by a non-indigenous person and knowledge that is acquired by an indigenous person?

[Patrice Simon]

Thank you for your question.

I think the two systems are complementary. As Ms. Henri mentioned, indigenous science is based primarily on observations that people have made over generations. The sharing of knowledge is primarily done orally. Western scientific knowledge is based on academic studies, statistics and probabilities. The research often focuses on the same issues and leads to findings that can be observed. When we compare learning derived from the two systems, we understand them better.

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

I see.

I want to be sure I understand the review process. You said the two systems were completely different. That means the western scientific review process can't be applied to the indigenous knowledge system. From the western standpoint, knowledge is a statement that is true because it has been validated using generally accepted methods and is potentially available to any reasonable person, regardless of ethnic origin or nationality. There is no difference. That is the universal definition of knowledge.

What I'd like to understand is the indigenous standpoint. You said that doesn't apply to the indigenous system. How, then, do you validate indigenous knowledge?

In response to my fellow member's question, you said that indigenous people provide the evidence and that there is no consultation. If the existing scientific process doesn't apply, how do you go about validating the observations of indigenous people?

[Patrice Simon]

It can be done in different ways.

I'm going to ask my colleagues to answer that.

Ms. Johnson, can you provide any examples in relation to caribou?

[Dr. Cheryl-Ann Johnson]

I'm going to answer in English, if you don't mind.

It will be easier for me.

In one of the ways, we'll go through interviews and we'll have workshops. Through that process, a lot of information and knowledge are shared. One of the ways of making sure that our interpretations and representations of the knowledge that was shared with us are correct is by going back and having multiple interactions with people and doing a lot of work with indigenous groups and organizations.

It's all built on partnerships. You don't have just one meeting and then your job is done, right? You have this knowledge base, and then you go back and you make sure your interpretation is correct and that you're applying it correctly. Then, if you're wrong, you have to change it, based on the feedback you get.

That would be one example of the process we would use. It's iterative. We don't go back just twice. Sometimes it's three or four times.

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

I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Ms. Henri, you can provide some follow-up.

In the course of your experiments and observations, have you ever gone from thinking a hypothesis was plausible to realizing it was incorrect?

I'm referring to the verification process you mentioned. You consult and you ask questions. The aim of science is to establish whether a hypothesis is supported or not. It's completely different in this case. You say it's not possible to apply the existing verification process, so I'm trying to understand how you work out what's true and what's not. You say you consult people, but consulting people doesn't necessarily give you the ability to validate a hypothesis.

[Dr. Dominique Henri]

You're asking a very complex question, so I will try to answer. There are tremendous similarities between western and indigenous knowledge methods. For instance, as I mentioned, indigenous knowledge is based on observations. Repeated observations inform hypotheses. Only the methods are different. Hunters don't take notes when they go out hunting. They take notes up here. That is the basis for forming a hypothesis on the health of a specific animal population, say.

It's important to keep in mind that scientific thought is universal. It applies to all people, regardless of their ethnic origin. All science is based on observation, but the methods used can differ.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you. You're basically out of time.

Go ahead, Mr. Cannings, for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for being here today to tell us about this important topic.

I'm going to turn to Dr. Johnson, just because I think you've been cut off a couple of times and I want to give you more time to explain what you've done.

I've read that you've been in this position for a number of years, for 15 years or so, and I was involved in ecosystem recovery plans and species recovery plans back in the late nineties and early 2000s. This concept of bringing in indigenous knowledge was in its infancy in policy terms. When I was on COSEWIC, there was some very slow progress in that regard.

I wonder if you could expand on what you do now and what you've seen over the years as you've been working in this space. What trajectory are we on? Is it a good one? What have we learned?

[Dr. Cheryl-Ann Johnson]

I would say that things have definitely changed over the years.

Going back to one of the earlier questions, when I first started working on Peary caribou, it was somewhat unique. In the published scientific literature, North America has been criticized with respect to some of its recovery objectives for species at risk, because the bar is set too low to allow for indigenous rights, etc. One thing we did with Peary caribou is set the recovery objective for the species in partnership with our Inuit partners. If you look at the Peary caribou recovery strategy and those recovery objectives, you'll see that there's a specific statement in there that speaks to allowing sustainable Inuit harvests. It's about maintaining populations not at the minimum to prevent them from going extinct but at a higher level to allow Inuit communities to harvest those populations. That's one example of where we set the bar a bit higher.

We've continued to build on that. For example, identification of critical habitat—the habitat you want to protect for species at risk—has partially been fulfilled for Peary caribou. Peary caribou have to move between islands, so sea ice is a very important part of their habitat. For some people, it's a little difficult to make that relationship between sea ice and habitat, but it is habitat for them. There is no western science to inform where these species move between islands. The protection and identification of that critical habitat in terms of sea ice is based solely on Inuit knowledge. That is their contribution.

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

To follow up on that, I remember hearing one anecdote about western science saying that Peary caribou had suffered a catastrophic decline, while indigenous knowledge said no, they just went to another island or crossed into another area. That sort of knowledge was indispensable in getting the real picture. Is my recollection accurate?

[Dr. Cheryl-Ann Johnson]

I would say that this is still debatable, but it goes back to a point Patrice made earlier: It's the complementarity of the two knowledge systems. The Arctic is very hard to monitor and survey for animals, and it's very expensive, so our information about Peary caribou numbers is sporadic at best. If you combine that with people who have been on the land, are intimately aware of this species and have a long-term knowledge of trends, you get a much better sense of how numbers have changed over time, and why.