Evidence of meeting #73 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 systems.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Do you work on other caribou populations, such as the Porcupine herd or boreal caribou? Is it the same kind of situation?
Researcher, Wildlife Ecologist, Department of the Environment
I worked on boreal, and it was not the same. It was very different.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
In what way was it different? Was it in terms of indigenous knowledge and uses?
Researcher, Wildlife Ecologist, Department of the Environment
When I originally started working with boreal caribou, probably about 10 years ago, there was some discussion about how we might weave indigenous knowledge into the process of developing the knowledge base for boreal caribou recovery. There was some discussion with indigenous partners, because the boreal herd is huge and involves a whole bunch of different indigenous people—Métis and Inuit. Not everyone agreed on how indigenous knowledge could be part of the recovery process, so it was different. With Peary caribou, it was very clear. Everybody agreed.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Thank you, Mr. Cannings, for your in-depth questions.
Thanks, Dr. Johnson, for being able to provide your experience.
I'll thank Patrice Simon, as well as Dominique Henri for her expertise at this meeting, where we're discussing the integration of indigenous traditional knowledge with government policy development. If there's any further information, please submit it.
We will be suspending for our next panel of witnesses. We have three witnesses online, and two out of three sound checks have been done. We're going to try to do this turnaround quickly so we can get into our next panel.
For now, Mr. Lobb, hang on and we'll be with you shortly.
Witnesses, again, thank you for your contribution.
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
We'll continue with this part of the meeting. We do have committee business after this session, which is scheduled for 30 minutes, so we may have to cut into that a little bit with the indulgence of the committee.
Welcome back.
I will remind those of you participating virtually to speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available. You can choose, at the bottom of your screen, either “floor”, “English” or “French”. If interpretation is lost, please let me know, and we will pause while we get that sorted out.
Two of our witnesses have successfully completed their sound checks. The technical staff will continue to work with the third one to get that sorted out.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, September 18, 2023, the committee resumes its study on the integration of indigenous traditional knowledge and science in government policy development.
It's my pleasure now to welcome, as an individual, Danika Littlechild, assistant professor at Carleton University.
We also welcome, from the Tlicho Government, Tammy Steinwand-Deschambeault, who is the director of the department of culture and lands protection.
We also have, from the Government of the Northwest Territories, Heather Sayine-Crawford, director of the wildlife management division.
You will each have five minutes for your remarks, and then we'll go to our rounds of questions.
We'll start with Danika Littlechild.
Danika Littlechild Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
[Witness spoke in Cree]
My name is Danika Littlechild, and I'm a member of the Ermineskin Cree Nation, the Neyaskweyahk of Maskwacis, in treaty 6 territory in Alberta. I'm an assistant professor at Carleton University in the department of law and legal studies.
I believe that the committee has already received a lot of testimony communicating the what and why of indigenous knowledge. My testimony will not attempt to define indigenous knowledge for the committee. I believe that indigenous peoples themselves ought to be able to define what indigenous knowledge means to them in a self-determined and autonomous way. Instead, my testimony will focus on making recommendations related to how we could integrate indigenous knowledge and science into government policy development.
My central recommendation is that the committee propose the development of a formalized mechanism or mechanisms, possibly legislated, that provide autonomy to indigenous peoples in design and substance.
I have participated in many standard-setting processes, including law and policy development in Canada and internationally. In my experience, the methodology that produces the most constructive and useful advice is one that is indigenous-led. For example, the indigenous circle of experts under the Pathway to Canada Target 1 had autonomy over the report and recommendations they produced, which has led to a proliferation of indigenous-protected and conserved areas in Canada, and I would say that it has influenced conservation policy significantly.
One of the exemplars of how to accomplish the inclusion of indigenous knowledge in government policy comes from Alberta. In 2016, the Government of Alberta legislated monitoring and reporting requirements that included establishing parallel advisory panels to advise the chief scientist and the Government of Alberta on Alberta's environmental science program. There is a science advisory panel and, in addition, a wisdom advisory panel that advises the chief scientist and the GOA regarding how to respectfully apply traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous wisdom to Alberta's environmental science program.
I provided support and facilitation for the indigenous wisdom advisory panel mandate and roles document that provided a framework to accomplish appropriate advice. I've attached that document to this presentation.
A long-standing international exemplar comes from the Convention on Biological Diversity, to which Canada is a party. It is the first and longest-standing formalized mechanism for the inclusion and integration of indigenous knowledge. The fact that this is a legal obligation has led to very rich standard-setting outcomes around indigenous knowledge that have shaped international policy on biodiversity as well as many other fields of work internationally.
I recommend that the committee utilize existing legislation such as the implementation framework around the right to a healthy environment under section 5.1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which provides for ministerial advisory bodies. I would also recommend that the committee characterize this work as supporting the implementation of the Government of Canada's United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan 2023 to 2028.
In conclusion, I would say that this process is not about mainstream science trying to master indigenous knowledge and indigenous science. We do not want to create onerous burdens on existing and future mainstream scientists to try to learn indigenous knowledge systems. I wouldn't ask a scientist to spend three days with me to teach me about a scientific concept, then walk away saying that I had mastered the science behind it. Just as mainstream scientists spend lifetimes mastering their fields of work, so indigenous knowledge holders similarly spend lifetimes learning and becoming knowledge keepers on their lands and waters. My recommendation is that the committee express their respect for the multiplicity of knowledge systems in play and avoid creating artificial binaries—us and them—or circumstances where we're asking one knowledge system to legitimize another when they have no understanding of it.
The idea here is to simply elevate indigenous knowledge systems to a position where they can influence and shape the development of government policy and review existing government policy.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Thank you, Ms. Littlechild.
Before we go to our next witness, Ms. Steinwand-Deschambeault, the technical team is trying to get in touch with you. Please have your phone handy so they can try to sort out the technical issues.
We'll now go to Heather Sayine-Crawford for five minutes.
Heather Sayine-Crawford Director, Wildlife Management Division, Government of the Northwest Territories
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
I have the privilege of working in wildlife management in the Northwest Territories. I work in a field that brings out a lot of passion. I work side by side with a wide range of people who truly care about wildlife and the decisions we are making for conservation. I'm extremely happy to be working in a system that includes and values indigenous knowledge and perspectives in wildlife management and conservation.
The GNWT—the Government of the Northwest Territories—exercises its responsibility for the stewardship and management of wildlife and wildlife habitat through a well-established co-management regime that provides direct involvement of indigenous governments and indigenous organizations. This co-management regime is implemented in conjunction with a broader GNWT traditional knowledge policy, which requires the GNWT to consider available traditional knowledge in all environmental management actions and decisions.
Here in the NWT we have co-management boards or renewable resources boards, which have already been talked about. They have been established as the main instruments of wildlife management in areas where land claims have been settled. There are four such wildlife co-management boards set up under four separate land claim and self-government agreements in the NWT.
Outside of those settled land claim areas, we work in the spirit of co-management to ensure the input and involvement of other indigenous governments and indigenous organizations in wildlife management.
The Government of the Northwest Territories has two pieces of legislation that provide tools to help conserve wildlife and its habitat: the Wildlife Act and the Species at Risk (NWT) Act. Both pieces of legislation were co-drafted over a number of years, using a collaborative working group process that included participation by indigenous governments with settled land claims and their established co-management boards, as well as indigenous governments and indigenous organizations that did not have finalized land, resources or self-government agreements.
This approach led to legislation that is based on collaboration and legislation that recognizes and respects aboriginal and treaty rights as well as the spirit and intent of land claim agreements. Both the Wildlife Act and the Species at Risk Act formally recognize and put traditional knowledge and science on an equal footing.
What this means in reality is that the processes we undertake recognize the value of having open, informed discussions about wildlife management approaches. That may mean being presented with concerns or divergent views on an issue such as harvest quotas. The co-management system allows for discussion based on the best available local, traditional and scientific knowledge, and open and frank discussions on what can be done to address an issue and the possible implications of those actions.
One unique approach we have taken in the NWT involves our species status reports and approach to assessing species under consideration for listing under the Species at Risk Act.
As part of the NWT's process, species status reports are produced by a species at risk committee. They include two parts: an indigenous knowledge component and a scientific knowledge component. Each section represents a consolidation of the best available information within the scope of each knowledge system. The preparation of each status report is guided by separate instructions tailored to each knowledge system. Trying to amalgamate the two knowledge systems tends to compromise the interpretation and accuracy of the information.
In the next step of the process to consider possible listing, side-by-side or dual species assessments are conducted, one based on indigenous knowledge and the other based on scientific knowledge. Each knowledge system's specific assessment is informed by the respective component of the status report. This structure helps ensure that each knowledge system's autonomy, uniqueness and validity are represented and respected.
Key highlights from this dual assessment process include knowledge-specific criteria that are considered one knowledge system at a time. All members of the committee, regardless of the knowledge system that best represents their expertise, participate throughout the process, thereby allowing experts in different fields to learn from one another. The final species assessment can be supported by criteria from either or both knowledge systems as appropriate. We can expect the knowledge-specific assessments to sometimes contain different results. For example, one could say “special concern” while the other says “threatened”. There are no steps in the dual assessment process intended to prevent these differences. Rather, the process is designed to encourage respectful conversation among committee members who represent a diversity of world views and who are committed to working together for the species.
In addition to these examples, the NWT also uses a wide range of collaborative forums and processes in which the GNWT participates with other co-management partners as one voice at the table. Examples include a number of caribou management boards, such as the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board, the Bathurst Caribou Advisory Committee and the Porcupine Caribou Management Board. These boards bring together biologists and indigenous knowledge holders from indigenous governments, indigenous organizations and the GNWT, working together to share what they know, to determine herd status and to identify management actions to support herd management. Being equipped with both sets of knowledge and world views helps these boards to make better decisions that reflect the values and realities of the NWT.
Mahsi cho for your time today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
That's great. Thank you. You're right on time as well.
We're still having trouble getting hold of Ms. Steinwand-Deschambeault. We haven't been able to resolve the technical issues, so we will go to our round of questioning as we continue to try to get in touch with Ms. Steinwand-Deschambeault.
For the first six minutes, it's over to Mr. Tochor. Go ahead, please.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all our witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Littlechild, I did some reading on your work. The one topic I'd like you to expand on for the benefit of the committee and for the report is your writing on ethical space. Could you elaborate a bit on that for the committee?
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Certainly.
Ethical space is a concept that was coined by a mainstream philosopher, actually, in the sixties, which was then adapted by Cree scholar Willie Ermine, who published a few documents about it. It was further adapted and practised by elders Reg and Rose Crowshoe of Piikani in treaty 7 territory. It's from them that I learned the practice of ethical space, which is essentially a different methodological approach to understanding how to co-create new relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.
One of the things that ethical space asks us to do is to reassess our own positionality relative to various issues, and it tries to give an elevation to indigenous systems without being interfered with by the mainstream. In other words, ethical space is not about trying to adapt to mainstream systems to fit indigenous knowledge or indigenous systems, which are often oral or verbal systems, not written systems, and it also talks collaboratively about the different kinds of standards that will be reflected in the dialogue and interaction between the parties.
Ethical space also provides room for diversity of knowledge systems. In other words, it isn't about creating that binary idea that I was talking about earlier, the idea that all indigenous knowledge is one. There's a reason that there is an “s” at the end of “peoples” in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That “s” took 11 years to negotiate, and the reason it's there is that we are not a homogeneous group—we have a high level of diversity, and ethical space really calls upon us to recognize that diversity.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Just to follow up on that, is there an area in society or in government policy where you feel that the concept of ethical space could really be a game-changer for Canada?
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I certainly think that there's an interest and a willingness on the part of many federal departments with which I have engaged over the past several years to work in a construct like ethical space to co-develop new policy.
Certainly, I have engaged with Parks Canada and with ECCC, and I believe that a lot of foundational work has already been done. I mentioned some of the legislation that I think is relevant to this conversation, but also, I think we have reached this critical juncture where we're talking about the implementation of a framework like the UN declaration, which has been described by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada as “the framework for reconciliation”.
We have this existing set of standards that I think we can draw upon and on which the Canadian government has already legislated quite a bit. I believe there is a lot of infrastructure already in place that we can utilize to engage with this type of approach.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
In my remaining time, I'll ask a question of Ms. Sayine-Crawford.
I can go back to years ago when I was first elected. Different things in government policy were burdensome, and there was red tape that just didn't make a lot of sense. Is there an approach in some of the indigenous practices and knowledge that we can relay back to government to say to them, “Okay, you have good intentions here, but actually, you're completely wasting your time, and this is a better approach to take for the natural environment and for society as a whole?”
Director, Wildlife Management Division, Government of the Northwest Territories
Thanks for that question.
I was happy, actually, in listening to the last session, that there were some questions about the species at risk process, because I'd planned on giving some evidence on what we've done here in the NWT and on taking a different approach in working with people and hearing the problems people had specifically around the species at risk assessment process.
We were finding that it was an overly technical assessment process that indigenous knowledge didn't fit into. Our processes have been heavily informed by the IUCN and COSEWIC processes. Once we started working through that and sitting at the table with traditional knowledge holders and experts, they started saying, “This doesn't work for us. How do we change it?”
Sitting and working together, understanding each other's point of view and working to change the system to make sure we all have an equal footing—those relationships, those discussions, are really important in changing the bar and moving things in the right direction.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Thank you very much for the questions and answers.
We'll now go over to Mr. Turnbull for six minutes, please.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses who are here today.
This is our last panel on this topic. Your testimony today is a nice way for us to start to finish off this work, although it's kind of sad that we're coming to the completion of it. I've found it to be very informative and fascinating to hear all the testimony.
I'm trying to convert some of the things we've heard to the most practical kind of recommendations that we would like to see in the report coming up. I really appreciated the comments that were made by Ms. Littlechild about ethical space. We had some comments from a previous witness, Carole Lévesque, who worked on Dialog, the Indigenous Peoples Research and Knowledge Network. She talked about spaces of interconnection and interaction. Some of her description of creating those types of spaces sounded quite similar to the concept of ethical space.
How do we convert that to a federal government policy-making process in real and practical terms? What can the federal government do to create more spaces of interconnection and interaction where we really do get the benefit from both knowledge systems without one subsuming the other or assimilating the other, and ensuring that it's done with mutual respect?
Ms. Littlechild, could you maybe remark on that? Then maybe I'll go to the other witness.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
I think ethical space is a useful methodology, because it is not a prescriptive approach. It is co-created by the parties who have chosen to enter into an ethical space together, so it has been very useful in arriving at some very rich outcomes.
For example, we utilized ethical space in the province of Alberta in some of the work that I did there on health. We worked with the province and the federal government through the methodology of ethical space to arrive at some very significant outcomes of a trilateral nature in the context of policy-making and standard setting around indigenous health.
We also used it in the Joint Committee on Climate Action, which is a committee that was co-appointed by the Prime Minister and the Assembly of First Nations. It was used to talk about how to understand the integration of indigenous knowledge in the context of climate policy and climate action in Canada.
We have also seen it used in a number of research fields. It is formalized in the context of the tri-council guidelines on research with indigenous peoples. It's in the first part of the chapter on indigenous peoples. I think it actually used to form part of the CIHR guidelines that predated the tri-council guidelines as well.
Ethical space is not really a new concept in Canada by any means. It's been used quite broadly and widely. There are a lot of different iterations of what ethical space might look like, and I don't think that's something to be concerned about. In fact, ethical space is something that is intended to be co-created for a specific outcome or in a specific process, understanding that different parties come from different perspectives, and to help create institutional change to work toward reconciliation.
It is not about privileging one party over another. It is actually about trying to create a mechanism that prevents the problem we've seen—I think this forms part of your mandate—which is the possibility of systems clash.
The Alberta example that I raised, which has a parallel advisory panel approach, is also reflective of ethical space, because the same issue is presented to both panels, which will consider them in the context of their own chosen mandate and roles in accordance with their own expertise and practice. The outcomes of both panels are then presented to the chief scientist in the Government of Alberta as a way of informing policy development and implementation and, in ethical space, in a context of dialogue and cross-validation of those outcomes.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you for that very good and detailed answer. I really appreciate it, because I think it will enhance our report.
Ms. Sayine-Crawford, I want to go to you. You've suggested a number of things as examples based on the Government of Northwest Territories and your work.
What recommendations would you have for the federal government in adopting some of the practices that you mentioned in your opening remarks? It sounded like the dual assessment process was quite significant.
Can you relay any learnings to us quickly?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Thank you for the question.
Could you give that to us in writing? We're over the time now. If we could get an answer in writing, that would be great.
We're now going to try to have Ms. Steinwand-Deschambeault provide her testimony for five minutes. We'll keep an eye on our interpreters to make sure that our technical solution is working.
Ms. Steinwand-Deschambeault, thank you for your patience. Five minutes go to you.
Tammy Steinwand-Deschambeault Director, Department of Culture and Lands Protection, Tlicho Government
I would like to begin by saying mahsi to the Standing Committee on Science and Research for inviting us to share our thoughts on traditional knowledge in science and government policy development.
Traditional knowledge, or Tlicho nàowoò, is a concept encompassing language, culture and way of life that includes traditional laws and ways of being that are used to understand and navigate through the world we live in. This knowledge helps us to live in harmony with all other forms of life. Tlicho nàowoò is rooted in our intimate connection with our land and animals.
Generations of experiencing through close observation and learning how elements, environment and wildlife interact with one another have helped our people learn and build traditional knowledge to better understand our changing world. Tlicho nàowoò is constantly expanding as the elders of each generation add their observations, experience, wisdom and insights to what is already known. Tlicho nàowoò has been, and continues to be, preserved and shared with others through oral narratives and more recently through documentation.
The Tlicho Government has taken a leading role in researching, integrating and utilizing traditional knowledge in the co-management of caribou populations here in our part of the world. Caribou have been our way of life since time immemorial. Therefore, they are very important to our people.
In 2016, the Tlicho Government's Boots on the Ground caribou research program was created. We, the Tlicho people, wanted to know for ourselves why the caribou population continued to decline. Since this was our research program, we set out our own research agenda and priorities using the methodology called “we watch everything”. The Ekwò Nàxoèhdee K'e program, as it is known now, is rooted in Tlicho nàowoò. Elders who have been born and raised out on the land are instrumental in all areas of this research. As a team out on the traditional lands of Mowhi Gogha De Niitlee, we begin our research work by acknowledging our higher power and His creation by making offerings to the land to give thanks for all that we have and to request a good season of research, safety on the land and protection from all elements.
By conducting research on our own, we have control and ownership of the process. To effectively integrate Tlicho nàowoò into government policy, we collaborate with universities and government agencies. In these collaborations, it's essential that the agenda and research objectives are driven by the community people.
In the Tlicho region, we have an established co-management system for managing the land and caribou. Tlicho nàowoò plays a crucial role in caribou management, particularly in our role as an advisory committee member for the Bathurst and Bluenose-East herds. Here, Tlicho nàowoò and science are integrated and complement each other in determining the status of caribou herds. The herd status level identified by Tlicho nàowoò and science suggest which management actions are to be recommended, which in turn guide government policies to be implemented.
The Tlicho Government works to incorporate Tlicho nàowoò into decisions regarding resource extraction and projects for mines, roads and power lines. For these projects, we integrate Tlicho nàowoò into the design of proposed resource development projects to minimize disturbance and mitigate impacts to caribou and the land. While Tlicho nàowoò and science are different methods and produce different results, the results often complement each other by addressing gaps that the other cannot fill. Science flies planes over and counts caribou; Tlicho nàowoò does not. However, Tlicho nàowoò has a long-term, intimate knowledge of caribou and habitat, which science does not have. Thus, results can complement each other. When used side by side, both contribute to a more complete and comprehensive understanding of the caribou.
The Tlicho Government emphasizes including youth and Tlicho nàowoò research as a long-term vision. This ensures the transfer of knowledge from elders to youth and helps maintain the crucial connection with our land.
Mahsi.
