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.

Transcript

Discussions (0)