SRSR Committee Report

Supplementary Report submitted by the Bloc Québécois

The Bloc Québécois wants to thank the staff of the Library of Parliament, the clerks, and the interpreters for all the work done as part of this study. We would also like to acknowledge the essential contribution of the witnesses for their enlightening presentations.

This supplementary opinion aims to express the concerns of the Bloc Québécois regarding certain recommendations in the report. We believe that this report raises serious concerns about academic freedom, in terms of definitions, and creates confusion about its objectives.

Academic freedom

Recommendations number two and four are directly in opposition to the concept of academic freedom and could ultimately restrict the ability of certain researchers to do their work.

We believe that the committee should not recommend that the government develop science policies based on grounds of discrimination, such as race, skin color, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, marital status, age except to the extent provided by law, religion, political beliefs, language, ethnicity or national origin, social condition, disability, or use of a means to overcome this handicap. The only criteria that should guide the awarding of research grants must be the quality and relevance of the research projects. It is not the scientists or researchers who should be evaluated, but their research proposals. Thus, criteria that relate to the researchers rather than their ideas should be rejected.

Furthermore, the use by the federal government of its spending power is an intrusion into an area of ​​exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. While the government can fund scientific research, it has no power to dictate conditions that influence the educational environment and academic activities. Thus, the federal government should at least ensure that its public action is carried out while respecting the prerogatives of Quebec and the provinces, starting with respect for the law.

On June 3, 2022, the National Assembly of Quebec adopted the Act on academic freedom in the university sector.

The law includes the following elements:

Article 1 stipulates that the mission of universities “includes the production and transmission of knowledge through research and teaching activities and through services to the community.”

Article 2 defines the establishments concerned, while Article 3 defines academic freedom closely following the formulation adopted by UNESCO in 1997:

“3. The right to academic freedom is the right of any person to exercise freely and without doctrinal, ideological, or moral constraints, such as institutional censorship, an activity through which they contribute to the accomplishment of the mission of an academic institution.

This right includes the freedom:

1° of teaching and discussion;

2° of research, creation and publication;

3° to express one’s opinion on society and on an institution, including the one to which the person belongs, as well as on any doctrine, dogma or opinion;

4° to participate freely in the activities of professional organizations or academic organizations.

It must be carried out in accordance with the standards of ethics and scientific rigour generally recognized by the university environment and considering the rights of other members of the university community.”

Federal funding of scientific research should respect the laws of Quebec, the principle of academic freedom and university autonomy.

A problem of definition

This report maintains a form of intellectual confusion through its inability to define the terms it uses. Several witnesses stated that it was impossible to define what “indigenous knowledge and knowledge” were, particularly due to the existence of many distinct indigenous communities. We also share this observation, given the numerous definitions submitted by the witnesses. At the moment, there does not seem to be a consensus on what constitutes indigenous knowledge. This confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the term science, knowledge, and belief were used by many witnesses without being defined. Consequently, recommendation 3: “to examine the representation of Indigenous knowledge holders on their review panels” within the federal tri-agency funding programs deserves to be further explored and better defined before being pursued. In the current situation, we are entitled to wonder what method would be used to define whether it is a belief or knowledge.

Still in connection with the definitions, some witnesses supported the need not to give ethnicity, religion or nationality to science and scientific knowledge. There are researchers from different origins, with their own cultures, but scientific facts and research, once confirmed, are universal, and can therefore in principle benefit everyone. The knowledge, which results from a rigorous and scientific process, in order to validate what was initially a belief, an opinion, benefits everyone and goes beyond sociological and geographical divisions. This process, itself established by the scientific community, and validated by the Supreme Court, does not differentiate between types of knowledge whether traditional or not. We believe that scientists from the indigenous community must be supported, and this can be done without ethnicizing the science itself.

Report Objectives

The present report maintains the ambiguity between two enterprises of a different nature: the first, political, which aims to promote and perpetuate the culture of different indigenous communities and the second, scientific, which seeks to have indigenous knowledge recognized as being equal or of the same value as modern scientific discourse. If the Bloc Québécois, from a perspective of reconciliation, fully subscribes to the first objective, we are of the opinion that the second is of an epistemic nature and that this committee has neither the competence nor the authority to decide such a question. We maintain that it is preferable for this second question to be debated by the scientific community. In this regard, recommendation 10 would benefit from clarification to define what “indigenous participation in policy development” means, in the context of a study focusing on indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge. As one witness said: there is no such thing as “Western” or “indigenous” science, or simply science validated by researchers from different social, ethnic and geographic origins.

We recognize the many barriers that face researchers from Indigenous communities. This is why we support initiatives that will help break down these systemic barriers, so that individuals who wish to participate in the discussion have a real opportunity to do so by having access to the necessary scientific resources. As such, Report 13 of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN): Education as a Healing Tool: A Pathway to Improve Graduation Rates and Academic Outcomes for Indigenous Students contains many important recommendations that the government should hurry to implement.