Indigenous, treaty rights buried in silica sand

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 29/12/2023 (619 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

If anything was unveiled in the recent Free Press op-ed by former Tory deputy premier Rochelle Squires — alleging leaders in her PC provincial government, during their post-Oct. 3 election “caretaking” days, attempted to green-light a Sio Silica sand mine project despite environmental regulatory concerns — it is how Indigenous and treaty rights exist in Manitoba’s traditional political circles.

And by exist, I mean not at all.

Throughout every step of nearly five-year journey of the proposed Sio Silica Corp. project near Vivian, Indigenous and treaty rights have been denied by the Alberta-based company and the Manitoba government in order to ensure more than 7,000 wells be drilled to extract 33 million tonnes of silica sand.

From its first provincial application, Sio Silica has contended its project “is not expected to adversely impact the exercise of Indigenous or treaty rights” because it “consists of private land,” will not impact “fish or fish habitat,” and the “residual environmental impact” on “vegetation” and “wildlife” will be “negligible.”

This is a mantra the company uses a lot, and it’s absolutely incorrect.

Indigenous and treaty rights aren’t simple rules about harvesting fish and animals, but embedded in spiritual and legal relationships Indigenous peoples hold (often called “traditional use and occupancy”) with a territory.

Indigenous people hold ceremonies, migrate via rivers and trails, and pick medicines and bury loved ones on lands outside the reserves they were forced to move to.

This means the years of exploratory drilling when Sio Silica didn’t inform Indigenous peoples what they were doing was an inherent violation of Indigenous and treaty rights.

This is bigger than one company, of course, because its argument Indigenous and treaty rights don’t apply relies on the idea these exist just on “public” Crown lands — an idea embedded in Canadian supremacy.

No less than the Supreme Court agrees, saying this idea is not a principled way to fulfill constitutionally-required consultation with Indigenous communities.

But let’s set this aside. I want to return to Sio Silica’s claims Indigenous and treaty rights are ignorable because the Manitoba project will not “adversely” impact harvesting, land and water.

During the provincial Clean Environment Commission hearings earlier this year, hundreds of experts and Indigenous people provided evidence the Vivian sand mining project would have a devastating impact on Manitoba’s environment.

This resulted in the CEC’s final report to recommend, before licensing, Sio Silica perform several more environmental assessments, create an advisory board for its work and provide much more research to the public.

Something was left out, however. By publicly stating Sio Silica’s environmental assessments are lacking, how can the company, in any way, say Indigenous and treaty rights are not going to be impacted?

The CEC pointed out the vast majority of Indigenous peoples it heard from said there was “not sufficient” consultation on the project’s impacts on their rights (specifically Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Peguis First Nation and the Manitoba Métis Federation all expressed deep concern).

The report even condemned Sio Silica for its failure to create an “effective engagement process” with Indigenous communities.

In typical Canadian fashion though, this did not prompt the CEC to recommend a legal revisitation to the issue of Indigenous and treaty rights, but “encourage” the Manitoba government to ensure Indigenous communities are better consulted.

At the time of the CEC report’s release, then-environment minister Kevin Klein, to his credit, stated he would pursue that angle.

Which brings me back to the Squires-penned op-ed.

Squires alleges forces within her own provincial Conservative government — she specifically names former economic development minister Jeff Wharton (MLA for Red River North) and former premier Heather Stefanson (Opposition leader, MLA for Tuxedo) — were trying to hammer through the approval of the Vivian sand mining project.

Wharton denied the claim; Stefanson refused to say anything.

The question is, if true, who would stand to benefit from such a flagrantly unjust action?

In an odd statement to media, Wharton may have pointed the way: “Investors are eager to bring critical minerals and manufacturing projects to Manitoba. But they won’t sit on the sidelines forever, waiting for the new government to make decisions.”

Others though think new NDP Premier Wab Kinew — who is also minister in charge of ensuring the Manitoba government fulfill Indigenous and treaty rights — may want to revisit the Sio Silica project and its legal requirements.

In this, we may not need look farther to explain the actions of a dying PC government and a company desperately trying to get a dubious project started.

It’s not the first time they pretended Indigenous and treaty rights don’t exist.

niigaan.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca

Niigaan Sinclair
Columnist

Niigaan Sinclair is Anishinaabe and is a columnist at the Winnipeg Free Press.

   Read full biography