Consultation process sorely lacking on mine proposals

“Intriguing” was a key word used by Norman Brandson in his Jan. 19 Think Tank article What should a new Sio Silica bid look like?

“Intriguing” indeed. Mr. Brandson dances around the relationship between Sio Silica and Long Plain, but further examination is warranted.

Before providing a response to Long Plain’s foray into mining consultation, know that I have been involved in opposing the licensing of Canadian Premium Sand based on the failure to ensure meaningful consultation. Rules were somewhat loosely interpreted, resulting in a community torn apart by the gap between independent environmentalists and government legislation which only allowed single-source information (the mining company’s) to be presented in public consultation processes.

Let’s start with a bit of history on Sio’s reputation as a schmoozer.

This company started with sponsoring the Blue Bombers in some capacity. They ended with a political scandal involving Conservative MLAs attempting to push the licence through before the recently elected NDP government was sworn in.

Premier Wab Kinew suggested an inquiry to look into the lobbying issue. I would suggest broader involvement to examine meaningful consultation. I am not sure why Prime Minister Mark Carney needed Bill C-5. Our current legislation is loose enough that a mine could be in operation before people even became aware of it.

Consultation needs specific to First Nations people have not been considered.

For example, licensing consultations often require written submissions. That can be very intimidating, given the power structure on a few reservations. As well, many people are more comfortable communicating in their oral tradition than writing a formal letter. That eliminates a fair number of people from participation. They also would benefit from hearing from someone other than the company representatives and have time to digest information.

After the licence was denied, Sio suddenly developed a business relationship with Brokenhead. Ridiculous amounts of money were offered in what appeared to be a redwashing action. This happens when businesses use First Nations to gain favour with licensing bodies. Some Brokenhead members led by an environmentalist insisted on due diligence via a band referendum on future involvement with Sio Silica.

They won the referendum.

An independent Indigenous non-profit is desperately needed to serve Indigenous communities. But is the Long Plain model the best? Where does Brokenhead’s “no” fit in? Who is paying the consultation bill and why was this environmental review not included in Sio Silica’s application for a second licence?

Try to look for documentation of Hollow Water First Nation’s Section 35 design and reports. As far as I know, there was no consultation with off-reserve Status members in this area who, as neighbours, have unique needs distinct from city members. The Metis also have Section 35 rights, but no one seems to know of any consultation specific to their needs.

One of the issues is that after the Canadian Premium licence was awarded, another firm has claimed our rivers and lands on everything left between the Canadian Premium licence and the Ontario border. There will be no treaty rights left. It was prospected in 2019. We have yet to hear anything because that is not required by legislation. This is called cumulative impact, and it is not a part of the current legislation.

While I would strongly support an independent consulting group composed of at least one Indigenous scientist, lawyer and political scientist, I am completely confused as to how the Long Plain model will dovetail with the province. Since public comments are closed on Sio’s new licence attempt, this environmental review will not be included in the province’s environmental public registry. I suspect that Sio is going to take another run at Brokenhead, but nothing is clear, because it is not required to be.

Meaningful consultation remains unclear. When issues with Section 35 consultations for Hollow Water First Nation arose, there was no feedback to letters sent by community members. They were left not knowing why their concerns were not addressed. The framework and resulting report seem to have disappeared from websites. I will certainly be told it is none of my business, but I would hope Long Plain would be open to considering shared experiences.

While Kinew has supported an inquiry to address lobbying, the parameters of such an inquiry should be broadened to include groups with similar experiences. I remember when we started advocating, we wrote a letter to the local school board asking to address the students, as Canadian Premium Sand had that opportunity. Of course, we were denied.

A call was recently made by a government employee to see if Canadian Premium Sand could drive their trucks of carcinogenic sand through our community instead of the promised new road through the bush. There are close to 100 conditions on the Canadian Premium licence including transportation.

I understand from independent environmental organizations that only about 15 of those original licensing conditions designed to protect people and the environment will stand. The fact that Canadian Premium Sand wants large trucks to rumble past our houses every 7.5 minutes for up to 20 hours a day shaking our foundations and travelling at noise levels equivalent to a jet plane is pretty much the last straw for me. Seriously! Calls have been made to check on the status of outstanding conditions on the licence. The government will get back to me, but it is hard to negotiate safety when you feel all alone.

A yearlong study on impact assessments was completed by the University of Winnipeg and Manitoba Eco-Network at the end of 2025. I have seen little coverage. Hopefully people will check it out and use it as a starting place for further discussion. I would be especially interested to see if prospecting and exploratory mining can be better guided by regional studies from the point of view of water instead of capitalism.

This could be especially important given that clean, source water legislation is not likely to be pursued any time soon, and mining claims and the threat of AI are on the upswing. Eric Reader would also be another great source with the independent Wilderness Committee, as he has partnered with First Nations but can’t begin to meet all the calls coming his way. I would invite anyone interested in independent non-profit models to contact either group to see what they do and how they do it. We need more independent, transparent oversight.

Mother Earth is not political. The current process for environmental review is not balanced. I fully support the values and traditional governance by First Nations that might be brought to the table. I am just not seeing it yet.

Can you imagine how traumatic it is to find people crawling all over your land, ripping up forests before a licence is even granted, boxing in a 10-year-old female trapper because meaningful consultation has not been done?

To my First Nations relatives and friends who I met along this way, I am so sorry.

Mary Jane McCarron writes from Manigotagan.