TISG Scoping for Indigenous women, girls and gender diverse persons

Crawford Nickel Mine #83857 - Draft TISG and Draft Indigenous Engagement and Participation Plan comments

              This comment is regarding the Crawford Nickel Mine Project #83857.  After the review of the draft TISG and draft Indigenous Engagement and Participation Plan, we would like to express the following concerns at this time.

We support the use of a GBA+ in section 1.2, applied to understand intersectional identity impacts, this was presented early in the TISG report, demonstrating the priority of understanding marginalized perspectives and widespread project impacts. However, it was noticed that this data will only be presented as disaggregated data. We understand that aggregate data is the overall summary of information and how datasets compile/interact and disaggregated data is intended to separate data into separate points or more specific information sets. We believe it is a good idea to use disaggregated data to gain a deeper understanding of how specific identity features are being affected however, it is inappropriate to only present disaggregated data. We are inquiring if there will be both disaggregated and aggregated data used in reporting? The reality is that identity features such as, sex, gender, age, ability, education, culture, religion, etc. are not disaggregated pieces of information.  The impacts from projects are not experienced in isolation but, represent the overall cumulative effects that combine and pile up as people hold multiple vulnerable identity features, causing them to experience multiple simultaneous impacts. It is imperative to understand the cumulative effects and focus on understanding how multiple levels of identity culminate for more intense vulnerability. For example, if you disaggregate data and look just at how Indigenous people might experience potential impacts, then look at how women might experience potential impacts, you are erasing the intersection of Indigenous women who will experience these impacts in a compound way.

In the section 2. Proponent Information, the requirements for proponents to provide information within the Impact Statement are lacking some key considerations. The proponent should additionally report where they are receiving their funding from. Chain of funding are essential for transparency and allowing people to make informed decisions. Large corporations, such as the Big 5 Banks, have opposing values to communities and prioritize making money at all costs. The financial and economic benefits of projects are significantly less likely to be equitably distributed to community members when certain corporations are significant stakeholders in projects. To make agreements and informed decisions, people must know who they are working with.

In the section 3. Project Description, the following statement is made: “…description of local communities and Indigenous communities; Indigenous traditional territories and/or consultation areas, Treaty and/or Title lands, First Nation Reserve lands, Indigenous harvesting regions (with permission of Indigenous communities); and culturally important features of the landscape” (pg. 9). The parenthesis (with permission of Indigenous communities) is a good starting point but, should specifically uphold principles of OCAP, provide transparency on how these information sets are being collected, how this permission is being sought (by part of the participants, or in consensus by all participants?), and why these communities should have trust to share this information. Providing additional context and being aware that this information is earned, not given freely. Without sufficient efforts to build relationships through, in-person, in-community engagement, with consistent representatives, it is hard to imagine communities wanting to share this information.

In section 3.4 Project Components and Activities, the following statement is made: “…highlight activities that involve periods of increased disturbance to environmental, health, social and economic conditions or impacts on Indigenous Peoples” (pg.10). For the purpose of impact assessments, what is the accepted definition of ‘period’ and ‘increased’ – does this mean increased disturbance for any amount of time, in any amount of increase, or is there a threshold where increased disturbances are significant enough to be featured in this section? This is listed as a role for the government, we are wondering if the government is actively tracking and monitoring this data? If so, how? Further into this section the Site preparation and construction features are summarized. This includes reference to water management factors, however, is lacking any similar consideration for terrestrial, land and air quality management.

3.5 Workforce Requirements

In section 3.5 Workforce Requirements, the following statement is made: “Workforce requirements must take GBA Plus into consideration. The information must be presented in sufficient detail to analyse how historically excluded or underrepresented groups will be taken into account, including Indigenous communities and other relevant diverse subgroups” (p.15).  It remains unclear whose responsibility it is to complete the GBA+, and who’s responsibility it is to take the GBA+ into consideration. Considering historically excluded or underrepresented groups in the GBA+ is insufficient. These marginalized, oppressed, and excluded groups must be prioritized, both during hiring and training for all level roles of the project, as well as throughout the engagement, planning, and consultation process.

For the anticipated hiring a policy programs: WORKER RETENTION STRATEGIES MUST BE ARTICULATED: There needs to be clear parameters for Indigenous worker retention written into HR policies that prioritize rehabilitation over punitive actions against employees. We recommend the Canadian Human Rights Commission findings on policy enactment for people battling substance abuse issues, within the CNC policies for Crawford Nickel Mine. Co-development of policies that reflect the lived experiences of people who have been working in mining operations is necessary for adequate representation of Indigenous people who live and work at the mine. https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/publication-pdfs/chrc_impaired_at_work_v2018-3_eng.pdf

It is important that CNC take into consideration the barriers that directly impact Indigenous women and gender diverse peoples which prevent them from up-taking economic benefits of this development while still experiencing all of the negative impacts of the mine. In particular investigation of barriers impacting Indigenous women and diverse peoples interest in employment at the mine, and mitigation of potential barriers within project planning such as work rotation schedules, training and education supports, and issues with transportation and accommodations.

In section 5. Description of public participation and views, we would like to see the requirement for at least 8 in-person, in-community engagement sessions. Additionally, we would like for it to be reported how much notice community members were given about in-person or virtual meetings, what channels were used to disseminate a notice of meeting, and a minimum amount notice time to be established. For example, community members should be informed about engagement opportunities at least 30 days before the scheduled activity.

In section 5.1

“…methods used, where consultations were held, the persons, organizations and diverse subgroups consulted;”  “…efforts to engage diverse subgroups of the community to support the collection of information needed to complete the GBA Plus.”

We expect that CNC utilize methodologies to engage with diverse subgroups that incorporate trauma-informed engagement practices, takes a strengths based approach to meetings and make every effort to include 2-Spirit and gender diverse peoples in discussions about project impacts. There are specific types of engagement methodologies that we highlight as beneficial to promoting meaningful consultations. The first is community education engagement that focuses on providing instructional services in an objective way, community organizing which brings people together to investigate solutions and advance local issues and community engaged research which maps community assets, contributing to solutions to challenges and benefits communities while furthering data requirements under IAA 2019 legislation.

We advocate for the following consultation activity concessions to be made for Indigenous women and gender diverse peoples:

• Include training and learning opportunities about IAs and EAs to a general audience; on a rotating basis and as frequently as needed.
• Create meeting spaces that are for Indigenous women, girls, and gender diverse people specifically.
• Have onsite child-care available for women to bring their children.
• Make transportation to a meeting space available and for no cost
  to participants.
• Have culturally appropriate food and beverage options available.
• Involve Elders and youth in discussions and to give feedback.

In section 6. Description of engagement with Indigenous communities, we would like to acknowledge the mentions of The UNDRIP (The Declaration), FPIC, Duty to Consult, seeking consensus. Nevertheless, we also seek to also acknowledge that these words are only mentioned and there is a very limited expanded explanation on how these principles will be upheld, monitored, or accomplished. This demonstrates the often reductive or performative nature of applying these principles, we are seeking greater detail in the Impact Statement on these matters. Some suggestions on how to accomplish this are as follows:

• For the statement “the proponent must, at a minimum, provide project updates at key milestones of the impact assessment process, and document the engagement in the Impact Statement” (pg.22). To obtain FPIC, project updates should be provided thoroughly and consistently throughout a project, not just at key milestones. This would represent a true effort to ensure community members and the public are informed.
• For the statement “The results of any engagement with each Indigenous community must be presented in the Impact Statement, and, as best as possible, convey the perspective of the Indigenous communities being engaged” (p.22). To respect the principles of OCAP, the results of any engagement must be presented back to each Indigenous community for confirmation before presenting this information in the Impact Statement. This ensures that community members are given the opportunity to have ownership and control of the knowledge they shared, confirming that they consent to having it presented in the recorded way, have access to verify the information, and are able to protect private or confidential information.
• For the statement “The Agency notes that not all Indigenous communities may be willing to collaborate with the proponent, therefore the proponent must demonstrate they have made best efforts at collaboration, and provide the Agency with an explanation regarding circumstances where collaboration was not possible” (p. 22). To have made best efforts at collaboration must include across multiple methods of collaboration and communication, multiple times. Multiple engagement methods must be used to engage with communities to adequately build relationships, trust, and uphold the rights of indigenous peoples established in the Declaration.

In section 7.1 Baseline Methodology, there is a consistent focus on establishing the baseline conditions, which is important, however must be paired with a historical assessment of how the conditions have fluctuated throughout time. There are only baseline methodology sections and a lack of methodology to establish the long-term trends. It is essential to understand, to the highest degree possible, how the baseline dynamics have already shifted from previous conditions. This allows us to understand what the stresses and major factors of change are, and how a potential project could exacerbate these previous or ongoing pressures and intensify the rate at which change is occurring or the magnitude of change.

“…describe how GBA Plus was applied to examine differences in baseline conditions among diverse subgroups and provide disaggregated data where necessary;”

Baseline conditions for Indigenous women, girls and gender diverse peoples must extend to employment, housing, access to services (hospital, clinic), and encompass statistics of violent or crime related incidents in the District of Cochrane. These areas of study will provide information about trends in socio-economic impacts to diverse sub-groups.

“…describe how any ongoing or completed regional assessment in the proposed project area or any relevant strategic assessments were considered in determining baseline conditions.”

The area of Timmins is a historic mining town, there are several other historical and ongoing mining projects in the region, though no Regional Assessment has ever been conducted. We call for baseline conditions that consider the cumulative impacts of previous mining operations. A regional assessment for this region is long overdue and needed to better understand the total magnitude of impacts from this development, rather than viewing it under the lens of a singular project. There are also multiple different extractive industries in the region, with heavy emphasis on logging and forestry. The combination of impacts from these projects leads to greater impacts to treaty rights to hunt and gather, through the reduction and fragmentation of habitat areas.

In section 7.6 Cumulative Effects Assessment  we have heard repeatedly that there needs to be consideration of impacts to the next 7 generations in project planning. This tied in directly with the project closure and abandonment plan. There remains significant concerns of cumulative impacts of multiple industries, particularly forestry and mining cumulative impacts.

8.6 Groundwater and Surface Water sedimentation of the Mattagami River continues to be an area of concern for residents, the impacts to fish and fish habitat, as well as water quality from other developments being compounded by the Crawford Nickel project.

8.10.2. Effects to terrestrial wildlife and their habitat: There should be mention of waterfowl and other birds landing in proposed tailing management areas and within the project boundaries, what mitigation measures can be taken to prevent this even post project closure.

9.1. Baseline conditions: Pathways of effects need to draw specific information that contributes to tracking impacts to Indigenous women, girls and gender diverse peoples related to sexual health and incidents of human trafficking, Timmins and Highway 11 are a known corridor of human trafficking of young girls and mining developments tend to increase the level of sexual violence against marginalized groups.

In section 10.1.2 Services and infrastructure, there is a list of the regional services which must be described, as they related to the social conditions of Indigenous Peoples. Additional research on the state of cultural support services, community centers, technology access services, affordable food access, water access. The list as it is remains incomplete. Community members should be given the chance to provide additional features to this section for consideration during engagements. It is insufficient for the proponent or government agency to determine what regional services relate to the social conditions of indigenous Peoples, without asking for their insight.

• Finally, in the section 12. Indigenous Peoples, the following statement is made “Proponents must engage with Indigenous communities at the earliest reasonable opportunity, in order to identify and understand the potential impacts of their projects on Indigenous Peoples and their rights, and to incorporate Indigenous Knowledge into the impact assessment” (pg. 101). This statement should be modified to be ‘at the earliest reasonable opportunity and throughout the rest of the process…’

Within the draft public participation plan, the following statement is made “The Agency has compiled a list of communities, associations and other stakeholders that may have an interest in this project’s impact assessment. The list was informed by participants in the Planning Phase for the Project; participants identified in documents provided by the proponent; and participants identified by the Agency in proximity to the Project with potential interest or technical knowledge relevant to the impact assessment” (pg. 3). We are seeking greater transparency on how this list was developed. How were participants of the planning phase informed of the planning phase participation opportunities? How are new participants, who have not yet participated in the IA, receiving information?  How is the public being notified about projects? This iterative approach and informing future engagements based off participants of past engagements does not allow widespread information dissemination and gatekeeps impact assessment participation, by engaging mostly with people selected from the Agency, the proponent, or previously included in the conversation. True engagement takes on an equitable approach and uses multiple methods to ensure that everyone is informed and given the chance to participate, regardless of their previous involvement.

In table 1 of the draft public participation plan, we noticed that the methods employed consisted of email, online comments, meetings, info sessions, workshops, and documents posted on the registry and website. Were any of these methods available in-person, in-community? It is important to additionally report which methods are virtual and which are in person, and where in-person engagement is occurring (in urban centers, or in rural and remote communities near to proposed project development). In Phase 2 and 3 similar statements were made, stating that “The Agency holds a comment period on the Impact Statement. The comments will assist in determining whether the [Impact Statement/Impact Assessment] contains all the information and studies [requested in the Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines/recommended to the Minster of Environment and Climate Change” (pg. 6&7). We are seeking clarification on how long this comment period is, are community members and public being given sufficient time to review materials, come together, discuss, reach consensus, and then comment? It is imperative to be transparent about the expected timeline and length of comment opportunities, to help communities balance this responsibility among their plethora of additional responsibilities.