Sep 8, 2026 · 15 min · 9 segments
Who gets to decide what prosperity looks like on Indigenous lands? Mark Podlasly, CEO of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition, challenges long-held assumptions about Indigenous participation in…
Mark PodlaslyGuestInterview HostHostI want to start with an uncomfortable assumption.
A lot of Canadians, particularly people living in big cities, hear mining on Indigenous land and instinctively think that the progressive position is to stop the project.
What do you think of that?
Well, as a First Nation member whose community hosts one of Canada's largest open-pit copper mining, I can tell you that's not quite accurate.
Indigenous Canada, First Nations, Métis, and Inuit across this country are involved in different projects, mining, support projects to mining, and that is not uniform across the country, that opinion.
You're starting to see Indigenous people wanting to participate in the economic realities of this country, and this country is built on resources.
Is there a danger that well-intentioned Canadians have replaced one form of paternalism with another?
Well, paternalism is this idea that you just have a preformed idea of what people want or should want or what they need to be.
And that has been the history of this country towards Indigenous people from the start.
Going forward now, given the world economics and the geopolitical situation of the world, we can no longer afford to have those ideas that limit us as a country.
The way you get past a paternalistic attitude is you actually go talk to people and ask, what do they want? Where are they at? What do they hope and see for their futures and aspirations? We need to do that more in this country.
But given everything that's happening in the world, it's not happening fast enough.
We also know that some mining and other natural resource companies have a difficult historical record in many indigenous communities.
Why should a nation believe that becoming an investor suddenly changes that relationship?
Well, what you're starting to see across the country now is Indigenous people starting to invest in projects that fit their value system.
And that will be on the environmental side or the spiritual side or the cultural side and certainly on the economic side.
The difference when an Indigenous party is a co-investor in a project is that the community benefits from the project and has the opportunity to have input in how the project is built, operated and decommissioned.
What you're seeing across this country now is more Indigenous people starting to invest in infrastructure and energy projects and now mining projects so that they have a say in how the projects will impact them.
I think you've answered this, but just a quick follow up here.
Does ownership give a nation more power to say no or more reason to say yes?
I want to start with an uncomfortable assumption.
A lot of Canadians, particularly people living in big cities, hear mining on Indigenous land and instinctively think that the progressive position is to stop the project.
What do you think of that?
Well, as a First Nation member whose community hosts one of Canada's largest open-pit copper mining, I can tell you that's not quite accurate.
Indigenous Canada, First Nations, Métis, and Inuit across this country are involved in different projects, mining, support projects to mining, and that is not uniform across the country, that opinion.
You're starting to see Indigenous people wanting to participate in the economic realities of this country, and this country is built on resources.
Is there a danger that well-intentioned Canadians have replaced one form of paternalism with another?
Well, paternalism is this idea that you just have a preformed idea of what people want or should want or what they need to be.
And that has been the history of this country towards Indigenous people from the start.
Going forward now, given the world economics and the geopolitical situation of the world, we can no longer afford to have those ideas that limit us as a country.
The way you get past a paternalistic attitude is you actually go talk to people and ask, what do they want? Where are they at? What do they hope and see for their futures and aspirations? We need to do that more in this country.
But given everything that's happening in the world, it's not happening fast enough.
We also know that some mining and other natural resource companies have a difficult historical record in many indigenous communities.
Why should a nation believe that becoming an investor suddenly changes that relationship?
Well, what you're starting to see across the country now is Indigenous people starting to invest in projects that fit their value system.
And that will be on the environmental side or the spiritual side or the cultural side and certainly on the economic side.
The difference when an Indigenous party is a co-investor in a project is that the community benefits from the project and has the opportunity to have input in how the project is built, operated and decommissioned.
What you're seeing across this country now is more Indigenous people starting to invest in infrastructure and energy projects and now mining projects so that they have a say in how the projects will impact them.
I think you've answered this, but just a quick follow up here.
Does ownership give a nation more power to say no or more reason to say yes?
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
