In mining and resource development, terms like “partnership” and “reconciliation” show up quite often. They’re often well-intended but when you step back, it’s easy to feel like they’ve become more of a reflex than a reflection of real change. I recently read a report that made this more apparent, and I think will help others have a clearer view of what meaningful engagement could look like.

There are frameworks in place, policies, and promises. But for many Indigenous communities around Canada, these don’t always show up in ways that feel practical, grounded, or inclusive. Quite often, Indigenous community members are expected to participate in decision-making processes that may not be designed with their governance structures or realities in mind.

Timelines are tight. Capacity is stretched. And expectations can feel one-sided. Paired with the race for critical mineral minerals picking up speed, the pressure to “move fast” is often at odds with what true collaboration and consent required. The irony? Projects that skip those steps usually end up stalled anyway – from legal battles to broken trust, these are all outcomes that could’ve been avoided with more upfront alignment and respect.

That’s why this report by Lyle Hill at Indigenous Omega stands out. It goes deep into issues such as land rights, environmental stewardship, FPIC, and offers thoughtful solutions such as community-led decision making, capacity building plans, environmental monitoring led by communities and protocols that recognize Indigenous ownership and authority.

If you work in mining, government, or even if you’re just trying to better understand what real progress could look like in this space, have a read. We can’t keep relying on frameworks that weren’t built with Indigenous leadership in mind. There’s a better way – this report helps map it out.

‍