First Nations chiefs are warning that the federal government’s push to fast-track major project approvals is driving a wedge between their communities, while a legal adviser to the Assembly of First Nations says he doubts the organization can currently muster a united response.

“The reality is that we’re being pitted against each other,” said Chief Jeffrey Copenace of the Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation in Northwestern Ontario. 

Copenace asked the AFN to demand that Canada not use the Building Canada Act to accelerate the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s proposed deep geological repository near Ignace, Ont., a facility that would permanently store spent nuclear fuel underground.

He recently learned that the Williams Treaty First Nations have invested in a small modular reactor project that would send its waste to the repository. 

“That makes that SMR project our enemy,” he said. “I ask all of our communities, all of our leaders, to stand together.”

READ MORE: Seven First Nations buy into Canada’s first small nuclear reactor with $715M stake

His warning was echoed by Drew Lafond, a partner at MLT Aikins who advises the AFN chiefs office on the government’s proposals. 

“I don’t have the confidence that there is a united or a consensus-based position right now with the assembly to be able to go and tackle these types of questions with a uniform approach,” he said. 

Lafond said there is a “tremendous risk” of First Nations being divided as Ottawa pushes ahead with assessment reforms: some communities are poised to capitalize on economic development, while others aren’t in a position to do so — or hold different views on it altogether.

The AFN’s job, he said, is to ensure all of those perspectives are respected.

Proposed reforms

The AFN is preparing its official response to a federal discussion paper, released earlier this year, that proposed regulatory changes to speed up project approvals.

Ottawa extended the consultation period for these proposed changes to July 22 after receiving feedback “from thousands” in the initial 30-day period. 

READ MORE: Public pressure pushed federal project review reforms to fall sitting

His preliminary assessment of the proposed changes is that they are “sweeping in nature” and “extraordinarily complex” — though he cautioned that much remains unknown, since the government has yet to table legislation.

“When we eventually do receive those proposed legislative reforms and details on the implementation, they are going to be extensive,” he warned. 

Ottawa’s proposed changes include a one-year limit for project approvals, a new consultation hub for Indigenous groups, sequential permitting, and pipelines and nuclear projects no longer requiring Impact Assessment Agency reviews.

Lafond walked chiefs through a series of concerns with what Ottawa has floated so far. 

These include whether a legislated one-year cap on reviews can preserve meaningful consultation or will instead pressure the government to truncate engagement; whether permits issued before an impact assessment is complete will reflect First Nations perspectives, Indigenous knowledge and cumulative effects — protections he said First Nations “fought extraordinarily hard” to embed in the assessment process; and whether Ottawa’s proposed “one-stop shop” consultation hub would repeat what he called the flaws of Alberta’s Aboriginal Consultation Office, a model currently being challenged in court by two First Nations because consultation happens at arm’s length from the actual decision-maker.

“Based on what we’ve seen, the approach seems to be to accelerate approvals first, and determine consultation frameworks later,” said Lafond.

Lafond acknowledged the existing Impact Assessment Act is “far from perfect” but said it serves an important function on sustainability, cumulative effects and Indigenous knowledge. 

“If those protections don’t show up somewhere else, then what we have on our hands is a legislative gap that isn’t being addressed,” he said.

He raised similar alarms about proposed federal economic zones covering transportation corridors, energy and industrial regions, where developments would be pre-approved subject to conditions — a design he compared to the special economic zones Ontario created under Bill 5 last year, which the assembly has opposed.

The fundamental question, he said, is whether zone-level engagement can substitute for project-specific consent, or whether each project still requires its own consultation.

He urged the assembly to focus on ensuring the reforms respect Section 35 as the legislation moves through Parliament.

Among the draft resolutions chiefs will debate and vote on before the assembly wraps up Thursday is one that would demand that Ottawa engage directly with rights holders before advancing any fast-tracking legislation, federal economic zones or pipeline initiatives.

Another calls on Ottawa to commit in Budget 2026 to designing and capitalizing a national Indigenous Development Finance Organization, a lending institution that would help First Nations take equity stakes and participate in major projects.