Manitoba First Nations Demand Reset on One Project One Review Deal

The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Assembly of First Nations Manitoba Region have publicly rejected the new Canada-Manitoba Co-operation Agreement on Environmental and Impact Assessment, arguing that the bilateral deal excludes First Nations governments from a framework that will shape approvals on their lands. The Grand Chief has called for an immediate reset on the agreement, escalating a dispute that had been building since the draft text was circulated late last year.

The agreement, announced as part of the federal government's one-project, one-review framework, is intended to streamline environmental assessment for major projects by coordinating federal and provincial processes. First Nations leaders in Manitoba argue that the arrangement replicates a two-government model that has repeatedly failed to uphold Treaty obligations.

What the agreement does

The Canada-Manitoba deal sets out how federal and provincial impact assessments will be coordinated for projects that trigger both regimes. It establishes joint technical review, shared information collection, and mechanisms to avoid duplication between the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and Manitoba's own environmental review processes.

Supporters in Ottawa and the Manitoba government describe the agreement as a practical improvement that will reduce duplication and speed up decisions on significant infrastructure, mining, energy and transportation projects. They point to comparable deals with other provinces as models, and argue that the one-project, one-review approach gives proponents a more predictable path while preserving substantive environmental standards.

For First Nations leaders, the complaint is not with streamlining in the abstract. It is with the consistent framing of consultation as a task performed by Crown governments on First Nations, rather than as a negotiation among governments with different but legitimate jurisdictional authorities. The AMC argues that Treaty relationships require a seat at the table when frameworks are set, not after.

The Grand Chief's demand

Grand Chief Kyra Wilson issued a public statement saying First Nations have been clear and consistent that they must be at the table as governments, not consulted after decisions are made. The AMC has asked Ottawa and the province to pause implementation of the agreement and enter into a tripartite discussion that would include First Nations as full participants.

The AMC pointed to a December 2025 letter it sent to Prime Minister Mark Carney and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew outlining concerns with the draft. According to the AMC, that letter warned explicitly that reliance on provincial processes did not uphold Treaty rights and that Canada could not treat those processes as a substitute for its constitutional obligations.

Leadership from multiple Tribal Councils in Manitoba has signalled solidarity with the AMC's position. In public comments and communiqués, chiefs have cited a range of specific project files, including road infrastructure, hydro expansion and mining proposals, as examples of where the new framework would touch Treaty and inherent rights.

Carney and Kinew's position

The Carney government has emphasised that the duty to consult remains fully in force and that the new framework is administrative rather than substantive. Federal officials have said that where consultations reveal impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, those impacts still drive decision outcomes under existing law.

Manitoba's NDP government under Premier Wab Kinew has been in a more awkward position. Kinew, the first First Nations premier of a Canadian province, campaigned on improving government-to-government relations with Indigenous nations. His government has emphasised ongoing dialogue with Indigenous leaders and has said it is open to adjusting implementation to address AMC concerns.

Whether that means renegotiating the text of the federal-provincial agreement is less clear. Ottawa and the province have a signed document in hand, and neither has publicly committed to reopening it. That gap between rhetorical openness and actual revision is at the heart of the AMC's frustration.

The legal backdrop

Federal and provincial assessment regimes are shaped by constitutional duties that long predate the current agreement. Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 recognises and affirms Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and a large body of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence defines the duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate.

More recent decisions, including cases around specific pipelines, mines and transmission projects, have refined the expectations on governments. Where a framework agreement shapes how consultation happens downstream, First Nations are increasingly pressing for involvement in the design of those frameworks themselves. The AMC's position sits squarely in that emerging jurisprudence.

If the agreement proceeds without changes, litigation is a realistic prospect. Courts have repeatedly found that procedural shortcuts in consultation are reviewable, and First Nations have been increasingly successful in translating weak consultation into quashed approvals or binding amendments to project design.

The one-project, one-review push

The AMC's critique lands at a politically important moment for the federal one-project, one-review initiative. Carney has placed major project acceleration at the centre of his economic resilience strategy, linking faster approvals to Canada's capacity to respond to United States tariffs, capitalise on critical minerals demand, and build the housing and energy infrastructure the country needs.

Alberta's Bill 30 takes a different tack, imposing a 120-day cap on provincial regulatory decisions while treating consultation as a prerequisite outside that clock. The Manitoba agreement, by contrast, leans on federal-provincial coordination. Both approaches place pressure on consultation processes that First Nations governments describe as already under-resourced.

Across the country, the political economy of project approvals is tilting toward speed. The risk for governments is that speed without a durable framework for Indigenous participation produces approvals that do not survive legal challenge, which in turn undermines the certainty investors are being promised.

Economic stakes for Manitoba

The economic files that will run through the new framework matter for Manitoba's future. Large-scale hydro expansion, lithium and nickel mining, grain corridor improvements, and the long-discussed Port of Churchill revitalisation all intersect with Treaty lands and with federal assessment triggers.

Proponents of those projects have welcomed federal-provincial coordination as a way to reduce duplication. Several have publicly expressed hope that the framework will shorten timelines and give investors a clearer line of sight to decisions. Those same proponents also know that approvals without genuine Indigenous buy-in tend to be fragile, both politically and legally.

A more robust role for First Nations governments could, in the AMC's framing, actually accelerate real outcomes by reducing the number of projects that stall in court. Whether Ottawa and Manitoba can see the issue in those terms, rather than as a tradeoff between speed and consultation, will shape how the dispute resolves.

Precedents across the country

The Manitoba dispute is part of a broader pattern of First Nations governments pressing for structural inclusion in framework agreements that govern project review. In British Columbia, section 7 agreements under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act have created a legislative vehicle for shared or consent-based decision-making on some project files. In the Yukon and Northwest Territories, co-management boards rooted in modern treaties have functioned effectively for decades, offering models that Manitoba leaders have cited as reference points.

Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces have each negotiated their own configurations, with varying degrees of First Nations participation in environmental assessment. Many of those arrangements have been critiqued for treating Indigenous participation as advisory rather than governing, and Manitoba's current dispute fits within a national conversation about whether Canadian assessment regimes are capable of reflecting Treaty partnerships in their fundamental architecture.

Federal responses over the past several years have moved incrementally in that direction, including through the Impact Assessment Act's requirements on Indigenous participation. The AMC's critique is that incremental improvements fall short when framework agreements are negotiated bilaterally without Indigenous governments at the table, and that pattern must change if Treaty commitments are to have any operational meaning in project review.

What's next

The AMC has requested a meeting with the federal minister responsible for the Impact Assessment Agency and with the Manitoba environment minister. A formal response from Ottawa and from the province is expected in the coming weeks. Both governments have signalled a willingness to talk, but neither has publicly committed to reopening the text of the agreement.

If discussions stall, First Nations in Manitoba have indicated they will escalate, potentially with legal action, political pressure in the House of Commons, and coordinated statements at upcoming national chief assemblies. Allied organisations, including national Indigenous bodies and some environmental groups, have signalled interest in supporting that escalation.

For Carney, the test is whether his rhetorical commitment to renewed relationships with Indigenous nations can be reconciled with a one-project, one-review architecture that First Nations in Manitoba are now openly rejecting. For Kinew, the question is whether his government can translate its own campaign commitments into a framework that survives contact with provincial infrastructure politics and federal timelines.