Thunder Bay business organization proposes new bank-risk disclosures, scrutiny of credit models and independent reviews of financial products marketed as Indigenous
THUNDER BAY — INDIGENOUS BUSINESS — September 10, 2026 — The Anishnawbe Business Professional Association is calling on Canada’s federal banking regulator to examine what it describes as systemic barriers facing First Nations businesses and financial risks created when banks finance major projects without verified Indigenous consent.
The Thunder Bay-based organization says it has delivered a formal regulatory submission to Peter Routledge, Superintendent of Financial Institutions. The submission asks the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, known as OSFI, to introduce new disclosure rules, examine automated lending models and change the way financial institutions assess projects involving First Nations lands and rights.
ABPA describes the gap between Indigenous branding and the actual flow of capital to First Nations as “financial redwashing.” The term refers to companies promoting reconciliation or Indigenous-focused products while, in ABPA’s view, failing to make meaningful changes to lending, investment and project-financing practices.
“Canada’s major banks are managing up to $40 billion in First Nations wealth, yet our entrepreneurs are routinely denied basic business loans while big lenders profit from marketing ‘Indigenous’ financial services and products,” said ABPA President Jason Rasevych.
Rasevych argues that financing projects without First Nations consent can expose banks and investors to injunctions, construction delays, demonstrations, reputational damage and cost increases.
The figure of up to $40 billion in First Nations assets under management is ABPA’s estimate. NetNewsLedger was unable to locate a public national dataset that independently confirms that total or shows how it is divided among banks, trust companies, investment managers and Indigenous institutions.
What OSFI Does
OSFI is Canada’s federal prudential regulator. It supervises federally regulated banks, insurance companies, trust and loan companies and federally regulated private pension plans. Its primary responsibility is the safety and soundness of those institutions and protection of depositors, policyholders, creditors and pension-plan members.
Section 4 of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act directs OSFI to supervise financial institutions, promote policies for controlling risk, monitor system-wide or sectoral threats and require corrective action when an institution is not financially sound or is failing to meet its legal and supervisory requirements.
That gives OSFI significant influence over governance, risk management and capital. However, its mandate is not unlimited. Consumer-protection matters generally fall to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, while securities disclosure and the marketing of investment products involve provincial and territorial securities regulators. Changes to federal pension regulations may also require action by the federal government rather than OSFI acting alone.
ABPA says OSFI’s prudential mandate is still broad enough to address financial risks connected to Indigenous rights, inadequate consultation and biased lending models.
ABPA Proposes Four Regulatory Changes
1. Require Indigenous-Rights Risk Disclosure
ABPA wants banks to identify and publicly disclose financial exposure to projects that do not have verified First Nations consent.
The organization proposes building this requirement into OSFI’s risk framework, including Guideline B-15. The current B-15 guideline requires federally regulated financial institutions to identify, manage and disclose climate-related financial risks.
B-15 does not currently establish a specific disclosure requirement for Indigenous consent or Aboriginal and Treaty rights. ABPA is effectively asking OSFI to broaden that approach or develop parallel guidance covering legal, construction, credit and reputational risks connected to Indigenous rights.
2. Independently Review Products Marketed as Indigenous
ABPA wants financial products promoted as Indigenous bonds or reconciliation-linked investments to receive an independent second-party opinion from a qualified Indigenous organization.
The association argues that Indigenous branding should be supported by measurable benefits, including improved borrowing terms, direct investment or economic participation for First Nations.
Implementing this proposal would likely require cooperation among OSFI, the Canadian Sustainability Standards Board and the Canadian Securities Administrators. OSFI supervises institutional financial risk, but securities regulators have a central role in investment-product disclosure and marketing.
3. Create a “Certainty Premium” for Consented Projects
ABPA proposes lower regulatory risk weights for projects that have verified First Nations consent and equity participation. It suggests risk weights of between 50 and 65 per cent for qualifying partnerships and a 150 per cent risk weight for developments proceeding without consent.
The proposal is designed to make genuine partnerships less expensive to finance while requiring banks to hold more capital against projects ABPA considers vulnerable to legal action, blockades or delay.
These percentages are ABPA’s recommendations, not existing OSFI rules. Any change would need detailed evidence, consultation and compatibility with Canada’s capital-adequacy framework and international banking standards.
4. Examine Credit Models for Structural Bias
ABPA is also asking OSFI to examine whether automated credit-scoring and loan-adjudication systems unfairly reject Indigenous businesses.
OSFI’s Guideline E-23 already applies to business decision-making models, including credit-adjudication and scoring systems. It requires institutions to manage model risk through documentation, independent review, validation, monitoring and controls.
The guideline does not expressly require an audit for discrimination against Indigenous applicants. ABPA wants that kind of testing added to the supervisory process.
The organization is also seeking changes to federal pension-investment rules so affected First Nations pension plans would have more opportunity to invest directly in local infrastructure. ABPA says this could keep a larger share of investment returns and economic activity within First Nations economies.
Project Cost Overruns Need Careful Context
ABPA points to the Trans Mountain Expansion and Coastal GasLink projects as examples of the financial danger created when Indigenous-rights disputes are not resolved before construction.
The cost figures are broadly supported by public records. Trans Mountain’s original 2017 estimate was $7.4 billion. Federal documents now put the expansion cost at approximately $34.5 billion. Coastal GasLink was completed at a cost of about $14.5 billion, more than double its original budget.
However, the available evidence does not support blaming the full increase on a failure to obtain Indigenous consent.
Federal briefing material on Trans Mountain lists several causes, including an early estimate that lacked detailed engineering, project enhancements, a court decision that cancelled the original approval, COVID-19, British Columbia floods, safety improvements, schedule pressures and financing costs.
Indigenous opposition, legal proceedings and demonstrations were part of the risk environment surrounding both projects. They were not the only causes of delay or higher costs. ABPA’s argument is that earlier consent and stronger equity partnerships could reduce one important category of risk—not that every dollar of the overruns can be attributed to Indigenous-rights disputes.
A 36-Month Implementation Proposal
ABPA proposes a three-year transition. The first stage would involve draft supervisory guidance and consultation. Banks would then conduct a quantitative impact study and update their data and information-technology systems. The final stage would integrate the new requirements into OSFI’s annual capital-adequacy reviews.
The association has requested a meeting with Routledge and OSFI’s executive committee.
No response from OSFI was included with ABPA’s announcement. The regulator would normally consult institutions and other affected parties before making significant changes to capital rules or supervisory guidance.
Why the Submission Matters
The submission moves the reconciliation discussion beyond donations, sponsorships and corporate statements. It asks whether banking rules properly recognize Indigenous-rights risk and whether institutions that benefit from managing First Nations wealth are providing fair access to business capital.
It also raises difficult regulatory questions. Banks cannot be directed to make unsafe loans, and capital rules must be based on credible evidence. At the same time, a lending system can appear neutral while relying on collateral rules, historical data or automated models that reproduce long-standing barriers.
The next step will be whether OSFI agrees that these issues belong within prudential supervision—and, if so, how they can be measured consistently and enforced without weakening financial stability.
More information about the organization is available from the Anishnawbe Business Professional Association.
Editor’s note: Financial figures and policy recommendations attributed to ABPA come from the organization’s submission. NetNewsLedger checked the cited OSFI legislation and guidelines and added context concerning project cost overruns and regulatory jurisdiction.
