Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 18 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize that we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on June 18, 2025, the committee is commencing its study of federally recognized indigenous communities without land or modern treaty.

Before we go too far, I have a budget here that we need to adopt in the amount of $54,600. That was for four studies and a whole bunch of things, so we will adopt that. I'm sure we're going to come under that.

(Motion agreed to)

MP Schmale, did you have your hand up?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

I did. Thank you, Chair.

In the essence of time I won't read it out, but I'd like to move my motion of January 23. I table that for discussion and potential vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Jaime.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

It's fine with us.

I do believe the minister has reached out to the chair and said when she is available. It's Thursday morning, I understand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thursday morning at 8:15 the minister will be available, so we'll have her there.

First of all, is there any more discussion on this before I call for a vote? All right.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now that this motion has carried, the clerk can also try to get the other two witnesses, if they're available on Thursday. It is short notice. We may have to have them come a little bit later.

MP Zimmer, you had your hand up.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Yes, Chair.

We put forward a notice of motion on Wednesday, December 3, 2025. It reads:

That, in light of concerns raised in the 2024 Giant Mine Oversight Board Annual Report and by multiple whistle-blowers regarding unclear project expenditures, inadequate financial controls, slower or incomplete responses to oversight recommendations and significant long-term cost and engineering risks, the committee report to the House recommending that the Auditor General undertake a value-for-money and performance audit of the Giant Mine Remediation Project covering the period since 2015.

I've been up to the mine site and even talked to many locals and many of these whistle-blowers about the concerns. I understand from my colleague across the way, Dr. Hanley, that he has an amendment that we're, I believe, amicable to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

MP Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for raising the issue, and thank you also for being open to an amendment.

This is an important topic. I do believe there is a lot of good information as well for the public to be able to have access to on the Giant Mine remediation project.

Without further ado, I'll read the amendment:

That, given the importance of transparency and public confidence in the Giant Mine Remediation Project, and noting concerns raised in the 2024 Giant Mine Oversight Board Annual Report by stakeholders and partners, the committee writes to the Auditor General to consider undertaking a value-for-money and performance audit of the Giant Mine Remediation Project covering the period since 2015".

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Mr. Zimmer, do you accept that as a friendly amendment?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Yes, Chair, we do.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

The original motion as amended is in order.

I call for a vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you.

Now we'll move on to the study.

On our first panel for the first hour we have, from the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, Darlene Bess, assistant deputy minister, resolution and partnerships; and Danielle White, senior assistant deputy minister, treaties and aboriginal government.

From the Department of Indigenous Services, we have Ian Kenney, director general, governance branch; and Laura Mitchell, director general, lands and environmental management.

Both of you will have five minutes, and then we'll go to questions.

You can begin.

[Darlene Bess, Assistant Deputy Minister, Resolution and Partnerships, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Darlene Bess. I am the assistant deputy minister responsible for the resolution and partnerships sector at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada.

I'm accompanied today by my colleague, Danielle White, senior assistant deputy minister, treaties and aboriginal government.

We are pleased to join you on the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

Expanding land is an important issue for first nations across Canada. First nations can increase their land base through modern treaties, self-government agreements and other constructive agreements, settling specific claims that involve land, especially treaty land entitlement claims, where land promised under a historic treaty was never fully provided. Separate from claims, first nations may also increase their land base by purchasing privately owned land, fee simple land.

Modern treaties, self-government agreements and other constructive arrangements are important ways the government and indigenous communities can reach practical solutions to land issues. By addressing important questions, such as land ownership, coordination of law-making or shared decision-making, modern treaties and other similar arrangements can increase economic opportunities for indigenous communities and create clarity and predictability over land rights.

Canada is engaged in rights-based discussions with indigenous partners across the country. At 160 discussion tables, Canada works with indigenous partners and often with provinces and territories to identify key interests and reach arrangements that are workable for all parties. Land interest is a subject matter at 117 of these tables.

Many indigenous partners in modern treaty negotiations have a small land base, such as first nations with a reserve. Modern treaties offer an opportunity to expand land ownership for indigenous partners through the identification of treaty settlement lands, which can bring important economic development opportunities for these communities. Agreements can also include resource revenue-sharing and economic benefit-sharing agreements, predictable shared decision-making regimes with respect to lands and resources and jurisdictional arrangements that support the coordination of law-making between levels of government, including indigenous governments.

Land acquired through specific claims or purchased as private property must go through the federal process of being added to reserves in order to obtain reserve status. This process has been widely criticized as slow and unpredictable, which has often delayed housing and infrastructure projects and limited economic opportunities.

The government has responded by speeding up the addition to reserve process, building on consultations with first nations and first nations organizations over the past few years.

For many years, federal policy limited landless first nations' ability to establish reserve lands, as proposals generally had to be tied to a settlement agreement with Canada.

In 2024, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada, working with first nations, made nine changes to the additions to reserve policy. These changes now allow landless first nations to submit proposals without a settlement agreement. This created a new path to reserve land for communities without reserve lands for generations, including Conseil de la Nation Micmac de Gespeg, whose reserve was established on December 19, 2025.

To conclude, reducing barriers for landless first nations is critical for both the economic and cultural development of indigenous communities.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We look forward to answering questions from committee members and participating in this exchange.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you.

[Ian Kenney, Director General, Governance Branch, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

As mentioned earlier, my name is Ian Kenney. I'm the director general of the governance branch at Indigenous Services Canada. I'm joined by my colleague, Laura Mitchell, director general of lands and environmental management.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today about landless indigenous communities. I will begin with the role of the department in recognizing new bands under the Indian Act, which is one reason that a first nation community might find itself without reserve land.

Indigenous Services Canada delivers and funds a wide range of programs and services for the benefit of first nations, Inuit and Métis. But, because of the Indian Act and its provisions for the reserve system and the Indian registry, the federal government has particular statutory responsibilities for first nations people.

Because program eligibility may be based on residency on-reserve, as well as on registration under the Indian Act, access to specific programs and services by a member of a landless band may vary. As a result, a study of the impacts on a member of a landless band from the point of view of programs, services and benefits is complex, and would depend very much on each specific program.

However, I'm happy to say a few words about the specific function led by my team, the recognition of new bands under the Indian Act.

Under section 17 of the Indian Act, the minister has the authority to create new bands and amalgamate or divide existing ones, subject to certain conditions being fulfilled. Also, under section 2, a band could be created made up of a community whose members' status has not yet been recognized.

Canada has formally recognized a very small number of first nations in recent years, most often as a result of historical exclusion from recognition, specific court decisions or claims-based processes.

While band recognition and reserve creation are related, they are separate. Being recognized as a band under the Indian Act does not, on its own, confer reserve land or automatic access to all federal programs tied to a land base. A band must first be formally recognized by Indigenous Services Canada before a reserve can be created.

Additions to reserves, or ATRs, are a vital mechanism that enables first nations to expand their land base or, in the case of newly recognized bands without reserve land, to establish one for the first time. ATRs allow first nations to plan for future growth to advance long-term community priorities such as housing, infrastructure and economic development.

The ATR process involves numerous external parties and steps, such as completing surveys, environmental reviews of proposed land, work to address any existing third party interests on the proposed land, negotiating municipal services agreements, etc. The process is proposal driven and largely led by the first nation.

In closing, the recognition of a new band under the Indian Act, while the first step in the process of reserve creation, is usually pursued with an expressed intention to establish a land base, recognizing that reserve creation is often central to long-term governance, effective service delivery and longer-term community development. It's important that we continue to support these communities in navigating these complex processes to ensure that they are positioned for stability, effective governance and long-term success.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

I would like to welcome Mr. Lemire.

This is your study. I want to welcome you back to the committee.

We will proceed now with the first round of six minutes.

For the Conservatives, I'll go to Jamie.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

A lot of the concern we hear when we meet with indigenous leaders who come to Ottawa and talk about the footprint of their nation, whether they buy land or to go through the ATR process, is that it's very cumbersome and time-consuming. There are no tight guidelines on when a decision can be expected. These are the kinds of comments we hear all the time.

You outlined in your opening remarks a few things your department is doing to speed up some of the applications that are going through, but I think it is still a problem within the department itself.

I want to relay the concerns we are getting on this side from nations themselves. I don't know whether you want to respond to that before I go on to my line of questioning, but I want you to know that it is a concern we hear quite often.

[Darlene Bess]

We've been at many conferences and consultations with our indigenous partners and have heard the same. We are really working on that.

I'll leave some time for your questions.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Maybe I could give you a list of some who have come to us for assistance in speeding up that process. Perhaps we can have a dialogue on where certain applications are in the process and when these nations can expect an answer. I think that the most frustrating part of a lot of these applications is that nobody really knows.

We've met with nations that have said they get a response within eight months, which is quite fast. That's quite impressive. Others have been waiting years for applications that seemed straightforward. Land had been given to them by the courts or there was a general purchase that seemed quite straightforward on the surface. The length of time it takes to get that approved is turning out to be quite frustrating.

Maybe tight timelines could be put in or maybe there could be a schedule of when decisions can be made or decisions can be heard. For example, if it's not done by a certain date—eight months, a year, whatever—then it's automatically a yes. I think there should be something in your policies and procedures to assure nations that there is the possibility of a yes or a no in a very quick fashion.

[Darlene Bess]

Thank you very much for those comments. Yes, those are things I've heard as well. We at CIRNAC are in the process of redesigning the policy. We made some interim changes last year, nine of them, to make some of it easier. We're looking to have consultations on the policy this spring. We have some drafts going out through circulations, through a technical advisory group we use for consultation on the policy development.

In working with our colleagues at ISC, we realize that the policy alone can't change things. As you've mentioned, service standards and more frequent communication would be better. We're exploring such things as alternative service delivery models and are looking at models where we can expedite the process. We have had some success stories in some first nations. We are drawing and learning from those experiences on how we can focus everyone together, working with provinces and municipalities to avoid a lot of the back-and-forth, which is where we see a lot of the delays.

I'll pass it over to my colleague Laura Mitchell to provide a bit more information.

[Laura Mitchell, Director General, Lands and Environmental Management, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thank you.

It would be me you should follow up with about the specific communities. We would welcome that. With regard to your point around service standards, it's definitely something that we've been describing. The challenge that persists in the ATR process is that the federal government has only so many levers. A lot of partners are involved in bringing an ATR to completion. Those include municipalities but also third party interest holders, such as a hydro company. You also have the issue of duty to consult. We need to go out and talk to other nations that may be implicated by the creation of that reserve.

All those things take a considerable amount of time in some cases and are only so much within our control. We are looking at processes to expedite these things but also to do a better project management approach. We have new software called NATS, the national additions to reserve tracking system, which will automate aspects of those processes and email a person, for example, if they haven't followed up in a certain amount of time.

We're hoping that as nations use that more and more and our regional colleagues use that more and more—we're pretty good with new ATRs, but with the older ATRs it's more of an issue—we'll see some of those hiccups go away. It's not an easy problem to solve. It's not a problem that a policy alone can solve. There's work we're doing with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and work we're going to need to look to do with provinces as well. We're going to have to take a very multipronged approach.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

When we're talking about indigenous people, first nations people, living off community, for example, there are organizations that represent those people, such as the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. The impression I get from them is that the dialogue is not always as accessible with that department. They are often overlooked in conversations of national importance that they feel they should be part of.

Are you actively dialoguing with them on issues that affect individuals, whether Métis or first nations off reserve? Is this something that is actually top of mind? There have been meetings that they've been shut out of, locked out of, pushed away, and yet we're having a study on this very issue and a majority of first nations live off reserve. Is there some active dialogue going on?

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

That's all the time we have. We are a little over time, but perhaps that can come out in the rest of the answers throughout the session.

You have six minutes, Jaime.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

During your discussion points, you talked about the importance of economic development through land and about what additions to reserve or land base means to a first nations community. I'm wondering if you can expand on that a little bit. What are some of the things we're hearing from landless bands that would help us with the economic development as well as residential areas for communities?

[Laura Mitchell]

I'll be candid and say that I have not had much dialogue with landless bands around economic development. My team does the additions to reserve process. Another part of the lands and environmental sector deals with economic development. I would not want to speak on their behalf.

I can say that the two programs that deliver economic development support are not residency-based. Landless bands would be eligible for economic development funding under those programs. The challenge is that they may not have a place to do economic development that would be tax-free or under their own governance and administration. That would be a question I'd want to take back to the economic development folks.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS]

How many landless bands are there currently in Canada that we've identified as legitimate complainants in Canada?