Source: The Conversation – Canada
The Canadian government has just reintroduced long-awaited First Nations drinking water legislation, tabling Bill C-37 in the House of Commons in June.
The proposed First Nations Clean Water Act replaces Bill C-61, landmark legislation that was co-developed with First Nations but ultimately died when Parliament was prorogued in early 2025.
The former Bill C-61 was a product of meaningful co-development, shaped through years of engagement grounded in recognition of First Nations’ rights. It explicitly affirmed access to clean and safe drinking water as a human right and reflected a collaborative approach between First Nations and the federal government.
By contrast, Bill C-37 is a potential step back. In its current form, it would weaken key legal provisions, particularly those related to rights and governance.
The reintroduced act comes after more than a year of delay and mounting pressure from First Nations leaders. The legislation had been repeatedly promised but postponed.
For many First Nations, the new legislation is welcome — but the differences between the former Bill C-61 and proposed Bill C-37 raise serious concerns. The delay in passing legislation has also sparked concern across First Nations, especially in Ontario, where many communities continue to face urgent water issues.
Weakened language
One of the most significant changes is the shift in how the right to water is framed. The new legislation removes and softens language without recognizing a clear human right to water.
In contrast, Bill C-61 explicitly recognized and affirmed that clean and safe drinking water is a human right. Bill C‑37 instead frames this as a policy objective tied to the “progressive realization” of that right. The United Nations General Assembly has recognized access to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right. Canada supported that resolution.
First Nations leaders have also raised concerns about what this shift signals more broadly for Indigenous rights. The Assembly of First Nations National Chief described the new bill as reflecting a troubling move away from explicit recognition of First Nations rights.
Insufficient consultation
Indigenous concerns extend beyond the bill’s language to the broader issue of decision-making authority.
Earlier versions of the legislation included stronger provisions for First Nations consent and governance, aligning with the principle of free, prior and informed consent outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The new bill weakens co-development provisions, relying instead on non-binding language and creating further uncertainty about how First Nations jurisdiction will work in practice.
The legislative process itself is also a major point of concern. Bill C-61 was developed through sustained engagement and collaboration. In contrast, Bill C-37 has been introduced without adequate consultation or input from First Nations.
Indigenous leaders have expressed frustration that key changes were made without proper consultation, raising questions about whether the federal government is meeting its obligations to engage with First Nations on legislation that directly affects them.
Some First Nations leaders say the new bill reflects the government’s broader “take it or leave it” attitude to consultation. The process signals an approach that has consistently left First Nations without a seat at the decision-making table, undermining trust that had been earned through the co-development process.
Even where Indigenous leaders have expressed cautious optimism, it is often paired with concern that the bill does not go far enough. While the bill can be seen as a “significant step,” it requires stronger wording to protect First Nations.
An entrenched water crisis
These legislative debates are unfolding in the context of an ongoing and deeply entrenched water crisis. Across Canada, dozens of First Nations communities remain under long-term drinking water advisories.
Despite progress in lifting advisories over the past decade, new advisories continue to emerge, and many communities face long waits for a resolution. In Ontario, the situation is particularly urgent. The province has the highest number of long-term advisories, and many communities have lived with unsafe water for decades.
Long-term advisories are only part of a broader problem of water insecurity shaped by governance gaps, funding inequities and poor infrastructure. Political commitments have so far failed to translate into lasting solutions.
The delay in reintroducing legislation has only heightened these concerns. Urgent action is needed; delays and weakened legislation place communities at risk.
At the same time, legislation alone is not enough. While investments in infrastructure are essential, without strong governance frameworks and clear accountability, they are unlikely to deliver lasting change. Meaningful progress requires alignment between funding, legislation and First Nations-led governance systems.
Strengthening legislation
Bill C-37 represents an opportunity to move forward, but it also highlights the challenges of translating commitments into action. As it stands, the bill builds on earlier work while stepping back from some of the stronger commitments that emerged through co-development.
What is needed is clear communication from the federal government regarding why certain changes from Bill C-61 were made in the introduction of Bill C-37, and why it took so long to re-introduce the legislation. Through the parliamentary process, there will be an opportunity to further improve the legislation.
The question is whether the federal government will use the parliamentary process to strengthen the legislation in partnership with First Nations. A return to the stronger language of recognition and affirmation of the human right to water is the minimum requirement.
For communities still living under long-term drinking water advisories, particularly in Ontario, there is little room for further delay. Safe, clean drinking water is not an aspirational goal, it is a human right. First Nations have waited too long. Enough is enough.
Kerry Black receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
Irving Leblanc does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article.
Kathleen Padulo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article.
Linda Debassige does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/09/canadas-proposed-clean-water-act-needs-stronger-protections-for-indigenous-communities/