First Nations Clean Water Act

Bill C-37, First Nations Clean Water Act · Second reading · now at committee in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-37 would do

The bill would affirm that the right to self-government includes First Nations jurisdiction over drinking water, wastewater, source water, and related infrastructure on their lands. It would set minimum standards for water quality, water quantity, and wastewater effluent. The bill would also establish guiding principles like substantive equality and create pathways to help protect source water.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

14 statements

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“The government has been in power since 2015 and promised back then to end boil-water advisories. I want the minister to answer yes or no: will the government keep that promise?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the minister’s work on the file. It is a very difficult file. She referenced the work that has been done by the Liberal government since 2015. I have a quick comment about the work done by government. In the House, just this week, when asked about affordability, the Prime Minister said, “I just got here.” In 2015, the Liberals promised to end boiled water advisories. The fact is that they did not just get here. I am wondering if the minister can confirm, yes or no, if they are going to keep their promise to end boil water advisories.

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“A court ruled against the government over clean drinking water for First Nations, and the government appealed it. I want the minister to explain why they are still fighting First Nations in court.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the government appealed a 2025 ruling against it when it came to its failures on first nations clean drinking water. The Liberals immediately appealed the decision. Can the minister explain why they appealed and why they are still fighting first nations in court regarding clean drinking water in first nations?

Ellis Ross, Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Conservative
“This bill is just a big announcement to hide the government's real record. The government is losing court cases about drinking water on reserves, and it is fighting those decisions in court. Why is the minister appealing the latest court decision the government lost?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I want to reaffirm a question, which my colleague asked previously, and its answer, because this is a big, shiny announcement. As a first nations leader, I have seen big, shiny announcements over the last 20 years, but I think it is important that Canadians and aboriginals understand that, underneath this shiny announcement, the Canadian government, the Liberal government, is actually losing court cases regarding drinking water on reserves. At the same time, the government is appealing the decisions that it has lost. Can the minister explain why the government is appealing the latest decision it lost?

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“I want everyone to agree to let me share my speaking time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“The Liberals broke their promise to end boil water advisories, and they only introduced this bill because First Nations sued them. The bill uses weak language, does not guarantee long-term funding, and the government is still fighting First Nations in court over water rights. I want this bill sent to committee anyway, so First Nations leaders can speak out and hold the government accountable.”
  • A repeated line

    “On behalf of the Government of Canada.”

    Said 5 times by 5 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Liberals said no relationship is more important to Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. On October 2015, the Liberal government promised to end boil water advisories on first nations by March 31, 2021, which was in approximately 2,000 days or six years. Like so many things with reconciliation, the Liberals never lived up to their word. Since their deadline came and passed, an additional 2,018 days, or nearly six years, have come and gone. Now it has been over 11 years, over 4,000 days, since they promised to deal with clean water on first nations. There are still boil water advisories on first nations. There are still first nations wondering when the Liberals will live up to their word. The Minister, on behalf of the Government of Canada, must fulfill Canada’s obligations and implement Canada’s commitments set out in the Settlement Agreement, I highlight the words “settlement agreement”, which of course refers to a 2021 class action lawsuit regarding first nations’ clean drinking water, a lawsuit started in 2019 by several first nations that were, and still are, tired of the government’s negligence on water. This legislation is not derived from Liberal government leadership to do right by first nations people or water, but by the first nations seeing no other alternative but to take the government to court and force action for clean drinking water. Again, that is not the end of this. As we note today, the Liberal government continues to fight first nations in court to deny Canada has a legal duty to ensure they have safe drinking water on reserve, even as the Liberals advance this legislation. Shamattawa First Nation v. Canada was launched in court in 2022. The outstanding action by first nations is still arguing in court to this day that the government still fails in its obligations to provide safe drinking water. After failing to pass clean water legislation last Parliament as a priority, their third as the government, for the third consecutive time, it took the Liberals over a year on the last day before summer break to reintroduce their clean water legislation, much of it basically the same as Bill C-61, their previous bill in the last Parliament. That is how the Liberals treat what is, according to them, their most important relationship in the country. That is the Liberal record on reconciliation. I ask them, is this the Liberal way of keeping their word? Let us also not forget why this legislation is here in the first place. It talks about it right in the legislation itself. Section 33 of this bill says: It is no wonder that first nations like Shamattawa, St. Theresa and others in rural northern Manitoba feel they have no other option but to fight in court. Since April 2025, at the same time that the Liberal government was re-elected, those nations have been devastated from an ongoing hepatitis A outbreak, exacerbated by long-standing challenges such as a lack of clean drinking water, adequate sewage and plumbing systems. In 2025, the court sided with those first nations and the Liberals immediately appealed and are still fighting first nations in court today over clean, safe drinking water. In the appeal filing, the Liberal defence via government lawyers denied that first nations have distinctly indigenous interest in the drinking water. They asserted that first nations’ interest in their own reserve land does not include water because water is not attached to the land, but flows around it and under it. I am not sure what to make of that argument. The draft of the Liberals’ Bill C-37, which we are discussing here today, in section 6 says, “jurisdiction of First Nations...[is recognized over] water, source water, drinking water, wastewater, related infrastructure on, in and under First Nation lands.” The Liberals propose to recognize first nations jurisdiction in and under first nations lands, but are in court at this moment saying first nations’ interest does not include water on their land because it is not attached to the land. Where are the principles of the government? At what point are the Liberals going to put in the real work to do right by first nations and clean drinking water? They should stop going around in circles wasting money on endless conflicting dialogues. They should stop fighting in court and go beyond the bare minimum ordered by that court to have kids and families gain access to life’s basic necessity. What does this legislation actually do? How will it lead to them keeping their promise and how will it get the kids and families that life-giving necessity? How will it help end a boil water advisory for Neskantaga, which has been under a boil water advisory now for 30-plus years? Entire generations of a community know no reality of what it means to turn on a tap and drink safely. First, this bill says that first nations should have substantive equality, which means they should have the same accessibility to clean, safe drinking water as non-first nations communities. That is a good thing, but when you consider the policies that Indigenous Services Canada has implemented today, those policies already acknowledge that Health Canada standards, such as for effluent quality and waste-water treatment, and federal guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality apply. Will turning a policy into legislation regarding standards actually change anything the government is doing? No. As many first nations leaders have said already regarding this bill, it is a watered-down version of the previous legislation that says it will make best efforts to do the bare minimum. After 11 years, this is the best the Liberals can do to an already long-time policy and say it is now legislation. Next, this legislation has the government’s favourite word to give first nations to imply the government is actually doing something when it is really not. It is “framework”. First nations wanted to be empowered yesterday on upskilling more clean water and waste-water operators. They want to know their new and old systems will be adequately supported by the fiduciary responsibility of the government. They want to know if they can enforce accountability in the system. Remote communities want to build faster and more effectively. They want testing capacity. They want adequate, predictable funding beyond two-year ISC contribution agreements and/or beyond one government budget cycle. In the case of northern Manitoba rural first nations, they want things in place to stop a hepatitis A outbreak. A framework does not do that. Kids and families cannot drink or bathe in frameworks. Saying a policy is now legislation will do nothing to stop their hepatitis A outbreak. Finally, the government told first nations and Canadians it is committed to meaningfully implementing UNDRIP, including the aspects of clean water. Evidence shows that, just like its promise in 2015, this was all just political talk with no real intention of ever living up to its word. When it comes to Liberals keeping their promises of ending boil water advisories, this legislation now says the government will make best efforts. When it comes to implementing UNDRIP, this legislation now says it is “guided by”, key words distinctly different from “according to our direct implementation record”. This reflects their 2026 report on the implementation of UNDRIP, Bill C-15, where the government said it would make all laws compatible with UNDRIP. With its fifth report, which was just released a few months ago, we now know that 125 of 181 action plan items the government developed alongside a handful of just a few first nations people are either paused, not started or incomplete. The Liberals know they say UNDRIP just because they think it is politically convenient and advantageous to say so, but their rhetoric is catching up to them, and it is becoming more divisive, especially in B.C., for all Canadians. Take, for instance, the funding announced. This is not statutory funding, by the way, as part of this legislation. The Liberals announced this alongside the bill as part of the budget. The minister said it was the largest historic investment in water, but the immediate reaction of first nations was that they had heard this before, in fact a number of times. How many consultants who exploit first nations have been made rich off these Liberal money announcements while families on reserve go without? What the Liberals do not seem to understand is that it is not just about a podium announcement, consultations or money contributed. First nations are focused on the results and accountability. First nations are no longer judging the government by its fake photo ops and announcements. As Chief Mercredi warned them last week, first nations leaders at announcements does not mean a vote of confidence. I will come full circle. I stand here speaking not for all first nations, but as one first nations person in this House holding the government accountable. My voice reflects the disappointment, frustration and lack of hope many first nations feel regarding the Liberal government on its record on reconciliation and water. Conservatives believe first nations deserve respect, clean drinking water and a government that keeps its word. Too much time has passed. There are still crises 30 years old regarding water. Despite the shortcomings of this bill, we would like to see it get through this House to the next stage at committee, where first nations voices again will help us keep the government accountable.

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“I do not support this bill. It is too weak and only does the bare minimum. The money the government promised has not reached First Nations, and communities still lack safe water. I want this law to hold the government accountable to taxpayers and First Nations.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, this bill is, as first nations leaders have said, the bare minimum. The Liberals are going to take best efforts to do the bare minimum, and it is a watered-down version of Bill C-61. When the member talks about standards, those standards already exist in the policies implemented. When it comes to the funds, the Liberals announced big funding. For the first nations, the funding announcements and the billions of dollars go over their heads because they are still suffering from water shortages, hepatitis A outbreaks and kids and families going without. When it comes to money, I would like to see the government be more accountable. Maybe this legislation could be more empowered to keep the government accountable to taxpayers, to first nations and to those kids and families who are suffering the most.

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“The government has broken its promises on clean drinking water for First Nations for 10 years. This bill is too weak. It only sets up a framework, and it will take years before anything is actually built.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 30 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his great work when I sat with him at INAN. It has been frustrating to watch the last year, but it has been 10 times even more frustrating watching the last 10 years of the Liberal government. It is promise after promise broken, and at this point, I do not blame any first nation for being cynical, sad or disappointed when it comes to its record on water. This legislation talks again about a framework, and it says in there that the government is going to take another year, and it is probably going to be two more years or three more years given its record on implementing actual frameworks and actual details to change the system and get things built. At this point, the bare minimum, a watered-down version of Bill C-61, does not inspire a lot of hope going forward for first nations families or kids at all.

Billy Morin, Edmonton Northwest

Conservative
“Conservatives want a government that tells the truth and keeps its promises to First Nations and all Canadians. The Liberals make empty announcements that divide the country. Their broken promises are hurting reconciliation.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 12 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 18 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Conservative position is that we want to give first nations and all Canadians a government that is truthful and delivers on what it says. Regarding major projects, there was an announcement yesterday by a first nation that it had asked for a review on the latest announcement regarding a pipeline. I do not blame that first nation, but what this really says to me is that the Liberals’ record on rhetoric, on promises they cannot keep and on photo op announcements that have no substance beyond them is really catching up to them, and it is dividing this country. Conservatives do not believe in that. We believe in an honest, straightforward conversation. We believe we should disagree when we have to and show respect. The Liberal government is really setting reconciliation back now many years.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“I support sending this clean water bill to committee, but it needs big changes. Right now, it is too weak. It only asks the government to make its best efforts instead of legally forcing it to act. In my riding, an illegal dump on federal land is leaking toxic waste toward the Cowichan River, and the government has done nothing for years. This bill must include real power to stop polluters, guaranteed long-term funding to run water systems, and clear deadlines to clean up toxic sites.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island: seniors, families, fishers, workers, youth, business owners and Cowichan Tribes, the largest first nation in British Columbia. Before I turn to Bill C-37, I would like to take a moment to pay my respects to Mr. Bob Saunders, who, sadly, passed away just a few days ago at the age of 91. Across Vancouver Island and beyond, Bob gave without counting, to health care, veterans, mental health education, youth, and community services. As a runner for the Wounded Warrior Run BC team, I personally saw his generosity as he supported our fundraising efforts for those who carried the weight of service. He gave not just in dollars but also with hope, dignity and leadership. Bob inspired me and so many others across British Columbia. Through his generosity, his kindness and his philanthropy, he showed the very best of what it means to be Canadian. Not long ago, I had the honour of joining Bob and his beloved wife, Norma, at the Victoria Shamrocks’ season opener as Bob and Norma celebrated 70 years of marriage. His son Dave has closely followed in his father’s footsteps with the same kindness, generosity and commitment to our communities. What Dave gives to Vancouver Island is not a copy of his father’s work; it is a continuation of it. My and Angel’s thoughts and prayers are with Dave and the entire Saunders family today, and to the late Bob Saunders I wish fair winds and following seas. I now turn to the business at hand of Bill C-37, the first nations clean water act. Clean water is a necessity of life, not a privilege and not a favour. Let me start with this: Conservatives have always supported clean, safe, reliable water for first nations, and we support sending the bill to committee for key amendments to make it stronger. Support is not a blank cheque but a promise to do the work of making the bill better. Let me begin with what the bill would do. It would affirm first nation jurisdiction over water on first nation lands. It would set minimum standards for water quality, quantity and waste water, and it would create a first nation-led water commission. However, let us look closely at what this commission could actually do. It could advise. It could support capacity building. It could help first nations develop their own water laws. What it could not do is order a cleanup. It could not compel a polluter. It could not force a federal department to act, even when contamination is already creeping towards first nations’ water that families rely on. A commission with no enforcement power is a resource, not a remedy. Bill C-37 would also rely again and again on two words: best efforts. With a binding obligation, says the government, it must take action, but with best efforts, says the government, it only has to try. Families cannot drink best efforts. Let me show the House what the difference looks like on Vancouver Island. The Cowichan River begins at Cowichan Lake, winds lazily through the town of Lake Cowichan, through the forests over Skutz Falls and into the fertile farmland of the Cowichan Valley, then through Duncan and the Cowichan Tribes reserve lands, past the Cowichan River hatchery before it empties into the ocean at Cowichan Bay. It is not one community’s river. It is the backbone of a whole valley. It is drinking water. It is fisheries. It is farms. It is identity. For Cowichan Tribes, the river and its salmon are also central to food, culture and ceremony. Since 1978, Cowichan Tribes and Fisheries and Oceans Canada have successfully partnered on a hatchery to rebuild the river’s salmon. In a statement, Cowichan Tribes called pollution and contamination of reserve land and water a “national problem.” They said the tools to address it are “primarily under federal jurisdiction” and that “the Government of Canada [has been] reluctant to prosecute polluters.” Let us explore that statement. On reserve land, along that same river, on Indian Road, sits what looks like, at first glance, a pile of waste. It is not the only illegal dump site in the Cowichan Valley, and it will not be the only one I raise in the House, but this site is unambiguously on federal land and is federal responsibility, and that is why I am turning my efforts to it first. However, it is not a pile. A 2023 consultant’s report put its volume at more than 290,000 cubic metres accumulated over two decades. It is not a dump; it is a mountain. Government and consultant reports list what is in it: heavy metals, including arsenic, cadmium, lead and zinc; hydrocarbons; volatile organic compounds; small amounts of asbestos; and lead-based paint. The list goes on. The reports found that the site is producing leachate that is moving through the groundwater, creeping toward the river. Testing continues. Separately it has been reported that contamination may now also be present in the Cowichan River itself. Though this has only been reported, a river this important should not have to wait for proof of harm before the government takes action. Cowichan Tribes says it has asked for action since 2010. The site sits on reserve land but, importantly, outside the nation’s land code. Under law, that makes this a clear federal responsibility. It is not a grey area, not a shared file and not a matter for another order of government to resolve. It is Ottawa’s duty and Ottawa’s duty alone. In April, I wrote to the Minister of Indigenous Services, but despite years of warning, meaningful federal enforcement and remediation of this water travesty have not materialized. Many people bear responsibility for how this site came to be: those who illegally dumped, those who profited and those who turned a blind eye. I am not here to point fingers today. I am here to have the illegal garbage dump and the contaminants that are impacting the river and the groundwater remediated and cleaned up, and to compel the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations to take action. I will always fight for the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. A consultant’s 2023 estimate was $5.3 million to move the waste or $2 million to cap it, and those costs have only risen since. Turning back to Bill C-37, let us consider the money behind this bill. The 2021 settlement agreement promised a one-time, $6-billion amount to achieve safe drinking water access by March 2030. That is construction money with a deadline. However, the bill would not replenish that. It would not guarantee what comes after. There is no statutory commitment to the ongoing operating funding that keeps a treatment plant running or cleanup of an illegal garbage dump moving once the announcements are made and the cameras leave. Best efforts, as is repeatedly said, will not clean up this site. The people of Cowichan Tribes and the Cowichan Valley deserve better. Let me now look at what the bill would offer for a case like this. It mentions cleanup of source water in one place, as some regulations may address. Protection zones beside the reserve would not be defined until those regulations are made, and they would require the province and Canada to agree. The minister’s duty on environmental protection is to consult, to co-operate and to achieve results. The bill would not come into force until one year after royal assent, and the minister would only have to make best efforts to begin consulting on the regulations six months after that. The Assembly of First Nations has raised weak source-water protection, lack of sustainable funding and other challenges with the bill. It is my duty, as a member of the House, to hold the government to account, but that duty is not an end in itself. It means to make a bill better, one worthy of the people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and every community the bill is meant to serve. With that duty in mind, I offer the following. First, replace best efforts with binding, measurable duties. Second, have a public federal plan with timelines to remediate issues such as the illegal garbage dump and its pollution into the groundwater and other similar sites. Third, provide not only stable operating funding that is set up but construction funding as well. Fourth, there should be regulations that come back to the House so Parliament can see the details and not just the promises. I offer these in the spirit of working with government, with Cowichan Tribes and with every community on Vancouver Island that depends on clean water. This matters on the island, it matters across B.C. and it matters across Canada. The Cowichan River, Cowichan Valley, Cowichan hatchery rebuilding the salmon stocks, and Cowichan Tribes all deserve a federal government that acts. I support sending the bill to committee. Let us collaborate and work to make it worthy of the people it serves.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“Good intentions do not get results. The government's clean water bill has not worked, so I want the committee to work together on this next bill to get real results.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member said “great intent”. Unfortunately, great intent does not bring results. We have seen with Bill C-61 that there has been a lack of results, so I look forward to the committee’s working with Bill C-37 to this time collaborate and finally get some results.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The Liberals have made announcements about clean water for decades, but nothing has changed. I want them to work with Conservatives to make this bill stronger and get results.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I agree that there has been a lack of action. The Liberals have waited for decades. We have had announcements without results, with respect not only to this bill but so many others also. Therefore, I am calling on the Liberals to collaborate with and take input from the Conservatives so we can get results. They need to work with the Conservatives so we can strengthen the bill and finally have results.

Ellis Ross, Skeena—Bulkley Valley

Conservative
“The Liberals talk about helping First Nations get clean drinking water, but they fight First Nations in court over it. I want my colleague to comment on this contradiction.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, first nations Canadians should know that this is the track record of the Liberal government. It promised to put in a framework to do something in the future, and the first nations leaders, including me, have heard this so many times before. First nations leaders and Canadians should understand that it is a great speech from the Liberal government, and a great bill, so it says, but in the meantime, it is opposing first nations in court that want to have clean drinking water in their communities. It is appealing decisions that it lost in court. Does my colleague have an opinion on the doublespeak the Liberal government is employing against clean drinking water?

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The government has a bad record on First Nations issues. Instead of passing more bills, I want the minister to take real action and clean up the illegal dump that is polluting the Cowichan River.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 42 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his sound advice on so many first nations-related issues. He speaks of a track record that not only applies to this bill but also seems to have been common throughout so many Liberal bills over 11 years. Therefore, I am calling on the minister to clean up the illegal garbage dump that is contaminating the water in the Cowichan River, and help the Cowichan people. Let us finally have some action.

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The courts have not finished deciding on Indigenous land rights yet. I agree this water bill should look at how nearby businesses outside reserve lands affect water, and the committee should add that.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, to be frank, aboriginal title still has to go to the B.C. Supreme Court. With respect to industry setting up outside reserve lands, absolutely that needs to be incorporated at committee to consider that factor.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 149

  1. Government Orders First Nations Clean Water Act 32 statements
  2. Oral Questions Employment 12 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Environment 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  8. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Transportation 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  19. Government Orders First Nations Clean Water Act 13 statements
  20. Government Orders First Nations Clean Water Act 20 statements
  21. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  22. Private Members' Business National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act 13 statements
  23. Government Orders Privilege 2 statements