Diluted clean water bill reveals Liberals’ ‘take it or leave it’ approach to First Nations, say critics

First Nations leaders and parliamentarians say the Liberals’ reintroduced clean water legislation is the latest example of what they describe as a “pick-and-choose” approach to the federal government’s duty to consult—invoking constitutional obligations to delay or dismiss action when it's convenient, and sidelining them when decisions are already made.

Progressive Senator Michèle Audette (De Salaberry, Que.), chair of the Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples, told The Hill Times that witnesses appearing as part of the committee’s ongoing study on the Crown’s duty to consult have described growing frustration with what she called a “take it or leave it” approach from the government in Prime Minister Mark Carney’s (Nepean, Ont.) first year in office.

Audette said there is a “huge difference” between the approach taken under former prime minister Justin Trudeau and that of the current government, arguing that the rapid passage of Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, “set the tone.”

“C-5 was telling us how this government was going to work,” she said, pointing to the 20 days between the bill's introduction and royal assent last June.

First Nations leaders at the time said the process fell short of the Crown’s constitutional obligation to consult Indigenous Peoples, including Nishnawbe Aski Nation Grand Chief Alvin Fiddler who warned it could trigger a “long, hot summer” of protest if the government did not change course.

“We will not sit idly by and watch any government ... come to our territory and take whatever they want because it is ours,” Fiddler said at a June 17, 2025 press conference organized by the Chiefs of Ontario (COO).

That warning was echoed days later by Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond during a one-day clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at the House Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities Committee, with Haymond calling it “a case study in how not to engage with Indigenous nations,” and saying "the conditions for an Idle No More 2.0 uprising are being written into the law as we speak.”

The COO raised similar concerns last week after the introduction of Bill C-37, the First Nations Clean Water Act, warning of the dilution of rights language and the lack of meaningful consultation on the changes.

C-37 proposes federal, provincial, and territorial standards and funding for drinking water and wastewater on First Nations land, and creation of a First Nations-led water commission to provide technical expertise, guidance, and capacity support to communities.

The new bill follows Bill C-61, the former Liberal government’s attempt to address long-term drinking water advisories in First Nations communities, which died on the Order Paper after Parliament was prorogued in early 2025.

However, critics say C-37 diverges significantly from the former version, shifting from a commitment to "upholding the rights of First Nations peoples" toward a "progressive realization" of the right to clean drinking water, and with reduced source water safeguards, including a voluntary provincial agreement framework for protecting waters entering Indigenous territories.

At a West Block press conference on June 16, Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty (Abitibi–Baie-James–Nunavik–Eeyou, Que.) defended the revisions and rejected suggestions they were made in response to provincial pressure from Ontario or Alberta, which had opposed C-61.

“My conversations with leadership and the chiefs that have spoken to me understand that we are trying to pass a bill that is going to be protected and stand the test of time,” Gull-Masty told reporters, adding that the “progressive realization” reflects the reality that First Nations are not starting from the same place.

“The progressive realization refers to us knowing and understanding that in all of the First Nations across Canada, not everybody is starting in the same place,” she said, adding the government is aiming for “multiple paths to walk on” and “multiple measures” to improve access to clean water.

"We are acknowledging that we support communities from wherever their start line is,” Gull-Masty explained, adding that the goal is legislation that provinces and territories can work with.

“This is about passing legislation that is going to create a clear pathway for people to work together and truly understand the reality of First Nations communities.”

The COO held a separate virtual press conference from Rama, Ont., during the organization’s annual assembly following the bill’s introduction on June 16, where leaders said they were only provided a draft of Bill C-37 less than a week before it was tabled.

Fiddler said the COO welcomes the legislation “and the foundation it sets,” but would have preferred stronger language on rights and source water protection.

Anishinabek Nation Grand Chief Linda Debassige also said that, unlike the previous Bill C-61, which she noted was the result of more than two years of “meaningful dialogue and partnerships,” the new legislation “was introduced without broad or meaningful input by First Nations.”

“When government prepares legislation without us, it signals to our nations that the government is only interested in protecting itself,” Debassige said. "Our treaties and this ongoing relationship need to be reflected through this legislation in a way that respects the needs of communities both today and into the future.”

NDP MP Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, Man.), her party’s Indigenous affairs critic, called the changes “abhorrent ... unconscionable and unacceptable,” describing them as part of a “disturbing trend” of weakening Indigenous rights under the Carney government.

Speaking with The Hill Times, Gazan said the government increasingly “picks and chooses when to uphold Indigenous rights,” invoking them “when it suits their economic and political interest, and they brush them aside when it doesn't.”

“When it comes to upholding rights, and protecting the safety, security, and dignity of Indigenous Peoples, they seem pretty aloof about it,” Gazan said.

Conservative MP Billy Morin (Edmonton Northwest, Alta.), his party's Indigenous services critic, stated directly that the Conservative Party believes “clean water and access to clean water is a right for First Nations,” and denounced the Liberals for failing to keep their promise to end First Nations’ boil water advisories 11 years ago.

“They've missed two deadlines on this water legislation, it's the … last days before the summer break, and it shows how much of a priority that this legislation wasn't,” Morin said later on June 16. “To me, the prime minister treats First Nations like a risk to be managed.”

Speaking with The Hill Times, Debassige accused the Liberals of “capitulating” to provincial concerns, and questioned the timing of the bill’s introduction during the COO assembly, suggesting it seemed to have been timed in the hope they would be too distracted to respond.

In comparison, Debassige noted that during the introduction of C-61, the bill was supported by “chiefs from across Canada” like herself—including at the announcement itself—because of “the effectiveness of the consultation,” which she described as “the best model of true co-development that there has ever been in this entire country.” 

“We worked on our side, they worked on their side … and we just continued to work at it ... but this version, I don't know where the hell it came from,” Debassige said, adding that while there are some consistent pieces in both bills, “there was no consultation at the end of the day on some significant changes, and they just want to brush it off.”

Debassige said Gull-Masty’s “heart is in the right place,” but argued she remains constrained as a member of cabinet within a political system that has long failed First Nations.

“The consultation they do with First Nations is atrocious. They aren't meaningful … they don't know what meaningful means,” Debassige said. “Carney is understandably more focused on building international relationships, but he is neglecting the nation-to-nation relationship at home.”

Debassige also dismissed suggestions that Bill C-37 could be substantially improved through amendments, pointing to the rapid passage of Bill C-5 and contrasting it with other legislative processes, including Bill S-2, which aims to address sex discrimination in the Indian Act, and which the Senate amended to remove what is commonly referred to as the “second-generation cutoff.” That provision limits status eligibility after two generations where one parent is not a status Indian. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and is now before the House Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee.

Last December, Gull-Masty said the government would take a slow approach to addressing the cut-off, telling the Assembly of First Nations it won’t make the change without broad consultation with leaders. In November, the minister told the Senate committee studying the bill that pushing it through as amended without consultation amounted to racism. 

Debassige also recalled her own experience before the Senate Human Rights Committee during its study of Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, and her testimony in support of Independent Senator Nancy Karetak-Lindell’s (Nunavut) proposed amendment to criminalize Indian Residential School denialism as part of the bill, which passed committee 7–1 before being defeated in the Senate after concerns about consultation and legal risk were raised.

Debassige told The Hill Times those past experiences do not give her much confidence that the government will change its behaviour in the future in order to address First Nations’ concerns about C-37.

“They have a majority government now, so it’s just going to be ‘chop, chop, just pass this right along,’ and then we’re just going to have to find a way to figure out how to live with it.” 

Senator Audette said she was initially hopeful about the Carney government, but experience with S-2 has shown that Indigenous priorities can be sidelined when they conflict with economic objectives.

“I understand the economic and geopolitical situation, but First Nations are here, too, and we’re here to stay,” Audette said. “We’re not just a stakeholder line item in your bigger plans; we have existed for thousands of years and are still here.”

Independent Senator Kim Pate (Ontario), who also sits on the Senate Indigenous Peoples Committee, agreed with Audette's assessment of C-37 as another example of the Carney government undermining treaty rights in favour of political expediency.

While the government has said the changes were made in order to avoid challenges to the legislation, Pate suggested that they could expose the federal government to even more litigation. Rather than acknowledging Indigenous rights and negotiating agreements, she said, Ottawa is forcing First Nations to return to the courts to defend rights that have already been recognized in those same courts, eventually prompting Bill C-61 in the first place.

C-61 stemmed from a 2021 settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by First Nations residents on reserves with boil-water advisories. The agreement required the government to repeal the 2013 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act and introduce new legislation.

Pate also agreed that the government's attention to its duty to consult appears increasingly selective, and only exercised "when it's convenient." 

Pate said the Senate has a responsibility to address issues the House of Commons is overlooking—citing Senators' efforts to amend legislation and expand protections—but said it is increasingly clear those efforts will be dismissed if they hamper the government’s efforts economic agenda.

“It seems that in the current global situation, the issues facing the people who have the least in this country have dropped to the bottom of the priority list,” Pate said. “I'm extremely concerned, first and foremost, [with] how we address those people’s needs ... As a country, at what point will the people who are being increasingly left behind start rising up? … We should also be concerned about that.”

sbenson@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times