The Government of Canada is legally obligated under the 2021 Safe Drinking Water for First Nations class action settlement agreement to introduce legislation that upholds First Nations’ equal right to clean, safe drinking water;
The Liberal government’s Bill C-37, the First Nations Clean Water Act, falls significantly short of this legal obligation, failing to recognize the human right of all First Nations individuals to clean drinking water;
Bill C-37 limits First Nations’ jurisdiction and authority over water to RESERVE LANDS ONLY, excluding lands over which Aboriginal title is claimed by a First Nation, or has been confirmed by a court;
The Liberals have excluded Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples from Bill C-37 to bypass First Nations’ rights in Modern Treaties and in traditional lands and territories; and
Just like in Bill C-5, Bill C-37 is part of a broader trend of the Carney Liberal government repeatedly violating Indigenous Constitutional and Treaty rights and ignoring their duty to consult and obtain the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples.

We, the undersigned, residents of Canada and First Nations, call upon the Government of Canada to amend Bill C-37 to recognize the human right of all First Nations individuals to clean drinking water, to be compliant with ALL articles of UNDRIP, and to commit sufficient funding to ensure the right to clean water is upheld in practice.

Open for signature
August 10, 2026, at 3:07 p.m. (EDT)
Closed for signature
December 8, 2026, at 3:07 p.m. (EDT)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] wampus@lemmy.ca -7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Eh, this seems a petition I'd rather not sign, in part due to unfamiliarity with the nuance of it.

Right to clean drinking water shouldn't translate as the government needing to spend a bunch of money to build infrastructure for a really remote group of a tiny number of people -- if someone is living in a community of like 100 people in the middle of the northern tundra, I wouldn't expect the government to have to dedicate a ton of resources to build some sort of water desalination plant nearby, at a cost of milllions of dollars. Especially if the people in that remote community are A) hostile to Canada as a nation, and B) not producing millions of dollars in tax revenue.

Aboriginal title, allowing for "Shared exclusivity" is kinda an over reach in my view as well -- many of the FN weren't friends, in fact many of the west coast tribes routinely practiced slavery, raiding each others tribes for women etc (estimates are that about 25% of most west coast bands, were slaves). When Canada banned slavery at its formation, one of the most impacted groups were west coast First Nations. To pretend that "shared exclusivity" between such bands, bands which weren't exactly working together, should give them any elevated privilege over general 'public' lands, is bonkers -- we've got tiny bands people claiming title over all of the lower mainland of BC, and we routinely see any 'modern' treaty that gets signed instantly challenged by 5 other bands due to the shared exclusivity stuff. We see projects held up because there's a stream of bands coming forward claiming title, asking for payouts -- we've had solar farm projects in BC delayed years because of this issue. And it's one that was created largely by the courts, in the 80s or something, not a concept specifically in the legislation/charter docs -- in other words, the concept of 'shared exclusivity' is one that the Canadian court systems decreed should be a thing, not something the Canadian public supported: it's an artificially created concept that screws up a lot of areas. Limiting the scope of government obligations to just specific reserve lands makes sense, given how expansive the aboriginal title stuff is -- that whole 'aboriginal title' definition may warrant revision.

And lastly, all the modern treaty stuff just feels like its overly one sided and not benefiting the general public good -- but rather a minority of increasingly entrenched, biologically defined people. Like there's a 500 person band in BC that's shifted over $100 million in tax revenue in the lands they oversee, into a fund just for their ethnically defined group -- they pay their members an annual 'allowance' of a few thousand bucks, have one time bump payments of 5-20k at like 55 and 65, and so on. And with membership determined by bloodlines, and funding determined primarily by the public purse / tax payers, it can't help but evoke images of white people creating legislation that gives white people explicit benefits, and how fucked up that would be -- especially if 99% of the revenue were coming from non-white demos. Despite the rhetoric/PR campaigns, FN people are just as self-interested as anyone in a capitalist cultural setting, and the modern treaties just make it look like they're rail roading our government -- hell, even our own government negotiates from a position of weakness on these treaties, given that FN people are on the governments side of the negotiating table, and are clearly subject to conflict.

[–] NGram@piefed.ca 3 points 4 days ago

Right to clean drinking water shouldn’t translate as the government needing to spend a bunch of money to build infrastructure for a really remote group of a tiny number of people

Ok, so then it's not a right. Just another meaningless promise to First Nations. Governments are very good at breaking those.

Especially if the people in that remote community are A) hostile to Canada as a nation, and B) not producing millions of dollars in tax revenue.

Nice to know that you only value people for their economic output. Maybe try some empathy on the people the government has institutionally discriminated against for centuries.

many of the FN weren’t friends, in fact many of the west coast tribes routinely practiced slavery, raiding each others tribes for women etc (estimates are that about 25% of most west coast bands, were slaves).

If you're going to hold FN history against them, then you must balance it against Canada's history too. Colonists showed up, stole their land, told them what to do, declared independence, and then gave them back a sliver of their land to live on. On top of that, Canada didn't do much when the USA had slaves.

Today, what is the portion of FN that have slaves? (hint: it's 0%)

To pretend that “shared exclusivity” between such bands, bands which weren’t exactly working together, should give them any elevated privilege over general ‘public’ lands, is bonkers

Is it bonkers to believe that the original owners of land that was never ceded to the "public" should have some control over that land? Why does disagreement or lack of cooperation give another group any authority? That just sounds like fascism.

the concept of ‘shared exclusivity’ is one that the Canadian court systems decreed should be a thing, not something the Canadian public supported

That makes no sense. The Canadian courts enforce and interpret laws decreed by the government's legislature which has the mandate of the public (see: democracy). The courts don't make the rules and if their interpretation isn't publicly supported (or just incorrect) the legislature would pass a new law to correct it.

And lastly, all the modern treaty stuff just feels like its overly one sided and not benefiting the general public good

Why does it need to benefit the general public good? It's about benefiting the people the government has artificially disadvantaged since its inception. It's called reconciliation for a reason.

it can’t help but evoke images of white people creating legislation that gives white people explicit benefits

You say this like FN have some Canadian equivalent of white privilege. If that were the case, then Indigenous overrepresentation in crime (as victims & offenders) wouldn't be the case.