Bill C-37 would create a new law, the First Nations Clean Water Act. It would affirm First Nations’ jurisdiction over water and water services on First Nation lands, set minimum standards, and create duties and powers for the federal government and First Nation governing bodies. Its stated goal is reliable access to safe drinking water and effective wastewater treatment and disposal; that goal is not a guarantee that those results will be achieved. The supplied publication gives no enactment status; the proposed Act would come into force one year after royal assent.
First Nation governing bodies would have legislative authority to make, administer and enforce laws about water and water services on their lands, and to create dispute-resolution processes. They could delegate that authority, with the other party’s consent.
The jurisdiction could extend to an adjacent “protection zone” only if the First Nation, Canada and the province or territory agree on how their laws will be coordinated. The Minister must make regulations defining protection zones.
Drinking-water quality and wastewater effluent must meet at least one of two listed standards, chosen by the First Nation governing body. If it makes no choice, the Minister must determine the higher standard in consultation and cooperation with the governing body. Water quantity must meet specified community needs, including cultural and spiritual needs.
The Minister must co-develop a funding-needs framework with First Nation governing bodies. Canada must make best efforts to provide funding based on assessed needs and comparable services; the Act also requires funding that at least meets specified commitments in a 2021 settlement agreement.
The Minister must consult on terms of reference for a First Nations-led corporation. The bill sets requirements for its reporting if established, but does not itself make it an independent government body.
First Nation laws would generally prevail over conflicting federal laws, with exceptions. Listed federal laws on fisheries, navigation, wildlife, shipping and environmental protection prevail where they conflict.
First Nations and governing bodies: They would gain authority over water services on First Nation lands, including related data and information systems. Laws they make must be published on their website, if any, and in the First Nations Gazette. The Canadian Charter would apply when they exercise this authority.
First Nations with modern treaties or self-government agreements: Those agreements would prevail over conflicting provisions of the proposed Act or its regulations.
Residents, occupants and users of buildings on First Nation lands: The Minister must make best efforts, in consultation and cooperation with the First Nation governing body, to ensure access to clean and safe drinking water. This is a best-efforts duty, not an unconditional guarantee.
Water-system operators and owners: The proposed minimum standards would apply to public and private systems. Regulations may later cover operator training and certification, permits, inspections and enforcement. The bill does not itself set out those detailed rules.
Taxpayers: The bill requires federal funding efforts, but the available material does not give a total cost.
People seeking damages: The bill would limit some claims for acts or omissions made in good faith in providing water services. The limits on First Nation and federal liability depend in part on whether Canada made best efforts to provide adequate funding.
The bill requires federal funding efforts but gives no cost estimate in the supplied material.
Canada must make best efforts to provide needs-based funding for water services and sustainable funding for the proposed corporation’s terms of reference.
Funding must at least meet commitment expenditures in a 2021 settlement agreement, but that agreement’s expenditure amount is not supplied.
Agreements may include long-term grants; grants are permitted, not required.
The bill requires staff work, consultation and cooperation, but gives no staffing or cost figures.
The bill does not define “protection zone”; regulations would have to do so. It also does not specify when the required definition will be made.
The bill leaves many operating details to later regulations, including inspection, monitoring, permits, offences and penalties.
It does not set a dollar amount or a specific funding formula. “Best efforts” does not state a guaranteed funding level.
The bill does not explain how a First Nation’s standards choice would be made, or how disagreements over the Minister’s determination would be resolved.
The supplied material does not include the settlement agreement, so its required minimum expenditures cannot be checked or quantified.
The bill appears intended to address gaps in water rules, infrastructure and funding acknowledged in its preamble. Recognizing First Nation jurisdiction could give First Nations more control over decisions and service models.
National minimum standards, including a quantity standard that accounts for cultural and spiritual needs, could provide a common baseline while allowing First Nations to choose between listed quality and effluent standards.
Co-developing a funding-needs framework could help account for local needs such as repairs, remote-community costs, monitoring and long-term infrastructure planning.
The bill provides for collaboration on source-water protection across First Nation, federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments.
Many practical protections depend on later regulations, agreements and funding decisions. The bill does not itself set detailed inspection rules or a dollar amount for most funding.
Federal funding duties are framed largely as “best efforts,” so the Act does not guarantee a particular funding level or that every community will receive comparable services.
The different rules for conflicts between First Nation, federal and provincial laws could be difficult to apply, especially in protection zones. Some listed federal laws would prevail over First Nation laws in a conflict.
The liability limits could reduce the ability to obtain damages for some good-faith acts or omissions. The bill does not explain how those limits would interact with particular claims.