First Nations leaders pressed MPs in October 2024 to move Bill C-61 through Parliament, arguing that safe drinking water required enforceable standards, protected water sources and reliable long-term funding. The appeal came while a House committee was examining a bill intended to replace a federal law repealed in 2022.
Why legislation was needed
Most provincial drinking-water regimes do not apply in the same way on First Nation lands. The resulting regulatory gap meant communities could lack protections comparable to those available elsewhere in Canada, even after governments funded treatment plants and lifted individual advisories.
A statute could identify duties, recognize First Nations authority and create routes for enforcement. But the value of those provisions depended on the wording, resources and role of the affected nations in implementation.
Core elements of Bill C-61
The proposed First Nations Clean Water Act addressed drinking water, wastewater, infrastructure and source water. It affirmed an inherent right of self-government in relation to water and contemplated minimum national standards alongside First Nations laws.
It also required a federal funding framework to be developed with First Nations. Leaders emphasized that funding must be adequate, predictable and sustainable rather than tied only to short construction announcements.
The dispute over co-development
Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu called the bill a landmark example of legislation developed jointly with First Nations. Some chiefs and organizations disagreed, saying engagement did not necessarily amount to consent and that important concerns remained unresolved.
Both facts can coexist: officials held consultations and incorporated input, while participating groups did not share one view of the result. Describing the legislation as unanimously endorsed would erase legitimate criticism.
Source water crossed jurisdictional lines
A treatment plant cannot fully protect a community if pollution or extraction damages the river, lake or aquifer supplying it. Watersheds often extend outside reserve boundaries and are affected by provincial permits, municipalities, industry and upstream users.
Bill C-61 proposed mechanisms for cooperation, but First Nations sought meaningful power rather than a duty merely to request help. Effective source protection requires monitoring, information sharing and agreements that specify who must act when a threat originates beyond First Nation lands.
Operations mattered as much as construction
Water systems require trained operators, chemicals, electricity, sampling, repairs and eventual replacement. A new plant can still fail if a funding formula does not reflect remoteness, the condition of infrastructure, population growth or the true cost of retaining certified staff.
Parliamentary review therefore needed to test whether the bill created a measurable obligation or left essential spending to discretionary policy. Clear reporting on recurring advisories and systems at risk would make that obligation visible.
The urgency proved justified
National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak warned that an election or other parliamentary interruption could end the bill. The committee ultimately held 18 meetings, heard 94 witnesses and proposed more than 40 amendments before reporting it back to the House in December 2024.
Prorogation on January 6, 2025 terminated Bill C-61 before it became law. A successor, Bill C-37, was introduced in June 2026 with renewed proposals for enforceable protections, sustainable funding and a First Nations-led water commission.
The test is service, not a bill number
Introducing replacement legislation did not repair the lost time or guarantee passage. First Nations rights-holders still needed to assess whether the successor respected jurisdiction and provided sufficient resources.
Parliamentary success should ultimately be measured at the tap: reliable water-quality results, fewer recurring advisories, functioning wastewater systems, protected sources and local capacity to govern them. The 2024 appeal mattered because it connected legislative procedure to that daily reality—and because the bill’s later demise showed the cost of delay.
