I started writing the comment below which was going to include a comparison of the text between the two bills but when I pulled up C-37 reference to the UN declaration was still in there? The linked article may be misinterpreting the reporting it references which was written in May before the draft text was published. That article says:

Michael Rosenberg, who represented some 260 First Nations in the class action settled in 2021, said those communities are being shut out by Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty and have not seen a draft of legislation meant to ensure those same First Nations have access to clean drinking water.

Totally valid concerns, but again this was before the text was published. It has now been published. There is nothing in this article saying the rights based language has been removed.

I think he article linked in this post may have misinterpreted this passage:

She did not explain how the new bill will affirm the right to clean water after the passage of legislation in June that speeds up the approval timeline for major infrastructure projects and gives cabinet the ability to sidestep some environmental laws.

That was a specific question related to how the new bill will interact with a different bill. It has nothing to do how C-37 may differ from C-61. I think this is a significant error in the article linked here. I will submit an error report.

I’m not defending the feds. I’m going to leave the rest of the comment I started writing which is my opinion of how the inclusion of the rights based language may be important symbolically, but is only in the preamble, and plays no role in the actionable and inforcable sections.

Original comment:

The failure of the federal government to meet their obligations to indigenous communities is genocidal, full stop. Don’t tell me the feds can run complex and dispersed military programs, train new recruits as soldiers, but can’t set up sustainable water programs.

While I’m glad this is in the news by whatever means, I do take issue with the framing for two reasons:

1. That text has only symbolic power
2. It frames it as an issue caused by this government and not hundreds of years of genocide.

It is valid to point out that it removes language from a bill that had at least some input from the communities it serves, which is certainly a big fuck you to the people who have given their energy to crafting it.

The article doesn’t include the details so I will put it here. From the old bill (C-61), the only possibly actionable references are the following:

From Section 5 (Purpose):

*United Nations Declaration

(3) The making of any decision under this Act is to be guided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, including the principle, referred to in the Declaration , of free, prior and informed consent as well as Article 10, paragraph 2 of Article 29 and paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the Declaration. *

Not “shall”, but “is to be”. I’m not a legal expert so not sure where that falls on the Shall to Should spectrum, but as it is in the Purpose section it’s not especially binding.

The only thing in the original bill that the government is required to do is “make best efforts” to start consultations and cooperation by different time limits specified in the different sections. (Which by the way makes it even more infuriating that a choice was made to call an election before this bill was passed, surely the other parties could have been asked to support the government until it could be passed?)

I will also point out that the sections on funding (Section 27(3), Section 30 ) makes no reference to water as a human right.