this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
96 points (99.0% liked)

Canada

10730 readers
282 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A federal judge has sided with two First Nations in Manitoba and one in Ontario that sued the Canadian government over its duty to provide them with safe housing and clean drinking water, in separate rulings delivered Friday.

The federal government has had a duty to ensure Shamattawa First Nation, and other First Nations who opt into the northern Manitoba First Nation's class-action, were provided access to drinking water safe for human use over the claim period, Justice Paul Favel said in a decision.

Shamattawa launched the class-action, which was certified in 2023, on behalf of all First Nations members countrywide whose communities were subject to a drinking water advisory in effect on or after June 20, 2020.

all 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 4 points 12 hours ago

To all of it's citizens. But to our most vulnerable first, which includes all of the hinterland. Food, water and shelter should be a basic human right for all citizens under the charter.

[–] SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works 7 points 21 hours ago

The reasoning and the article has a link to the judgement if people want the super long legal version of it.

Favel said in both decisions the Canadian government made First Nations dependent by forcing them to relocate to reserves, and that the country has historically "exerted direct control over every facet of First Nations life through legislation, regulations, policies, and practices," including control over financing for water infrastructure and housing.

Also the personal opinion part you'd think Pierre and the Conservatives would applaud this given the stance on "government tyranny".

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seems to me that if the Federal government told them where they must live, that government has a responsibility to provide safe drinking water. For nations that are self governed and are able to move around on their traditional lands, I’d argue that it’s up to them to find safe drinking water.

Treaty status and details should also be taken into consideration.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It would also depend on other things. Even if they are currently on their traditional lands, they might still be limited by the size of the reservation they were given which could have no access to water other than ground wells, no rivers or lakes. Then the government should also be responsible for them.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I mean, if there was no natural water supply it wouldn't have been part of their traditional lands.

The big exception I see is if resource extraction had caused pollution or other direct problems that make a traditional water source unsafe.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 23 hours ago

Reserve and traditional lands are different things

If the lake or river is one their traditional lands but not on their reserve, they wouldn't be able to build the infrastructure that gets the water from the river to the reserve where they live unless they truck it in every day.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

And we know resource extraction has happened a lot in remote regions. I mean who's heard of a mine opening in downtown Toronto?