Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla for his interest in this issue and for all his efforts to bring greater certainty and equity to landlord and tenant relationships on reserves.
The member has not made this a partisan issue, nor should he have. We thank him for that.
The House has heard the circumstances which prompted the member's interest and the reasons behind his sponsorship of the bill. Certainly none of us can argue with his motives or quarrel with the very real needs of his constituents which he has properly identified.
The situation at the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton was extremely unfortunate. No one can feel anything other than great disappointment that the situation ended the way it did. Certainly no one wants to see these unfortunate incidents repeated.
Along with the hon. member, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was personally involved in trying to bring all the relevant parties together in the hope of resolving that situation. Unfortunately these efforts were not successful.
While I do not support the bill for reasons which I will explain in a moment, I do share its ultimate goal to improve landlord and tenant relationships on reserves in Canada.
I do not believe the bill is the best way to achieve that goal. Sometimes in trying to remedy the particular circumstances of a legitimate and specific situation, our efforts lead to solutions that do not lend themselves to general application across Canada, in this case for all reserves.
In our haste to right a wrong we lose sight of the wider issues and broader concerns that involve all Canadians and all first nations. I believe this is the case with this proposed legislation.
Let me focus on three major concerns I have with Bill C-402. It is too limited in scope. While it does address some of the issues concerning leases, it does not address the numerous other kinds of residential leases that presumably deserve the same kind of protections and certainty intended by the bill.
If we proceed with this legislation we create two classes of leasehold interests on reserves, those which fall under provincial legislation and those which do not. This may be an unintended consequence but it is also an unacceptable result and cannot be supported.
Second, the bill would bring confusion, not clarity, to the issue of landlord and tenant relations on reserves.
Third and most important, I have grave concerns about the process of addressing landlord and tenant relations on reserves.
This legislation offers one solution, to bring the reserve under the relevant residential tenancy legislation of the province in which it is located. But there has been no consultation with first nations to see if this is their preferred option.
It returns us to the old paternalistic approach of Ottawa knows best. It attempts to substitute our judgment for that of first nations. It attempts to alter the relationship between first nations and provincial governments without consulting those governments as well.
In “Gathering Strength”, the government's response to the the royal commission on aboriginal peoples, we made it clear we were not prepared to return to the ways of the past.
We said we had learned from our past mistakes and we were determined not to repeat them. Instead we wanted to develop a new partnership with first nations based on mutual trust, respect and consultation. This legislation fails that very important test.
Quite apart from the commitments made in “Gathering Strength” for greater consultation the federal government has a legal fiduciary duty to consult first nations on any significant changes which might affect them. This legislation also fails that important test.
The issue of determining the appropriate laws to govern landlord and tenant relations is at its core an issue of governance. In “Gathering Strength” the government pledged to work with first nations to promote self-governance and this legislation again unfortunately fails that test.
I am very concerned this legislation prejudges the outcome of several processes currently underway, processes which I believe should be allowed to run their course unencumbered by interference from Ottawa.
As the member knows, the Indian taxation advisory board which has an excellent record and is highly respected for its mediation of sensitive first nation issues is overseeing a consultation process on this issue in British Columbia involving the province, first nations representatives, park operators, tenant representatives and officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The first workshop was held a little over a year ago and another is scheduled to take place over the upcoming months.
There are also discussions concerning the development of land regimes under self-government proposals and the proposed first nations land management act, Bill C-49, currently being debated in this House. These discussions may well deal with some of the points in Bill C-402.
A whole range of issues dealing with land management is currently the subject of consultations involving my department and the assembly of first nations and Bill C-402 pre-empts a potentially important aspect of those discussions as well.
I do not know what proposals will emerge from these various consultations. It may be that a recommendation will come forward that band bylaws dealing with residential premises are the best way to deal with landlord-tenant issues.
This is how the Westbank band council in British Columbia has decided to proceed and time will tell if bylaws are the best instrument for this kind of enforcement.
The point is that we should not prejudge the outcome. Let us allow the consultations to proceed. Let us allow those with the greatest interest and most concern to meet in good faith and to see what solutions they might suggest.
That is what “Gathering Strength” is all about. That is what promoting self-government is all about. It is not about Ottawa rushing in to fix all the problems and to provide all the answers. It is about working with first nations and other parties to seek honest answers and make honourable, reasonable concessions. In short, it is about partnerships, not paternalism; co-operation, not control.
For all of these reasons I respectfully oppose Bill C-402. Let me say again how much I appreciate the initiative of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla. While we may disagree on this particular approach, I know that we share the same concerns and seek similar objectives and goals. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. member and others in a spirit of co-operation, collaboration and consultation.