Debates of Nov. 27th, 1998

Request For Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

I have an application for an emergency debate which was received yesterday afternoon from the hon. member for South Shore.

The hon. member will have a very short period to put his case before the House.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I seek leave under Standing Order 52 to propose an emergency debate to address the current farm income crisis.

Producers are selling at a loss. According to Statistics Canada, farm cash receipts are down drastically in 1998. Net farm income dropped 55% nationally in 1997 and it is expected to be worse in 1999. It is certainly one of the worst farm income crises since the Great Depression.

If we compare Canada's producer support with other countries we should be ashamed.

According to figures released by Agriculture Canada, Canada ranks second last, with 2% producer support, when compared to other OECD nations. The United States, the European Union, Japan and other OECD countries, respectively, have 16%, 49%, 23% and 9% support for their farmers.

An emergency debate is required now in order to urge the government to address this issue immediately before more farmers are forced into bankruptcy. I believe that all parliamentarians do not want to force our producers out of the industry.

The debate would also give the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the opportunity to inform the House about the proposed $2 billion package that the government is considering to help farmers through this crisis. Time is of the essence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your careful consideration of this very important and extremely urgent matter.

[The Speaker]

I received this request yesterday at 5.40 p.m. I have considered the request for this emergency debate under Standing Order 52 made by the hon. member for South Shore. He has explained the general principles of the debate, if it were to take place.

I have concluded that the current crisis in agriculture in this country does meet the terms of the standing order.

Since this is Friday, the standing orders would see such a debate begin immediately and conclude at 4 p.m. this afternoon.

But I do not think this rather hasty arrangement would do justice to the subject, as the hon. member has said in his few words, or to the many members who may want to speak on the matter.

I have therefore decided to exercise the discretion the standing orders afford to the Speaker and to hold over the debate until Monday, November 30 at 8.00 p.m.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, be read the third time and passed.

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1998

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity for me to continue my debate. I will not say I was rudely interrupted by question period because I think question period is a very important part of the role of parliament. For us to stop and hold the government accountable for the things it is doing incorrectly or failing to do is a very important. I wish when such a great speech like mine is interrupted by question period that we would also have an answer period as well. But that is for another time.

I was talking about the fact that we have double taxation in Canada. We have this wonderful bill, Bill S-16, before us. It is a great bill. It is long overdue. It is time we start recognizing there is a global economy. We need to not only trade with other countries but compete with them. For us to have an agreement on taxation will help the businesses from Canada that are dealing with these foreign countries and the foreign countries will benefit.

Undoubtedly there is an advantage to when Canadians take their expertise and investments to other countries. But there is also an advantage to us in the sense that we can help, on the international scheme of things, to make these different countries financially strong. This does a couple of things. It helps the people in that country. It gives them goods, services and expertise that they would otherwise not have. It helps Canadian people and Canadian businesses. It gives them an outlet for their creativity and for their investment dollars. It is a good return but we must make sure the tax regime is good.

As I said earlier, I believe in the principle of fair international taxation. Why can we not have that same principle enacted in Canada? We have the statistics. Over the last five years since this Liberal government has been in power the real take home value of the average Canadian family has gone down by $3,000 a year. Meanwhile taxes have gone up.

The Minister of Finance will say we have decreased taxes. He can point to one or two little examples where they have reduced the rates marginally. I commend him for it. Why should I withhold a compliment for the Minister of Finance? He is worthy of so few that when I do find an opportunity I should give it to him. So yes, it has been great that he has taken a few little taxes down a bit. But the big picture shows the opposite. Collectively we are paying more taxes than ever.

I am thinking of thousands of families I am speaking for right now, not only farm families in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, but families in farms, working families, union people, all kinds of people right across the country who every month have difficulty paying their bills.

Yet we extract taxes from them at every turn.

We take the GST, the HST. We take the excise tax and the income tax. We take the UIC tax. It is a tax because by very definition money that is extracted from one citizen which goes to someone else is a tax. It is a function that governments in Canada have assumed. Governments believe it is a proper role for them to take money from the person who earned it and give it to someone who did not earn it.

Do not get me wrong, there are many instances where that is good. It is perfectly fine for us as a society to reach out in compassion and care for those who cannot look after themselves. That is why I became a Reformer. I am interested in making sure Canada's finances are run in such a way that we can do the things we truly value.

Let us make sure we look after those who are ill and cannot work. Let us make sure we look after those who are in dire straits. Let us make sure we have health care for people who need it.

The principle is sound and it is supported by the majority of Canadians. No Canadian should be denied needed health care because of lack of financial resources. I am deeply committed to that, notwithstanding the misrepresentations of that belief given often by people on the other side. I am deeply committed to that.

But what do we have in this country? We have three levels of government, in some instances four, and they tax and they tax and they tax on tax. I gave two illustrations before I was interrupted. One was the illustration of the tax on the tax on the tax on gasoline. The second was property tax.

This has nothing to do with the federal government but I sometimes think it would be a good thing for municipalities to say that when they have taken taxes from a property that over the years accumulate and reach the original value of the property, then we have taxed 100% and surely that is good enough. I have sometimes thought that might be a limitation.

I would like to see municipalities, provinces and certainly the federal government have some sort of curbs on their relentless grabbing of our dollars because Canadians have to work for those dollars.

Many of us get up early. I worked at NATE, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. In order to do my work and stay ahead of my students and the rapidly changing technical field, I often got up at 4 o'clock in the morning so I could get to work. I would work on the equipment before the students arrived so I really knew what I was doing so I could act authoritatively.

I got up at 4 o'clock in the morning and sometimes, in order to supplement our income, I would teach night classes. I used to say I work on Tuesday nights for me and on Thursdays for Mr. Trudeau because our marginal tax rates are about 50%. We are taxed to death.

I taught those evening classes because I enjoyed teaching adult students who came for night courses. I had some wonderful experiences and great relationships with some of those people. But we also needed the money in our family because it was more and more difficult to make ends meet.

It is worse now than it has ever been. We have families whose disposable income is down by $3,000 a year since 1993. The government keeps taking it.

The example I was using was property tax. I remember several years back when I did a calculation. I earned $4,000. Right off the top the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta extracted from my earnings let us say 40% as a nominal number. The marginal rate is 50% but of course there are some basic deductions.

Of my original $4,000, 40% of that is $1,600. I am now left with $2,400 which I deposit in the bank. Then I take out my cheque book, go to the county office and pay my property tax. In that year my property tax was $2,400. So I wrote a cheque for $2,400. Now the municipality can say it only taxed $2,400. But the fact is that I had earned $4,000 to pay the $2,400 bills because we have taxes on taxes. Bill S-16 is right in principle because it says an investor should not have to pay income tax in Vietnam, or in Croatia or in Chile and then when he brings that money on his investment home pay income tax here again. There is an agreement here that we should avoid double taxation. The same thing is true for pension funds and other earnings. This is a very good agreement.

However, I wish we could apply that principle of avoiding double taxation. Though I have not discussed this with anyone else in the party I have talked to other people about it. They think perhaps we should have some deductions for Canadian families that are struggling. Perhaps we could have a deduction for interest on their mortgages as in the United States. Perhaps they could have a deduction for their property taxes so that they do not have to pay their taxes with after tax dollars and avoid that double taxation. This is an urgent need.

We have before us a bill which goes in the right direction on an international agreement. It is correct in principle and I support the bill. I presume most of my colleagues will vote in favour of it when vote time comes. Meanwhile the principle we are dealing with here is very important. We need to start applying it to Canadians who earn money in Canada. Let us stop taxing them to death.

I sometimes think Canadian taxpayers, and I am one of them, feel like 500 pound governments are using us as a trampoline. Of course I would be rather bouncy and it would work not too bad but there are a lot of other people who would not be able to take the crush. We have right now thousands of families really struggling to pay their bills yet the taxman is relentless in his demands.

This is a little off topic, but I am being given parliamentary immunity from relevance right now since everyone is very tolerant. I appreciate that. I need to say something about government policy in the long run.

Here we have a government making a policy. But it just happens to be true that the area in which I live and which I represent is suffering immensely these days from long term, wrong headed policies of the federal government. I am speaking about the government's policies on agriculture. With its monopoly in the wheat board we have guaranteed to farmers almost consistently the lowest price is the law instead of the highest price. International buyers wait until the Canadian Wheat Board announces its floor price and then that is the price they offer and it becomes the price. It is absolutely crazy the way it does this.

Instead of holding out for a good price the Canadian Wheat Board claims its only obligation is to sell the farmers' wheat. It is not accepting its responsibility to sell the wheat at a reasonable price and perhaps to withhold it when it is being sold at a loss.

Instead the farmers are forced by legislation to give their wheat to the wheat board whether they want to or not. They cannot find another market for it. It is against the law, unless they happen to live in Ontario or Quebec. Then they do not have to. They are free of the wheat board. But in western Canada where farmers are suffering so much that is one of the factors.

The other factor of course is taxation. I spoke to a number of farmers in the last couple of weeks over this issue. They are saying taxes on taxes on taxes. I had one farmer this week say to me “When I make a deposit into my NISA account in order to spread off my income in years of loss, why does the government take taxes off that? Why is that deduction not tax deductible?” It should be.

I hope the finance minister and the agriculture minister start waking up on policy needed in Canada right now. If we would provide these farmers with a tax regime and a system of selling their grain at a reasonable market price, at least something above cost, whether it is grain, animals or whatever, then we could survive internationally. We could compete with the best of them.

The government has to start applying the principles domestically that it is using in Bill S-16 and recognize that it is 20 years of bone headed Conservative and Liberal policies with respect to agriculture that have brought us to the place where now we are on our knees begging and pleading for disaster relief.

This is a manmade disaster. It could have been avoided. The crops in western Canada were generally not that bad this year. There were areas where they were not good. It is despicable in a year when a farmer has a good crop that he still cannot make it. He might as well get out of the business and that is what is happening.

When I was in farming a number of years ago we took some animals to the market one day and came back with more than we went with. The animals did not sell at the auction. When we went to take the truck back home, somebody had thrown a few calves into our truck.

We went there with six calves to sell and came back with eight because the farmer could not afford to keep them. He figured I would take them. Of course I could not bring myself to kill these young calves. We kept and fed them. I used my mate's income to subsidize the farm.

That was 15 years ago but those policies are still in place. While the Liberal government comes out with good things in Bill S-16 now and then, every time it has a good principle it applies it in only a narrow fashion. I ask the Liberals simply to consider applying those same principles to Canadian businesses, to Canadian families, to Canadian farmers. Let us get the country up and strong like it should be.

There is not a country in the world that has the wealth we have. If everything is added together such as our natural resources, our agricultural capabilities, our manufacturing capabilities, our mines, minerals and resources, what a wonderful country to travel to.

Canada is a safe country. People here are not generally worried about crime because Canadians care for each other. We do not go around beating each other on the head.

We have an excellent industry of tourism. We have a vigorous population. No one can live at this longitude and not be vigorous. Winter comes every year. We are good, hardworking and dedicated.

I am typical of Canadians who get up at 4 a.m. and do a job. When I grew up on the farm, my dad used to say the Lord put the sun in the sky as a light for us to work and it is wrong for us to waste it.

In summer when the sun came up in Saskatchewan at 5 a.m., we were out in the fields. That is what the light was there for. We worked hard. It is a shame that government policies over the years have basically stolen from us what we have worked so hard to earn.

I think of the family farm where I grew up. What a shame government policies put the continued ownership of that family farm at risk because the government cannot get it right. The government had better start getting it right. We will have a good debate Monday on this.

When people get on a roll they see things clearly. I commend the government for what it is doing in Bill S-16. I hope it spends this weekend studying. I used to say to my students on Fridays “There are no classes tomorrow. Sunday is the day of rest. You can go home and study”. I hope the Liberals study this bill on the weekend.

The bill will probably come to conclusion and pass today. It has some good principles on taxation. I hope the members go home and study it tomorrow. I would like not just every Liberal in the House but every Liberal in the country to go home and contemplate.

Tomorrow morning when they wake up contemplate how they are killing the country with excessive taxation and with bone headed government policies. Let them fix it. Let them serve Canadians like they say they are serving them. Let us see them do something tangible for farmers as they are doing for investors with this bill.

I drifted far from Bill S-16 on occasion but have always kept it as my goal in the distance. I have always come back to it.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be as voluble as my Reform Party colleague. I did appreciate his speech.

I am pleased to speak today on Bill S-16, which was passed by the Senate on June 2. This bill will implement agreements between Canada and the two following countries: the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

The Bloc Quebecois does not oppose treaties between Canada and other countries insofar as they ensure fair and equitable tax treatment for persons and encourage trade and investment between countries. I would mention that the term “person” includes physical persons, corporations, trusts and all other groups of persons.

Since the tax rate in the countries concerned in this bill is similar to Canada's, I will not oppose the bill. However, I do want to take the time accorded me to speak in this context of tax conventions in effect between Canada and certain other countries.

While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation of corporations and individuals, they are in many cases the source of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.

Great care must therefore be taken to ensure that these treaties do not open the door to excessive tax evasion. They must therefore be restricted to countries with tax rates comparable to Canada's. While the tax conventions do avoid double taxation of individuals, as defined earlier, they are in some cases the source of problems, and they encourage tax evasion.

Although the most recent treaties, which take their inspiration from OECD models, are relatively standard, Canada does have some older tax conventions with countries known as tax havens because they have low or no taxes on the incomes of individuals and corporations.

Under the tax treaty between Canada and these so-called tax havens, the Canadian taxation system closes its eyes to these amounts, treating them as if they had already been taxed at a comparable rate elsewhere, and not taxing them when they are brought back into Canada. Let us bear in mind that the auditor general has raised this matter on a number of occasions since 1992. I could also point out many cases to the government, but that would be like talking to a brick wall.

There is another danger to certain tax treaties, the ability to change Canadian tax rules to suit the friends of those in power, or those in power themselves. I am referring here to Bill C-28. The Minister of Finance is in a clear conflict of interest in this case because, if the bill is passed, it will mean millions of dollars for Canada Steamship Lines, a scandalous trick discovered by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

We would remind you that all opposition parties supported the Bloc in this CSL business. The minister ought to defend the interests of the Canadian taxpayer as staunchly as he defends his own. Tax treaties and manipulation of the law cost our taxpayers billions of dollars. Those billions are lost to us, and the public suffers as a result.

What should be done instead is for a serious and responsible government to devote considerable resources to assessing, adjusting and renegotiating problematical tax treaties, particularly those with countries that represent the greatest risk to Canada as far as loss of taxation income is concerned.

What we have here is a government turning a blind eye to the potential exodus of hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid taxes. What we also have is a government that probably spends more money on a one-week visit by the Queen of England than it spends in a whole year on enforcing and improving tax conventions.

This is a serious issue because it undermines the overall integrity of our tax system. It also makes Canada look like a country where wealth means bigger loopholes. It is very troublesome. And given the billions of dollars the Minister of Finance has cut in transfers to the provinces for hospitals, schools and social assistance, honest citizens who pay their taxes to Canada want their government to at least ensure that everyone pays his fair share. It is not such a lot to ask, but it seems to be too much for this government.

In conclusion, I recognize that tax conventions have the advantage of preventing double taxation of the operating revenue of companies in two countries with branches or dependent companies in one country or the other.

Another advantage is that, in some cases, tax conventions apply to travel by Quebec and Canadian artists who perform abroad, or even to travel by those involved in sports, such as hockey players and other athletes. On the other hand, we know that tax agreements are nothing new. They have always existed and will always exist, and will even increase in numbers with globalization.

Tax agreements establish what we call reciprocal taxation, insofar as Canada's corporate tax rates and those of the countries with which Canada signed these agreements are equivalent or comparable.

In closing, I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of tax agreements signed between Canada and other countries when these treaties are aimed at ensuring fair and equitable taxation of residents and non-residents, and encouraging trade and investments between countries. But make no mistake, these treaties should not open the door to excessive tax evasion.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to respond, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to Bill S-16 which will allow Canada to ratify tax conventions and tax treaties with Croatia, Chile and Vietnam.

Canada, as everyone is aware, is a trading nation. Last year our exports totalled some $344 billion. Our imports were up around $329 billion. That gives us some indication of how important trading is to Canada.

While the majority of our trade has traditionally involved the United States, we do have trade and we do have investment treaties and ties with virtually every nation on the face of the earth, including the countries mentioned in the bill.

Therefore, it is vital that trade and investment be promoted and carried out with the maximum degree of certainty that we can possibly have both for us and for our partners.

Over the last quarter century Canada has sought to expand on a number of tax agreements it has with other nations, especially with the countries mentioned in the bill. That has been the policy, as we are all very much aware, of both Liberal and Conservative administrations. We have now reached a point where we have 70 such agreements in place. That is pretty impressive.

Such tax treaties have two main goals. They sort out who has the right to collect which amount of tax when a business or person residing in one country earns money in another country. They also ensure that taxes that are paid in one country are recognized by the other country.

One knows, for example, what withholding tax to expect on income that one takes out of that country. As a result, one can invest and earn income in the secure knowledge that the foreign country will not make it impossible for one to bring home one's profits by imposing new and unexpected withholding taxes.

The result is that business and individual investors can pretty well feel secure that they can invest internationally with confidence and that they will not have their profits withheld. That is an important economic objective, whether it be through treaties such as these or through trade agreements such as NAFTA, the World Trade Organization or the proposed free trade agreement of the Americas.

Such treaties prevent tax evasion. They allow the free flow of information and encourage communication between individual countries that is needed to catch individuals and corporations that are evading tax. This is a result, I am sure we could all agree, everyone would be in favour of.

The member for Kings—Hants, the finance critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, knows full well the benefits of international trade. They are well known to all members of the Conservative Party. It was the PC government, incidentally, that designed the the North America Free Trade Agreement.

The PC Party also liberalized trade in telecommunications for Canadian business. The Liberals who were in opposition at that time were opposed outright to the notion of opening up Canada to the rest of the world. Now we are all aware they have had a great conversion. They have seen the light. They are quite pleased to associate themselves with the North America Free Trade Agreement. Very often the Prime Minister uses every opportunity, whether at home or abroad, to promote that agreement. Just recently we saw the Prime Minister actually take credit for negotiating the free trade agreement.

On numerous occasions our finance critic has risen in the House to remind the government and the Prime Minister that the Liberals are born again free traders. Now that it has become fashionable, the Prime Minister and his government cannot get enough of international trade and discuss it at every opportunity.

The PC Party was the party that took the initiative when issues such as free trade were not fashionable because we knew that it was in the best interest of Canada. Also the PC Party was the party that let Atlantic Canada prosper under more liberalized trade both within Canada and other nations around the world.

Free trade has created a prosperous economy and has created thousands and thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada for which the Minister of Finance is currently taking credit as he did in the House yesterday.

It is encouraging to see the Liberal Party of Canada finally seeing the light and supporting the very ideas the Conservative government embraced as the best bet for the future of Canada.

The Conservative Party has no problem with the bill. It is a good bill and Canada will be better off for it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member in whose name the bill under Private Members' Business stands today is presently in the House. I believe there would be unanimous consent to see the clock as being 1.30 p.m. in order that we may proceed to Private Members' Business.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Indian Act

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

moved that Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act (obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to debate Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act (obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land). The bill is a direct result of a serious incident that occurred in my constituency last fall, and it has implications for all Canadians in every province and territory in Canada.

In November 1997, 51 families from the Driftwood Mobile Home Park just outside Penticton, British Columbia, were evicted from their homes through no fault of their own. Health Canada deemed the sewage treatment facilities there to be totally inadequate. No one at the federal or provincial level had been inspecting the sewage treatment plant to ensure it met provincial or national health and safety guidelines.

To make matters worse, my constituents were not protected by British Columbia's residential tenancy act. The act declares that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the building and property of rental facilities to provincial and safety standards and must oversee repairs of serious problems. One might ask why my constituents were not protected. It was because they were renting property on Indian land. The residents, many of whom had lived in Driftwood Mobile Home Park for years, fell into this grey area of the law.

Let us put a face to these people, these 51 families who were evicted from their homes in November. Who were these people? Many of them were senior citizens. Many of them were low income families, single income families. They had scrimped and saved to realize the dream which most Canadians hold of owning their own home.

Nobody at the provincial level had been inspecting the septic system of the mobile home park because provincial legislation, in this case the B.C. residential tenancy act, does not apply to residential tenancies on Indian reserves.

With regard to the victims of the mobile home park, the hon. Michael Farnworth, B.C. minister of municipal affairs and housing, wrote to me stating unequivocally:

It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility on federally owned land lies with the federal government. It is apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impacts on individuals and families who are tenants of federal lands in this province.

This is not the first time this has happened. Other incidents involving tenants renting on federal Indian land have ended up in the Supreme Court of Canada. In almost every case the supreme court has ruled that provincial legislation does not apply to residential tenancies on reserve land.

These rulings reinforced that parliament, this House, has exclusive power to legislate with respect to such tenancies. Despite that there is still a legislative vacuum which needs to be filled. That is what I am attempting to do with Bill C-402.

Although the federal government is responsible for tenants on federal land, Health Canada's health services branch, which is responsible for approving septic field installations and repairs on Indian reservations, claimed that it was never informed of the Driftwood septic installation some 10 years ago or those of other mobile home parks in my constituency. Therefore no action by the federal government was taken to prevent what turned into a disaster for those 51 families in my riding.

Every Canadian believes that no matter what happens he or she can turn to the courts for redress of grievance. This was not the case for my constituents. There was no federal law to protect them. They fell through the cracks.

What was the effect of that happening to these people? Due to years of neglect, raw sewage started to seep up through the ground of these people's homes. Many were forced to literally walk away from their lifetime investment.

On October 9, 1997, in an effort to protect my constituents' homes, I tried to pull together the interested parties by organizing a meeting with the federal minister of Indian affairs; the mayor of Penticton, Beth Campbell; the local MLA, Rick Thorpe; and the chief of the Penticton Indian Band, Chief Stewart Phillip.

I congratulate all those people and in particular the minister of Indian affairs because she was willing to meet with these people. In spite of the best efforts of all parties involved a comprehensive solution was not reached. In November 1997 after only 30 days notice my constituents walked away from their homes after they were evicted.

They could not move their homes. Some of the mobile homes were quite old. Some of them can be seen sitting right there today. They have been destroyed, mainly through vandalism. Some people in the area even offered them 10 cents on the dollar for their investment.

Many of these people literally walked away. They had nowhere to go. They could not move their homes. There were no vacancies in any other mobile home parks for them to move them to if they could come up with the money required to do that. One family literally walked away from their home after Health Canada advised them to keep their dog in the house and to boil their shoes. Imagine being told to boil their shoes after walking in their own yard. That is what happened to these people.

This incident brought to my attention the danger thousands of Canadians face who rent land on federal Indian reserve lands. While my constituents faced the tragedy of being evicted from their homes, luckily no lives were lost. However, the tragedy could have been much bigger if the inadequate sewage facilities had led to an outbreak of disease. This is not just a one time local problem. There are many other mobile home parks in my riding that could end up with the same fate. I would venture a guess that there are probably many right across the country.

Other Canadians on reserve lands could also lose their home faced with this situation. What is needed is effective federal legislation to ensure that the federal legislative vacuum is filled so that no other Canadians are crippled by this or any other similar incident. This is the point of Bill C-402.

Bill C-402 is designed to prevent future Driftwood mobile home parks from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. Both the crown and the sublessor or the locatee will be subject to provincial authorities that enforce the obligations of landlords and tenants.

For example, as already mentioned, the B.C. residential tenancy act ensures that a landlord must maintain land or residential premises in compliance with health, safety and housing standards set out by law. The crown and the sublessor will be responsible for meeting provincial standards set out by the various provincial residential tenancy acts.

These people had paid their rent to put their mobile home on a pad in a park. They were paying rent in good faith for years and the locatee or the sublessor was not spending that money or a percentage of that money on the upgrading and care of the property. The crown definitely has a responsibility because the crown was one of the signators of the lease.

Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act that would prevent future generations of Canadians from facing the tragedy faced by my constituents in November 1997. This is extremely important. With more economic development happening right now on reserve lands across the country, we need a solution. It is required now more than ever before.

In the case of Driftwood it took 10 years for the problem to surface. Bill C-402 is the answer for future developments on Indian lands. It would protect residential tenants on reserve land by making provincial tenancy legislation apply in any province. It would mean that in new developments on reserve land involving tenants, provincial health and safety standards would have to be followed. Tenants would be protected from arbitrary evictions.

Normally in the course of a speech I would be asking at this time for support of my legislation in the House. Unfortunately any support I receive today from the House would be an empty endorsement. This is no fault of the vast majority of the members of the House but rather an indictment on our parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system is set up to ensure that no private member in the House, no matter from which party, is able to pass legislation. Standing Order 92(1) states that no more than five private members' bills and five private members' motions may be designated votable.

I find this rule ridiculous as do my peers from both sides of the House. Every member of parliament has a sound knowledge of the important issues in their constituencies, issues that require federal legislation to be resolved. These are issues that the Liberals consider small or insignificant in the big picture or the scheme of things. The Liberals should always keep in mind that all politics is local and this issue is very important for not only constituents in my riding but constituents right across the country in every riding. Ministers and departments only see the big picture and ignore the unresolved smaller issues. They have the power to bring in sweeping legislation that is always votable. Yet for members of parliament bringing in a private member's bill is the only way we can change federal legislation for the better.

Despite the fact that Bill C-402 is only a paragraph or two in length, it took hours of consultation. Speaking with constituents, speaking with experts in the field of Indian affairs and the Indian Act and legal counsel in the House of Commons, it took literally hours to come up with the solution we have brought forward in Bill C-402. And that was the easy part.

After the bill is finally drawn up the member of parliament is forced to wait until his or her bill is drawn in a lottery system. The merit of this piece of legislation is of no importance whatsoever. If you are one of the lucky ones to make it through the House lottery then you must convince the Liberal dominated committee that your private member's bill is worthy of being voted on.

Unfortunately for Canadians who rent on Indian reserve land, the subcommittee determined that Bill C-402 would not be votable. In fact, about 20 of my colleagues in the House made presentations to the subcommittee at the same time I did. All were refused the status of being votable except for one private member's bill introduced by an unelected, unaccountable senator.

The way private members' bills and business have been treated in the House is absolutely scandalous, and this occurs every single day. This deplorable state of affairs must end.

In my riding there is a great deal of economic development on reserve land and therefore Bill C-402 is very pertinent.

All we are asking in Bill C-402 is that the same protection be afforded to renters right across the country regardless of living on Indian reserve land or non-reserve land.

Bill C-402 is an important piece of legislation drafted to protect Canadians. If passed, it would ensure that those who rent on Indian land are protected by provincial landlord and tenant legislation.

Robert E. Lee, an American military commander, once said: “Duty then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never do less”. I have done my duty today by raising this issue in the House of Commons and now I ask the federal Liberal government to do its duty.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

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.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois critic for aboriginal affairs, I am pleased to rise today to speak to private members' Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act, introduced by the Reform member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

This bill concerns specifically the obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land. Its aim is to protect individuals renting residential premises on Indian land by extending the application of provincial landlord and tenant legislation to leases on reserves.

Under the bill, native landlords and tenants living in one of the ten provinces of Canada would be governed by provincial legislation rather than the Indian Act. Bill C-402 adds a provision to the Indian Act at section 88, and it reads as follows:

88.1 Notwithstanding this Act, provincial laws relating to the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants apply to a lease for residential purposes of land or a dwelling unit on land in a reserve that is granted

(a) by an Indian or any other person acting as sub-lessor under a lease from the Minister under subsection 58(3); or

(b) by the Minister acting as lessor under subsection 58(3).

Admittedly, the obligations between landlords and tenants are not clearly defined in the Indian Act as it now stands, whether the landlord is the crown, a company or a sub-lessor.

For their part, provincial laws give a very narrow definition of the contract between the two parties, the tenant and the owner or landlord of a building. For instance, provincial laws determine the responsibilities of owners and tenants with respect to maintenance, safety and cleanliness of rental accommodation.

Quebec's rental commission legislation gives a clear edge to tenants. In Quebec, tenants are often said to have more rights than owners. Although this could do with some clarification, it is nonetheless indicative of a certain state of affairs.

As for this bill, it can only give more rights and protection to aboriginal tenants living on reserves.

If I understood correctly, the member introduced this bill in the House because of the experience of a community in his riding, the native community of Penticton.

There were 51 families living in mobile homes on this reserve in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. In the summer of 1997, they found themselves with a septic tank problem that quickly deteriorated into a serious crisis for almost 100 people living on the reserve.

The federal government, through Health Canada, ordered people to leave their homes before October 31, 1997. This eviction notice was sent to the residents of Penticton 30 days before the date they were being ordered to leave. As one resident put it, people found themselves all but homeless overnight.

Some found themselves in real financial difficulty, because they had invested a lot of money in their homes. Some mentioned investments of $35,000. Others said it cost them some $10,000 to move and relocate.

In addition, for the natives who could absorb this cost, there was nowhere to go in the region. Whatever the cost, moving costs even more when you live on a reserve.

The government and the Department of Indian Affairs remained silent in the face of the distress caused these people, who were appalled by the government's lack of action. They thought the Department of Indian Affairs, the city and the band council would fix the problem of the septic tank. However, as the problem was serious and would have entailed expenditures estimated at $22,000, they preferred to solve it by evicting the residents.

Obviously, if these residents had come under B.C. housing legislation as it concerned the obligations of landlords and tenants, they would not have been evicted so quickly or they would not have been evicted at all.

Both parties would have had to do a lot, especially the owner or landlord, before such a massive eviction could take place. Under provincial law, including that of Quebec, an owner or a landlord must ensure that all his rental units meet cleanliness and safety standards. In this case, the lessor was shamefully in breach of contract. This bill is, therefore, a response to a real problem recently experienced by an aboriginal community.

For the Bloc Quebecois, Bill C-402 does not appear to be a problem in that it provides protection to lessees and lessors on the reserve by defining more clearly the obligations and commitments of both parties. However, considering that the Indian Act is an obsolete piece of legislation, one which could do with a thorough review, we question the appropriateness of adding any more modern clauses, such as those the House is being asked to add today.

Would it not be more appropriate to undertake a thorough review of this act, in order to give it a better fit with the aboriginal reality nowadays, as this century comes to a close? The Indian Act goes back to the last century.

Hon. members will agree with me that many changes have taken place on the reserves and in the lives of aboriginal people since that time. It is imperative that these be reflected in the legislation, so that the aboriginal nations may find some balance, in their social and economic development in particular.

This bill therefore raises a more complex problem than just these few clauses concerning the relationship between lessors and lessees, even though we agree that relationship does need to be made far clearer. Now that the issue has been raised, it needs to be looked into thoroughly, and discussed with the Indian affairs minister and her staff.

This bill strikes us as very timely and must serve as the starting point for a true debate among the parties involved in this area.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss an issue that is overall a very crucial issue at this time in Canada's history with respect to our relationship with aboriginal people.

I want to pick up on a statement made by the hon. member who moved this motion. He said “all politics are local”. In his statements dealing with Bill C-402 he referred to hours and hours of work in preparing this consultation with Indian affairs officials and Indian Act experts. However, I beg to hear from him whether there were any consultations with first nations people. Were there consultations with the first nations people of Canada?

When one is dealing with this act, it is of national scope. It goes from coast to coast to coast. If there is a local issue which is impacting on the national perspective, it is time to open the books and look at a major overhaul of an act that may be archaic.

As the hon. member for the Bloc mentioned, I believe the royal commission on Canada's aboriginal peoples tried to address the need to modernize our relationship with aboriginal peoples.

At this time I would have to say that I am opposed to the bill, but would welcome a new dialogue for us to start a new relationship with the first nations of this country. They are waiting for this. They have been calling on the government and on all Canadians for this dialogue.

I must highlight the fact that a nation to nation treaty was written with Canada's aboriginal nations. It was not the first nations which allowed anybody to take hold of this land for whatever reason.

When the treaty was written it was in the context of the British nation on behalf of the crown seeking to use and occupy lands to build a new nation, but the first nations held obligations to the federal government.

Provincial jurisdiction is very suspect when it comes to first nations people because the fiduciary responsibilities fall under the nation to nation treaty with the federal government. The hon. member is on the right track in asking the House to change these laws.

The royal commission also considered creating a provincial jurisdiction across this nation, a chequerboard province of all first nations, so that they could govern themselves. There could have been a model for self-governance. This is something that was not brought out in the recommendations, but the dialogue was there.

As well, territorial governments have not been taken into account. Nunavut will be created on April 1, 1999. The Northwest Territories will reissue itself and reorganize its governance, as will Yukon. Someday these territories might have full provincial jurisdiction.

Where are the present landlord and tenant issues concerning the territories? I believe they fall with the northern affairs minister. I beg to see some response to that in the northern jurisdictions because we have to look at this as a national issue.

A major change happened recently with Bill C-49. Fourteen first nations were included, in a very consultative manner, to deal with land management. However, the bill did not consider the issue of residential, agricultural or business leases in these first nations.

First nations governments are saying that they should be able to address tribunals, that they should have a means for dealing with and appealing decisions on jurisdictional issues, such as a business jurisdiction being changed to residential, especially for the people who presently hold leases. This whole topic opens up a major concern.

At this time I have to tell the hon. member that I cannot support his motion, although I acknowledge that the House of Commons needs to address the Indian Act in consultation with all first nations of this country.

The new millennium would be a fine opportunity for us to provide a good example to the world. There is a human rights conference being celebrated right now in Edmonton. A lot of aboriginal people feel that their human rights have been infringed through the development of this country, with respect to land use and their education, cultural and spiritual life. All of these things have infringed on their way of life. Let us address these issues in an open way, with open and respectful dialogue. Then we can build a nation that will be good for our children and for future generations.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw a few references from the remarks of the member for Churchill River. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear his whole discussion, but what I did hear I thought was very well put forth and very well thought out.

I think he could have used a little more emphasis on the benefits that can be derived from the protection of both the land owners, in this case the first nations, and the lessors of first nation lands. Bill C-49, which the member referred to, deals with this issue in a very positive manner. If we did not have Bill C-49, then maybe some type of legislation like this would be required. Unfortunately, this would be inappropriate.

We cannot willy-nilly and easily change the Indian Act. This is a long, drawn out process that would take the support of all members of parliament. Certainly I do not see that support, nor do I believe that most members of parliament see that support.

However, I speak to Private Member's Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act, and specifically the obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land. This bill seeks to have provincial landlord and tenant laws applied to leases on reserve land.

As everyone in the House is aware, reserve land is a federal responsibility. As such, provincial laws currently do not apply on reserve and I would dare to say they will not apply on reserve in the near future.

This is a complex issue. It is not an easy thing to change. We simply cannot give provincial laws jurisdiction where there is already federal jurisdiction and we do not have a willingness on the behalf of the land owners, in this case the first nation and the Government of Canada, to grant that jurisdiction.

The Indian Act sets out provisions relating to reserve land. Aboriginal people do not own land on reserve, unless the band council with the approval of the minister allots it to that individual, usually through a certificate of possession. Anyone with a certificate of possession may lease or sell land, subject to restrictions such as approval of the minister. All lands remain reserve lands under the Indian Act unless they have been surrendered conditionally or unconditionally to the minister.

To lease land on reserve the first nation must surrender the land to the minister for the purpose of being leased. To sell land it must be absolutely surrendered to the minister.

I want to go back to leased land on reserve. The first nation must surrender the land to the minister for the purpose of being leased. It is obvious that the jurisdiction and the responsibility and control is in the hands of the minister of the day.

Bill C-402 would provide the ability for provincial landlord and tenant laws to apply on reserve. Provincial laws may include the following provisions: the right to limit rent increases; the right to establish rules for terminating the lease, for example, evictions cannot occur without notice and reason; the obligation to meet certain standards of cleanliness and damage repair. That sounds right and most reasonable thinking people would ask why we cannot do this.

Again, it gets back to jurisdiction, and it gets back to the way we run the country. I am not saying that is correct, but I am saying that we cannot change it in the short term. In the long term with a lot of research and due diligence and study on everyone's part and the ability to sit down and discuss this perhaps, and certainly I for one would support anything that brings the first nations out from under the aegis of the Indian Act. It is an archaic piece of legislation; in the long term it is harmful and in the short term I would say it is discriminatory.

I would like to explain some of the reasons this piece of legislation in my opinion will not work.

We are imposing regulations on first nations. This is a step away from self-reliance for first nations. It is a step away from responsibility for first nations. It is a step away from self-government which all parties in the House have proposed to support. There is some discussion on what self-government is, but that is not in here. We are discussing something else altogether, a bill to impose provincial laws where there is federal jurisdiction. This changes one small segment of the Indian Act instead of removing the paternalistic and onerous obligations required by an act that was flawed from its inception.

Certainly the PC Party has always supported increasing first nations self-reliance and self-government, concepts that require first nations to assume control and responsibility of resources, land and administration. That sounds like leases of property to me. The bill before us contradicts that goal.

The Indian Act states that the first nations land is clearly under federal jurisdiction, so provincial rules have no authority on the first nations land if they contradict the Indian Act. One assumes that the first nations negotiated in good faith and continue to negotiate in good faith.

Since some first nations rely heavily on income derived from leased land, they must ensure rents are set at levels that ensure optimal use of that property. Under the Indian Act the first nation may lease land with the permission of the minister by surrendering or designating such land. This prevents first nations from optimizing economic development opportunities since the process can be time consuming. As well, this already ensures that some protection is available for tenants on first nation land since leases must receive federal approval.

Although I do not support Bill C-402, I see that there is a problem between landlords and tenants in relation to first nations land. However, that does not take away from the fact that first nations people need to be responsible for first nations land. At the end of the day we must recognize that they own first nations land. It is fine for them to decide they want to continue a lease for economic gain or opportunity. It is also fine for them to decide to discontinue a lease which they have the legal right to do.

Unfortunately provincial laws do not apply because it is within federal jurisdiction. It is a simple concept although some members have difficulty wrapping their heads around it.

I support making changes to the Indian Act. However this change already exists under Bill C-49. If it passes third reading and the bill gets through the House there will be provisions available for tenants and landlords to deal with one another. That is the way to do this in a democracy.

Although there may be some sympathy with the member and for the lessors involved, they did sign a binding contract with the first nations. They are responsible not only for their own investments but they are also responsible with the first nations. There is a binding contract. We have to give first nations responsibility. At the end of the day we may not be happy with every single thing that is done, and the first nations may not be happy, but in a democracy the first nations have the right to be masters in their own home. It is as simple as that.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Private Member's Bill C-402.

This bill will amend the Indian Act to provide protection for individuals renting residential premises on Indian land by making provincial landlord and tenant legislation apply to those leases.

The impetus for this bill came from an incident in the Okanagan—Coquihalla riding in British Columbia. Although I am not a resident of this riding or of the province, I feel the implications of this incident are important to Canadians nationwide and certainly to constituents in my area.

Last November the 51 families of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park were evicted from their homes after Health Canada declared the sewage treatment facilities were inadequate and posed a serious health hazard. Under B.C. law it is normally the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the building and property are kept in a condition that makes the building reasonably comfortable to live in. Part of this responsibility is to maintain the building and property to health and safety standards. In the case of mobile home parks, it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the property is safe and habitable.

The unfortunate residents of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park enjoyed no such protections. Why? Because their homes were located on the property of the Penticton Indian band. Nobody had been inspecting this land because it fell under a grey area of the law.

I would like to give a bit of the history to put this incident into perspective. On March 30, 1988 under section 58(3) of the Indian Act, the minister granted authorization to lease Indian reserve land to Ethel and Margaret Kruger for their benefit. The term of this lease was from March 30, 1988 to March 30, 1998. The property of the lease was to be used for the purpose of the mobile home park operated by Sanmar Mobile Home Services.

When that firm created the park the septic fields were not engineered to handle the high volumes that are being experienced. As a result these fields have been saturated beyond a safe level and the overflow is creating a serious health hazard.

Health Canada's Indian health services branch, which is responsible for approving septic field installations on Indian land, claimed that it was never informed of the Driftwood septic installation. This breakdown in communication led to 51 families being torn from their community, many forced to abandon their homes without any compensation. If this situation were not tragic enough, the same fate may await other residents of mobile home parks located on the Penticton reserve land.

Health Canada has declared that both the Driftwood and Delta mobile home parks face serious health risks. Although the Sun Leisure and Riva Ridge parks have inadequate septic systems, Health Canada has not yet declared them to be a serious health risk.

The residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park were given 30-day eviction notices. In an effort to resolve this problem, my colleague organized a meeting between the minister of Indian affairs, the mayor of Penticton, Ms. Beth Campbell, and the local MLA, Rick Thorpe, and Chief Phillip of the Penticton Band.

Despite the efforts of those involved, a comprehensive solution was not reached and the hon. member's constituents lost their homes only one month before Christmas. This is at a time when people should be enjoying the fellowship of their friends and families in the comfort of their own homes, not worrying about where they will be living.

This incident should not be repeated but it is a very real possibility. Thousands of Canadians who rent federal Indian reserve land are in danger, citizens of Canada who have no idea that they have been left in limbo because the law does not recognize their rights.

The Indian Act is a complex one. For years different levels of government have been struggling with what the bill covers and what it does not cover. According to the Supreme Court of Canada there are only two ways for a non-Indian to be in lawful possession in a reserve, through the operation of sections 28(2) or 58(3).

Section 28(2) states:

The minister may, by permit, in writing authorize any person for a period not exceeding one year, or with the consent of the council of the band for any longer period, to occupy or use a reserve or to reside or otherwise exercise rights on a reserve.

Section 58(3) states:

The minister may lease for the benefit of any Indian, on application of that Indian for that purpose, the land of which the Indian is lawfully in possession without the land being designated.

It is under these sections that a 10-year lease was granted. Although it was not outlined in the lease, it was implicit in the agreements with the sublessees that they would be protected under the provincial landlord and tenant legislation. Indeed it was the responsibility of the lessee to provide at its expense all services and facilities required for use of the premise. This would include septic services.

However, because of the failure of Health Canada to inspect these services, the residents fell through the cracks. Although they appealed to the provincial landlord and tenant board they were not successful.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated that provincial legislation does not apply to residential tenancies on Indian reserves. Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate with respect to such tenancies. This was stated in Millbrook Indian Band v Northern Counties Residential Tenancies Board et al, 1978. Again, in Anderson v Triple Creek Estates, the supreme court stated that provincial legislation does not apply to an eviction dispute between a mobile home park tenant and the park proprietor. It continues to say that “although it may be unfair to deprive a person of an appeal against a termination at will of a tenancy, this matter can only be resolved on reserve land by federal authority”.

A letter from the British Columbia minister for municipal affairs and housing, Mr. Michael Farnworth, confirms this is a federal responsibility. He writes:

It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility on federally owned lands lies with the federal government. It is apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impact on individuals and families who are tenants of federal lands in this province.

It is apparent that there is a responsibility on the part of the government to fill in this void. That is where Bill C-402 comes in. The bill is designed to prevent future Driftwoods from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. The crown, the lessors, and the sublessors will be subject to provincial authorities that enforce the obligations of landlord and tenants.

Although I have already mentioned this, I will do so again for the benefit of members opposite. The landlord and tenant legislation in B.C. ensures that a landlord must maintain land or residential premises in compliance with health, safety and housing standards set out by the law. The crown and lessor will be responsible for meeting provincial standards set out under the various provincial residential tenancy acts.

Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act that would prevent other Canadians from facing the tragedy of the unfortunate residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park.

I realize that Bill C-402 is a non-votable item and that is very unfortunate. As has been explained in this House, it is a very unfortunate thing that we as members of parliament cannot help create laws.

The bill would ensure that Canadians are all treated equitably before the law. If any of the members opposite would care to see what Reform stands for, all they need to do is flip through the Reform Party blue book and peruse the statement of principles. The first statement says:

We affirm our commitment to Canada as one nation, indivisible, and to our vision of Canada as a balanced federation of equal provinces and citizens.

The last statement of principle states:

We believe in the true equality of all Canadian citizens, with equal rights and responsibilities for all.

I think it is absolutely plain to see this is a party dedicated to the equality of all citizens and I congratulate my colleague for bringing this forward. I know Liberal Party members think quite highly of the Reform Party blue book because they have, albeit it with mixed success, adopted many of our policies as their own.

However, they would do well to consider these two principles that are so core to the heart of our party. It is apparent through the actions of this government on many issues that it does not consider equality of all Canadians a thing to be grasped.

However, perhaps we should leave this debate for another day. It is because of my dedication to the equality of all citizens that I support this bill.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members who participated in the debate today on Bill C-402.

I would like to respond to some of the comments. Bill C-49, the land management act, deals only with 14 bands and that there are just about 700 native bands from coast to coast to coast. It certainly does not affect the Penticton Indian Band whatsoever. Therefore Bill C-49 does not respond to the needs of the people from my riding.

I appreciate very much the parliamentary secretary's passing along his regret regarding the outcome of this tragic incident. I will convey that to my constituents. I will also convey to my constituents today that the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party support in principle the eviction of 51 families from the Driftwood mobile home park in Penticton. I find it quite regrettable today that they could not see there was a great deal of support for Bill C-402 which directly deals with the problem faced by these families.

I would have to argue with those members opposed to Bill C-402 that striking another committee to look at the issue does not help at this point. As I mentioned, the establishment of some of these mobile home parks in my riding goes back 20 years. Members pointing out that the Indian Act is flawed are absolutely correct.

However, Bill C-402 deals specifically with an emergency situation and it also brings equality to renters regardless of whether they are native or non-native. It does not matter. Bill C-402 brings equality to all people who find themselves in the position of renting land.

In the House of Commons there are many of us who rent apartments or homes in Ottawa. If we found ourselves in the situation the people of Driftwood mobile home park found themselves in we would have the Ontario provincial tenancy act there to protect our rights as renters. That is what Bill C-402 does. That is what we are attempting to do with this legislation.

I think it is wrong and meanspirited for members of other parties to say they will not come to the aid of the people of the driftwood mobile home park. I also point out that on the horizon there are four more mobile home parks in my riding that will face a similar situation. We will not be talking about 51 families, we will be talking about 200 families.

What will the federal government do at that point? I hope its response will not be to strike a committee and seek consultation across the country. We need action and we need it now. That is what Bill C-402 would have done.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are presently negotiations going on between parties. I ask if there would be consent to suspend for about 15 minutes because there are a few details to iron out in this consultation.

Either at the call of the Chair or in 15 minutes, whichever comes first, Mr. Speaker could entertain what you usually do at the conclusion of debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The government House leader has requested that the House suspend for no more than 15 minutes. Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.