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.