Eugene has long history of making very radical and strange statements. I don't know why my old Board allowed him to be elected as he accused the prior candidate's nomination team of rigging the election and cheating him out of his victory.

Vote him off the Board and get on with business.

Very strange how two people can read the same article here, and come to such different conclusions.

I read Eugene's remarks with fascination. As an aboriginal person who finds much in common with the CPC in it's stance on Economic issues... I was extremely gratified to discover that there was indeed one CPC member who actually understand the legal realities of Aboriginal Land Issues, and that his comments and criticisms were welcomed at places higher up within the Party.

I've never seen a single CPC MP or supporter that was capable of fact-based statements on Indian Affairs, until I read Eugene's email curtesy of The Public Eye. I have written to Eugene to ask about who else within the CPC I could talk to that is speaking the same way about these matters.

One of the reasons I have come to loathe the CPC with a passion is because of the appalling ignorance and bigotry that I have witnessed by it's on-line community.

Eugene is a breath of fresh air.

I am actually willing to explore communicating with the CPC if what he says is true.

Below is in response to the June 29, 2005, Public Eye Online story "The Fuss Over Fiss".

On June 29, 2005, Public Eye Online published a letter by Mr. Eugene Parks. The letter by Mr. Parks' misrepresented the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's position with regards to native reserve property.

Since 1997, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) has been urging the federal government to implement a system of private property ownership on Indian reserves as a means to empower natives and reduce poverty. Regrettably, this idea has been rejected by a majority of native leaders and activists. They claim that the concept of communally held property is a basic tenet of aboriginal life.

But as Montana State University professor Terry Anderson has shown, this isn't true: Prior to European contact, North American Indians were well-versed in the notion of private ownership. The Machiacan Indians of the Northeast, for example, bequeathed rights to well-defined tracts of garden lands along rivers, and marked beaver-trapping territories by carving family symbols on trees.

These natives understood a basic principle: Economies function best when property is privately owned. Prof. Anderson's work proves this principle applies to modern-day Indians. He has shown that individually allotted Indian lands in the American West are more productive than tribally or federally controlled Indian lands.

To make Canada's native reserves prosperous and self-sufficient, we must take this lesson to heart. Private property rights that are stable and transferable have been the foundation for wealth creation in virtually every society on earth. It is scandalous that we would systematically deny the benefits of a market economy to reserve-resident aboriginals, the poorest segment of Canadian society.

The root of the problem lies with Canada's Indian Act, a vestige of the 19th Century: Aboriginals who live on reserves cannot own their land. Even the tribes themselves cannot own the land. Instead, the land is held in trust by the Canadian government.

It is true that native Canadians aren't forced to live on reserves. But the various incentives offered to reserve residents, such as tax exemptions and free housing, discourage them from leaving.

Reserve land is difficult to mortgage because a mortgagee cannot enforce his or her interest against the land in the event of a default. Section 89 of the Indian Act states: "Subject to this Act, the real and personal property of an Indian or a band situated on a reserve is not subject to charge,pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band." The original intent behind this provision was laudable: to protect native Canadians from exploitation and from loss of land due to seizure. But in today's world, this section only scares off potential investors and business partners, and is based on a view of native Canadians as incapable of participating in our economy as equals. Canada's progressive culture venerates the respect for the land instinctively exhibited by Indians. So why doesn't Canada trust native Canadians to manage their own lands properly?

Aboriginals' inability to own their property affects their private rights. But this private problem has created a very public crisis on reserves. Since economic activity is so severely curtailed, development depends almost holly on public money funnelled through band leaders. The few businesses and jobs that do exist on many reserves are thus beholden to the band council - a recipe for corruption.

It is demeaning to native Canadians for the federal government to continue to hold title to Canada's Indian reserves. If native communities are to become economically self-sustaining, the reserve land which is now held in trust by the Crown should be transferred to individual natives who comprise the native community. We should let aboriginals themselves decide - on a band-by-band basis - whether their long-term interests are to be achieved through the private ownership of land, or the existing collectivist approach. Until we give them this freedom to choose, they are doomed to a life of dependency on government handouts.

- 30 -

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) is a federally incorporated, non-profit, non-partisan, education and advocacy organization. The CTF staff and Board of Directors are not permitted to hold memberships in any political party.

How such an obvious personal attack can be construed as a "political opinion" is beyond me.

To disagree with a fellow CPC member is expected.

To publicly attack a fellow member for opinions expressed his sibling (who is not a member of the CPC) is inexcusable.

Tanis Fiss, as an employee of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation, cannot be a member of any Canadian political party.

Hey, I personally have a great deal of respect for Tanis' work in exposing the corruption that exists in Indian Act Band governments, as well as the collusion that regulary occurs with that corruption via the Department of Indian Affairs.

Where I differ with Ms.Fiss is on her proposals that deny the legal and historical realities of Aboriginal Peoples with respect to Aboriginal Title.

There are solutions to the problems she is legitimatley concerned about that don't pose a threat to the legal rights of Aboriginal Peoples.

Some of these solutions involve using trusts, escrow and bonding for Aboriginal Peoples to offer as collateral for non-natives wishing to do business on Indian reserves.

As for the proposal that land held in common by people is somehow economically the root cause of all that is evil with Aboriginal Policy...

Have you ever been to a Strata Council meeting of a condominimum? There are all sorts of ways for people to jointly own property that does not cause some kind of compelling and horrible harm to befall those who have agreed to own property together.

Other examples would be corporations, organizations and indeed, even Nations...For instance... does the fact that non-Americans can't buy land and in doing so make it Canadian land pose some kind of grave danger to the Economy of the United States?

Come on people... think please.

just so people know MWW is Eugene Parks.

George, I am not Eugene Parks.
Email me, if you want to confirm.
I am an Aboriginal woman, I currently live in Florida.

I have written extensively on the the kinds of proposals that Eugene is proposing in the Financial Post, the Winnipeg Free Press and the Cowichan Valley Citizen.

You owe myself, and Eugene an apology.
Or is it merely to be expected that when dealing with the CPC, when they can't deal with legitimate honest discussion of ideas, they resort to baseless lies about people who they disagree with?

Google my name... "Meaghan Walker-Williams".

Tanis Fiss knows me. I actually handed off many documents to her, when she was still in Victoria to assist her efforts to make Indian Act governments and the DIA accountable to taxpayers and aboriginal peoples.

This Tom Cmend... guy seems like the sharpest knife of the whole lot of 'em - they should take his advice.

Hmmm... no response from "George", despite my private email to him alerting him to his little fib about Eugene Parks.

Might I suggest, *George* that in the future, before you spout off like a sock-puppet to be better armed with facts before you attempt to cast aspersions of fraud upon those whom you find yourself in disagreement.

You do yourself and your party a great disservice by engaging in lies and ad hominem instead of the substance of matters discussed.

I assume that the membership at large voted Eugene onto the board fully aware of his outspoken nature. Why would anyone other than a board member care that he resign? And if so, why would a board member choose to hide so cowardly behind a pseudonym?

Furthermore, what would happen if the Canadian Taxpayers Federation executive found out that someone in their employ was wasting company time writing letters to Public Eye?

I was a bit discouraged by the lack of aboriginal policy leading into the last federal election by the CPC, and Im glad to see it is being resolved. This should be discussed, it should be considered, and (in my opinion) politics should be about openly expressing political opinions, especially when in a position of elected authority in the party. I think that Mr. Parks (whom Ive never met) is well within his right to engage in an open discussion of policy. It's a function of being a concerned and active citizen in our democracy, I believe. Controversial or otherwise, if opinions cannot be freely expressed amongst political animals over the Internet - then where? As for the gal requesting Mr. Park's resignation, I'd stop e-mailing her. Forget to invite her to your BBQs. And definitely strike her off your Christmas list. She's not nice, I can tell.

As you might expect, I too find the CTF platforms to be somewhat wanting.

Anyone advocating alienation of First Nations lands isn't voicing a perspective that is either new or conservative. In fact, this entire line of reasoning was first proposed by none other than Jean Cretien when he was the Minister of Indian Affairs in 1969. (The "White Paper"). Ever since, there has been a systematic and purposeful Liberal agenda to squeeze First Nations individuals off of Reserve lands by economic means. The schools are under funded, the economic infrastructure is pathetic, there is no program of bureaucratic capacity building, and real post-secondary funding has declined by $78 inflation adjusted (1990 base year) dollars since 1997,(from 398 to 321), for a percentage decline of about 19%, and this in the midst of skyrocketing tuition increases. There has been a freeze on housing funds. Economic development was scrapped this year. Most bands here in Alberta are linked to multi-year agreements that increase at about 1.9% below combined population increases and inflation. The end result has been a net migration of 71% living on reserve in 1969, to today's stat of about 51% still residing on Reserves. The 20% of the population that migrated off reserve are now the fiscal responsibility of the provinces, saving the department of Indian and Northern affairs an astronomical amount of money (you do the math: 20% of a population of 750,196 times a Gross Expenditure Base (GEB) of 13000 real 1990 dollars.) Of course, the department doesn't supply a GEB to governments, its about 25% less to continue to economic pressure to leave the Reserves, and a bunch of that gets consumed by Lawyers and consultants. Yet Reserve populations still increasing in spite of the net migration, and are straddled with the social problems of chronic under funding of the basic services that all other Canadians take for granted. We know all to well the end result, but the federal government has masterfully taken 3 or 4 examples of poor governance and made them the poster children of First Nations. The media hasn't reported a good-news story of First Nations successes in my memory, and the average Canadian remains ignorant of the truth about fiscal realities of First Nations.

I'm a die-hard small c Alberta conservative, and I'm tired of Liberals smearing us with the standard "racist" and "ignorant" brush, when their aboriginal policies are frankly a few line items away from cultural genocide. What I'm even more tired of is the occasional scrap of anecdotal evidence of there being some ignorant racists in our party. You know who you are, most of you are proud of it. Go join the Liberals, there you'll be able to further your racist agenda without the electorate giving a whimper. Hey! You'll probably make it to be the PM - Cretien did.

Signed,
Curly the Consultant

Tanis appears to me to be disingenuous about both her's and the CTF's position. The CTF's position is that aboriginal land is Canada's and its to manage as Canada sees fit. She denies aboriginal jurisdictional title.

In contrast, I support aboriginal jurisdictional title and within that authority is their own right to self-management, including the right to land management and property rights.

Tanis wants Canada to manage aboriginal title. I want aboriginals to manage their own title to their own land and community.

Big difference!

Eugene Parks

To claim, as Eugene does, that Canada and various Native groups are somehow of a piece is ridiculous on its face. Canada should it so choose can cede land, a la the Louisiana Land purchase, Alaska, to another country. No native group as that power for one very simple reason. They do not own the land in the way Canada owns the land. Portions of Canadian land are “reserved” for them under Canadian law. They do not even have the power as separate in the way that say Quebec does or in terms of a Federation the way Scotland does from Great Britain.

Floyd,

You are mistaken. Aboriginal title is reserved under the crown just as Scotland, Wales, the channel islands, and Canada are reserved under the crown - see the ten treaties. Canada and aboriginals have treaty relationships... Canada makes its own law with respect to those relationships, which you are confusing.

For your edification, are you aware that in the US the US Supreme Court ruled that "Indians" could not vote (until relatively recently) because their reserves were independent sovereign nations and so "Indians" were not citizens of the US. BC similarly make law that "Indians" could not vote in BC for the same reason. i.e. there is direct historical examples via both law and treaty that aboriginal citizenshp is part of independent and sovereign title under the crown but not under the Canada.