Earlier, we reported Victoria federal Conservative director-at-large Eugene Parks had criticized fellow director Norm Fiss for circulating his sister's views on aboriginal property issues. Mr. Fiss's sister is Tanis, the director of Canadian Taxpayers Federation's Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change. And now, Public Eye has received copies Mr. and Ms. Fiss's responses to that attack.

In an email sent to association executives, Mr. Fiss writes, "The fact is my opinions on aboriginals differ from my sister and MY opinions on this topic area are known only to me." He also questions the motives behind Mr. Parks's attack. "Does he want there to be a story on Public Eye about the divisions in the local Tories?" asks Mr. Fiss. "Perhaps he wishes to weaken our local campaign, or perhaps he is still bitter over (losing) the 04 nomination?"

For her part, Ms. Fiss explains, "The letter by Mr. Parks' misrepresented the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's position with regards to native reserve property." Rather than advocating for the dismantling of reserve, she notes "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."

The following are copies of both emails.

***

...The part that irritates me is not that he goes after Tanis. That is fair game he is entitled to his opinion and to express it. I did, after all spend a number of years in her Majesties uniform defending that principal.

What I don't like is the use of my name, I am not a member of the CTF nor have I ever been employed by the CTF, or contracted to the CTF, OR even donated to the CTF. I am no more responsible for Tanis' work than she is of mine, or is Eugene, for that matter. The fact is my opinions on aboriginals differ from my sister and MY opinions on this topic area are known only to me. Unlike Tanis, I am not a public policy advocate.

The other issue to this is why would Eugene attack another EDA board member? Does he want there to be a story on Public Eye about the divisions in the local Tories? Perhaps he wishes to weaken our local campaign, or perhaps he is still bitter over the 04 nomination? Why would he pick this issue in a ED with no reserve? I really don't know what his agenda is. I just want to be left alone, in the same way I respectfully leave Eugene alone. Is that too much to ask?
Regards.
nsf.

***

-----Original Message-----
From: Tanis Fiss [mailto:tfiss@telus.net]
Sent: 30 June 2005 11:02
To: editorial@publiceyeonline.com
Subject: CTF Response to "The Fuss Over Fiss"

Dear Mr. Holman:

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 -