In a recent column penned by Doug Cuthand, "Natives have much to fear if Tories win" - June 18, 2004, Mr. Cuthand refers to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's policy on Aboriginal affairs as a "policy of outright social, political and cultural genocide". Unfortunately, Mr. Cuthand provided little substance for his claim.

For almost 130 years the Indian Act has segregated Indians from Canadian society. By targeting one segment of Canadian society, the Act isolates Indians from other Canadians by placing them on reserves; thus the system limits their ability to fully participate in the economy.

What this system does is assume that Indians are incompetent children who can not make decisions for themselves.

But rather than begin the process of ending the reserve system, the government's response - as indicated through their actions - has been to increase funding and incentives for Indians to remain on reserves and thereby remain isolated.

As a result of their small size, often remote locations and the requirements of the Indian Act, reserves depend heavily on fiscal transfers from the federal government. Furthermore, the federal government restricts most of Indian Affair's programs to on-reserve Indians, many natives live in virtual isolation in reserve communities which have no real economic base and, in a number of instances, a disintegrating social fabric. No matter how uneconomic the community, the federal government has seen it as a duty to sustain them.

The federal government currently spends approximately $7.5 billion annually on Indian affairs. According to reports from the Auditor General of Canada, 80 percent of the money is transferred directly to Indian band councils to disperse the money within their communities as they so chose. Under the Indian Act, there is no requirement for Indian governments to reveal their financial records to their members, let alone to the federal Auditor General or to taxpayers. Clearly, this loophole must be closed. Good governance, accountability and transparency should be minimal requirements for native communities.

Does additional government spending improve living conditions on reserves Perhaps in some cases it has. However, since native band councils receive native-specific funding in addition to receiving the benefits of roads, universities and hospitals that other levels of government finance, then natives should live longer and be healthier than non-natives. Regrettably, this is not the case.

Despite gains in life expectancy, a gap of approximately 6.3 years remained between the Registered Indian and Canadian populations in 2000. That same year, the rates of suicide of Registered Indian youth (ages 15 to 24) were eight times higher than the national rate for females and five times higher for males. In 2000, the birth rate of Registered Indians was twice the Canadian average with 27 births per 1,000 people compared to 13 for Canada as a whole. Tragically, infant mortality rates that year were twice as high for Registered Indians when compared to the Canadian average.

One way to improve long-term economic viability and living standards on Indian reserves is individual private property rights. The key to generating wealth and prosperity is easily identifiable individual property that can be leveraged for loans and wealth creation.

Unfortunately, the land which comprises a reserve is held in trust by the federal government and is controlled collectively by the native band council, not by individuals. This treatment of native Canadians under the Indian Act is unequal and is the reason why many people in native communities live in poverty.

The communal arrangement imposed by the Indian Act produces problems for native entrepreneurs. Business owners typically raise capital by providing their home or other real property as collateral. But since on-reserve native Canadians do not own their property in fee simple, it is extremely difficult to sell, mortgage or otherwise use the land as a source of debt financing. Therefore, the wealth of the land is under-utilized.

There are individuals who choose to hold property in a communal manner. For example, Hutterites choose to hold property in a communal manner. But, this is their choice, not an imposition. Shouldn't native Canadians be given the choice

Clearly, treating one group of Canadians differently is wrong both morally and intellectually. For the last 50 years the world has seen human rights legislation passed in a number of countries. All of this legislation has equality of rights and responsibility at its core. Nevertheless, Canada continues to move down the path of segregation and balkanization. If not reversed, this trend toward division, will only serve to weaken our cultural, political and economic fabric.

The CTF believes strongly that our recommendations to provide individual native Canadians with greater personal freedom and personal responsibility will create an environment that will enable native Canadians to truly prosper in a social, political and cultural way.