Editor:

For all it accomplished, Chief Spence's fasting attempt seemed more of a weight-loss effort than a protest, and in either case it didn't seem to have much effect.

On the surface, it would appear that the Indian Act needs amending and maybe even abolishing. Certainly, the Canadian taxpaying community would welcome its abolishment, but that would be an impossible sell among natives. (Aboriginal or native being the preferred group name, and 'Indian' the established legal term.)

Incidentally, the Indian Act applies only to Status Indians, which, as far as I know, doesn't include Metis and Inuit. However, for obvious reasons, the Metis and Inuit peoples are in the process of legal action to be included, which would add to our country's financial straits and ironically could leave every-one out in the cold.

At present, Metis and Inuit exclusion somewhat lightens the Canadian taxpayer's financial responsibilities -but not much.

A number of years ago, a Vancouver columnist stated that if the annual government grant were divided equally among Native households, each would receive approximately $80,000 in tax-free (annual) income, which translates into an enormous amount when all of one's income/living/other expenses are tax-free. Upper school education is also practically costless to Natives-but who wants to extend the effort of a good education when such handouts are received whether you have one or not?

When Pierre Trudeau (unsuccessfully) tried to abolish the Indian Act in 1969, a 1960s native spokesman and author named Harold Cardinal (The Unjust Society) explained:

"We do not want the Indian Act retained because it is a good piece of legislation, because it isn't. It is discriminatory from start to finish. But it is a lever in our hands and an embarrassment to the government, as it should be. No just society and no society with even pretensions to being just can long tolerate such a piece of legislation, but we would rather continue to live in bondage under the inequitable Indian Act than surrender our sacred rights.

Any time the government wants to honour its obligations to us we are more than happy to help devise new Indian legislation."

My question: Is "bondage" really the word that should be used?

Jack Stewart Chilliwack