It's a funny place. Jacques Parizeau can create outrage by using the word "ethnic" yet Harper creates a majority with it. Similarly, today we have this issue - "Aboriginal" or "Indian"?:
“Changing the term used in the minister’s title from ‘Indian’ to ‘aboriginal’ better reflects the scope of the minister’s responsibilities with respect to First Nations, Inuit and Métis,” he wrote in an e-mail. “This title is more up to date and inclusive, consistent with the government's focus on moving forward in our relationship with Aboriginal peoples.” The Prime Minister’s new cabinet includes two aboriginal MPs. Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq is an Inuk – the term for an Inuit person – and new Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Peter Penashue is a former Innu leader from Labrador.
Of course, the real news is that two northern First Nations individuals are in the Federal cabinet. But the euphemism for the collective is so challenging. Scots had to put up with "North Britain" from the mid-1700s until devolution, I suppose. I saw it on a major highway road sign in the 1970s. It still oddly hangs around in Halifax. I particularly like Peter Penashue Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, given the strengths he would have picked up in that area in unending decades long negotiations for recognition of rights. What if he breaks the log jam of inter-provincial trade restrictions with his fresh perspective?
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - May 19, 2011 11:01 AM
If that particular logjam gets broken, it won't be from Penashue's diplomacy.
It'll be from the PM finally getting POed and forcing the national securities regulator down provincial throats, and then fighting out trade & commerce clause cases in court.
Alan - May 19, 2011 11:28 AM
Well, that is true of any issue and cabinet position in the Party of One.
Ben (The Tiger) - May 21, 2011 11:34 AM
Well, it's a constitutional question that hasn't quite been settled yet -- in the 1867 division of powers, I mean.
Alan - May 21, 2011 1:53 PM
OK. I still think it has been abundantly reviewed in the sense there are masses of cases and this is provincial jurisdiction. Funny that the "new regionalists" in power don't appreciate this. I mean, is this how they will treat a Triple E senate, useful only when agreeable? And, if there is a Tri-E senate, what if the leader of the majority decides to take on the Prime Minister? No reason the leader of the upper house could not bar legislation to get a power sharing deal.
BTW, I knew the PEI securities regulator. He lived across a couple of fields from me and his brother ran the corner store. No word of a lie. Singer Lennie Gallant is another sibling.
Ben (The Tiger) - May 21, 2011 2:14 PM
Gridlock in the Senate?
That's the intention, absolutely. That's seen as a feature, not a bug.
Eventually, you might end up having to put in a tie-breaker mechanism, as Australia's constitution has -- a "double dissolution" -- to let the people have a say.
Alan - May 21, 2011 5:12 PM
Or, just have a single House so that artificial tension is avoided.