Search

Everyone familiar with the study of Canadian politics knows the joke about how a French national, an Englishman and a Canadian were asked to write an essay about an elephant: the French national wrote about the culinary uses of the elephant, the Englishman wrote about the elephant and imperialism, and the Canadian wrote a paper entitled. "Elephant: Federal or Provincial Responsibility?" Though simple, the joke conveys the essence of Canadian politics: always defined by jurisdictional disputes. The joke misses the boat, however, by ignoring the fact that indigenous people are now (as they always have been) engaging in jurisdictional debates in an attempt to challenge the Canadian constitutional order and to reaffirm their own constitutional order and autonomy. This paper examines one such dispute—the Mi'kmaw claim of rights and responsibilities for the salmon fishery—and presents it as a case of contested sovereignties and a resulting jurisdictional dispute. In so doing, I pose the question: Is salmon a federal, provincial or Mi'kmaq responsibility? In seeking an answer, this paper proceeds in an exploratory manner to map both constitutional orders, and the interrelation between these orders that results in the debate over responsibility for the salmon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the author's remarks on a previously issued paper by Philip Resnick about the Montesquieuan principles of Canadian politics. The author acknowledges that the paper is based on a profound knowledge and detailed analysis of the European tradition which Canada inherited. He points out that it is necessary to refer to works of Montesquieu to understand Canadian nineteenth-century anti-democratic attitudes.