This is a worthy discussion, and a good idea to think about.
New Zealand has a population of approximately 5.35 million, and roughly 20% identify as having Maori descent. Canada has a population of 41.5 million, of which roughly 5% identify as indigenous. This is a big difference.
The question is how much leverage is appropriate under the circumstances. How many seats in parliament, and the power of such a committee, both leverage questions, is where FN (who will want maximum leverage), and the community at large (who will correctly not accept anything looking like a veto) will differ.
5% of seats seems palatable, but anything that outsizes the influence of that voting block needs explanation, justification, and I can't construct an argument in favour that also seems saleable, practical, or ethical. Would FN in Canada accept 5%? I can imagine beneficial cultural influence in this case; great ideas come from everywhere. I don't see this resulting in the kind of leverage FN think they've been given over the last (lost) 10 years.
5% could and should influence, but not have control on decisions that affect the 95%. The history of treaties, the discussions thereof, the lack, are all unsettled, and time marches. The courts can settle what is fact. Regardless... it's 5%. Some people might think this is justified (not me) but regardless, it won't work. Hopefully that's obvious now.
The public correctly resists the narrative construct vilifying our past (white people, identities), and this also gets in the way of a better future, but until that bullshit is gone we can't even have this discussion. People with real, leadership, policy responsibility know this truth:
"I don't care about what you have to say, unless I think you care about me first!"
The statues need to be returned and the stupid, divisive settler/colonial construct needs to be disavowed before people should come to the table because without mutual respect, there's no point at all. Morons making policy seemed to think pitting 5% against 95% would make reconciliation work...? I... can't... even.... lol.
Rep by pop is fundamental to the legislature and responsible government. So they get seats proportional to their population. They also decide how to fill them whether by elections or through existing governance structures within their communities, I don’t care and neither should we. The land claims and corrections for past wrongs should be dealt with theough a tribunal as NZ does. Keep the parliament forward looking and about governance, keep the tribunal for the land settlements and the last.
This is a worthy discussion, and a good idea to think about.
New Zealand has a population of approximately 5.35 million, and roughly 20% identify as having Maori descent. Canada has a population of 41.5 million, of which roughly 5% identify as indigenous. This is a big difference.
The question is how much leverage is appropriate under the circumstances. How many seats in parliament, and the power of such a committee, both leverage questions, is where FN (who will want maximum leverage), and the community at large (who will correctly not accept anything looking like a veto) will differ.
5% of seats seems palatable, but anything that outsizes the influence of that voting block needs explanation, justification, and I can't construct an argument in favour that also seems saleable, practical, or ethical. Would FN in Canada accept 5%? I can imagine beneficial cultural influence in this case; great ideas come from everywhere. I don't see this resulting in the kind of leverage FN think they've been given over the last (lost) 10 years.
5% could and should influence, but not have control on decisions that affect the 95%. The history of treaties, the discussions thereof, the lack, are all unsettled, and time marches. The courts can settle what is fact. Regardless... it's 5%. Some people might think this is justified (not me) but regardless, it won't work. Hopefully that's obvious now.
The public correctly resists the narrative construct vilifying our past (white people, identities), and this also gets in the way of a better future, but until that bullshit is gone we can't even have this discussion. People with real, leadership, policy responsibility know this truth:
"I don't care about what you have to say, unless I think you care about me first!"
The statues need to be returned and the stupid, divisive settler/colonial construct needs to be disavowed before people should come to the table because without mutual respect, there's no point at all. Morons making policy seemed to think pitting 5% against 95% would make reconciliation work...? I... can't... even.... lol.
Rep by pop is fundamental to the legislature and responsible government. So they get seats proportional to their population. They also decide how to fill them whether by elections or through existing governance structures within their communities, I don’t care and neither should we. The land claims and corrections for past wrongs should be dealt with theough a tribunal as NZ does. Keep the parliament forward looking and about governance, keep the tribunal for the land settlements and the last.