Power in Appropriating Discourses in Parliamentary Constructions
This paper examines the hotly-contested ratification of a treaty between the state of Canada and the Nisga’a First Nation, an aboriginal community located in the west coast province of British Columbia. The form of Parliamentary debate in the bicameral legislature, the invocation of assumed authority by the members and the choice of language as a strategic tool provide themes in the analysis. The Canadian Parliament is comprised of two Houses, the elected House of Commons and the appointed Senate. In our analysis of the ideological context surrounding the debates on the Nisga’a Final Agreement, we found significant differences between the two Houses, in large part due to the differing structural contexts of the fora.