Translation, please?

From the Western Star:

Jackman went on to call the service “an extension of the Trans-Canada”

What does that mean?

Why does no journalist, when faced with this utterly phatic language, ever, ever, ask the speaker what they mean, in legal or policy or other practical terms, when they say that the Marine Atlantic ferry is “an extension of the Trans-Canada”?

According to whom or what? (Hint: not the Terms of Union.)

Does it mean that same thing, and have the same implications — whatever they are — to say that the Sir Robert Bond is an extension of the Trans-Labrador Highway? or that [ANY OTHER FILL IN THE BLANK FERRY] is an extension of the [ANY OTHER FILL IN THE BLANK HIGHWAY]... even if the ferry in question is a provincially-run one?

Other than the obvious fact that a ferry extends, in a geographical and transportation sense, the highway that it connects to, what, exactly, are people driving at when they say that the Gulf ferry is “an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway”?

Or that it is “supposed to be an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway”? Supposed by what or whom?

Or that it “is our Trans-Canada Highway”? Funny, you would think that the Trans-Canada Highway would be our Trans-Canada Highway. Of course, if the ferry were our Trans-Canada Highway... the provincial government would be paying for it.

And speaking of extensions of highways, is that mythical “appropriate time” for Danny Williams-Government to sit down with Jean Charest and talk about linking Labrador and Quebec by road ever going to arrive? What better solution could there be to the supposed monopoly of Marine Atlantic than to break it? Build a second surface route two and from the island of Newfoundland. Integrate the province, in the form of Labrador, into the North American highway system.

Is “volatility” still a concern?

Or is it that some people would rather not give up their ability to fault Marine Atlantic and the federal government for just about everything?