Here We Go Again
- Thread starter mt_pockets1000
- Start date
Some interesting tidbits, (taken from The Labrador Boundary Dispute
Henri Dorion on the Labrador Boundary, 1991 Henri Dorion chaired a Quebec government commission in the late 1960s and early 1970s that concluded there was no legal recourse by which Quebec could re-open the Labrador boundary issue. In this testimony before a Quebec National Assembly committee, Mr. Dorion debunks the nationalist myths concerning the boundary issue.
Official version (en français) | Unofficial English translation
Henri Brun on the Labrador Boundary, 1991 Henri Brun is a noted Quebec constitutional scholar, and has written on the subject of Quebec territorial issues. In this testimony before a Quebec National Assembly committee, Mr. Brun states that the position taken by Newfoundland in the Labrador boundary dispute was correct, and that Quebec has no legal recourse in the matter.
Original French text | Unofficial English translation (to appear)
Henri Dorion on the Labrador Boundary, 1991 Henri Dorion chaired a Quebec government commission in the late 1960s and early 1970s that concluded there was no legal recourse by which Quebec could re-open the Labrador boundary issue. In this testimony before a Quebec National Assembly committee, Mr. Dorion debunks the nationalist myths concerning the boundary issue.
Official version (en français) | Unofficial English translation
Henri Brun on the Labrador Boundary, 1991 Henri Brun is a noted Quebec constitutional scholar, and has written on the subject of Quebec territorial issues. In this testimony before a Quebec National Assembly committee, Mr. Brun states that the position taken by Newfoundland in the Labrador boundary dispute was correct, and that Quebec has no legal recourse in the matter.
Original French text | Unofficial English translation (to appear)
Maybe they meant the other left? I can imagine a great court battle now over the breadth of a river....
Madam Chief Justice McLachlin - Pincher Creek, Ab
Mr. Justice Binnie - Montreal, PQ
Mr. Justice LeBel - Kweebeck City, PQ
Madam Justice Deschamps - Repentigny, PQ
Mr. Justice Fish - Montreal, PQ
Madam Justice Silberman Abella - Stuttgart, Germany
Madam Justice Charron - Sturgeon Falls, ON
Mr. Justice Rothstein - Winnipeg, MB
Mr. Justice Cromwell - Kingston, ON
Over half the judges are not from Kweebeck so you have enough there that you can convince, assuming where they are from would dictate how they would vote on matters of law (an assumption I disagree with)
Another thought came to mind. If Stephen Harper wants the provinces to resolve this issue on their own why is he now meeting with Quebec to listen to their concerns? Given his track record with the the province of Newfoundland and Labrador we can only assume he will side with Quebec. Especially if there's a vote or two in it for him. You can add this one to the ever growing list of grievances our province has against this country.
Probably because they asked him.
It doesn't really matter who he sides with.
You have a grievance with this country because the Prime Minister is willing to meet with people to hear their concerns?
What the hell are we doing with a judge from Stuttgart, Germany? Nobody smart enough in this country to fill the spot?
It would be very unsettling if the highest court in the land were easily swayed by issues based on where they're from. But in this day and age corruption permeates even the loftiest positions. It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
It doesn't matter what Harper thinks, or Ignatief, or even our GG.
Quebec has been given leave to go to the Supreme Court on this issue. However, even some top Quebec scholars have stated that NL is in the right. It would be nice to settle once and for all.
54:40 or Fight!, I say.
Quebec has been given leave to go to the Supreme Court on this issue. However, even some top Quebec scholars have stated that NL is in the right. It would be nice to settle once and for all.
54:40 or Fight!, I say.
I didn't get (or see, or notice) any pictures.
"Northward along the left or east bank of that river and its head waters to the source"
would imply that that river and its head waters, depending whether they're located on
the left (=west if orientated northward) or east bank (=right if orientated northward)
would belong to either Quebec or Newfoundland...Look at the compass...
The wording is unclear that's for sure. Where is the boundary line...on the east or west bank? It can't be both. If this point cannot be resolved it might be necessary for Quebec and Newfoundland to respect the middle of the river as the boundary line thereby making both province's claims incorrect. And if Quebec wants to develop the hydro power along that river it has to recognize our rights as well.
Basically, Ron, the difference is the width of a river. No mention is made of tributary streams. Midstream might have been a more logical division.
"Northward along the left or east bank of that river and its head waters to the source"
Midstream (& the middle of the Head Waters) would have been a more logical division.
The Head Waters (and the River) are either East or Left of the Provincial boundary line. The
Head Waters (and the River) are either firmly inside Quebec or firmly inside Newfoundland.
If (orientated Northward) left=west, and east=right, then this is really pretty funny.
Midstream (& the middle of the Head Waters) would have been a more logical division.
The Head Waters (and the River) are either East or Left of the Provincial boundary line. The
Head Waters (and the River) are either firmly inside Quebec or firmly inside Newfoundland.
If (orientated Northward) left=west, and east=right, then this is really pretty funny.
Interesting information in this article. I wonder why Williams is so silent on this one. Is he baiting Quebec?
I suppose there's a possibility that it's been defined on paper but never on the ground.
Are our provincial borders entrenched in the Constitution? Could you provide a link to back that up?
It tells me they disagree with enough of it that they chose not to sign it.
Did you READ borders are entrenched in the Constitution ... or was that assumed for purposes other than debate?
Last edited:
All this informative link tells me is that the situation is a mess. 8O
The Labrador Boundary Dispute
Google Maps uses the "Left" (west) side of the river for the
Provincial boundary, but I doubt anyone really cares...I've
found maps (from Quebec) the use the East (right) side as
the boundary...all other maps use the "Left" (west) side of
the river as the boundary. None use the middle of the river
and head waters as the boundary. :smile:
The Labrador Boundary Dispute
Google Maps uses the "Left" (west) side of the river for the
Provincial boundary, but I doubt anyone really cares...I've
found maps (from Quebec) the use the East (right) side as
the boundary...all other maps use the "Left" (west) side of
the river as the boundary. None use the middle of the river
and head waters as the boundary. :smile:
If you noticed the ?, you would have realized it was a question. I was not assuming. I was asking. Are you going to start this again?
mt pockets1000 said
"No, I have a grievance with this country when it refuses to support laws that are entrenched in our constitution and continue to thumb it's nose at my province." ...
in response to my question...
"You have a grievance with this country because the Prime Minister is willing to meet with people to hear their concerns?"...
which was asked when mt pockets said...
"You can add this one" to the ever growing list of grievances our province has against this country" ...
I'm just following the bouncing ball and since "this one" is about the location of a border it would seem that that is the issue. If mt pockets feels he/she has been misunderstood, I'm sure he/she is quite capable of letting me know. Perhaps you could add something to the discussion.
Last edited:
I used to hate that show 'the left and the right' or was it 'the right and the left'? Anyway, got on my nerves.