Just who does own Labrador? Both Newfoundland and Quebec claim it and a glance at a map would suggest it is Quebec’s. What right does Newfoundland have to claim it? Has the question of ownership ever been settled in a Canadian court? As well, the same glance at a map shows that Alaska should belong to Canada. I know the USA bought Alaska from the Russians but how did they get it? Did it ever belong to Canada?
I’ve never heard of Quebec “claiming” Labrador. Technically, Newfoundland doesn’t “claim” Labrador either; Newfoundland and Labrador joined Confederation together, as a single province, in 1949. In other words, the island and Labrador have the same status. The province is just commonly referred to as “Newfoundland”, even though the correct name of the province is “Newfoundland and Labrador”.
Regarding Alaska, I’m 99% certain Canada never had any claim to Alaska. But I’ll let someone with more knowledge of Alaska history field that one.
No, Alaska never belonged to Canada. Seward bought it from Russia in 1867.
The Master on Russian colonization of Alaska. The Russians were just starting trading routes at the same time the English and French were squabbling over territorial rights on the Atlantic coast, while the Spanish were more or less the major force in the Pacific. The US bought the Alaskan territory from the Russians in 1867, when Canada was more concerned with getting its first prime minister and forming itself into a country than with seeing what kind of land deals they could cut with other countries willing to sell.
Wilth regard to Labrador, no doubt Northern Piper will be along pretty soon to give a detailed answer, but I’m pretty sure that the U.K. Privy Council decided the ownership issue in Newfoundland’s favour before Newfoundland joined Canada. I think it’s still a sore point in some parts of Quebec. BTW, the offical name of the Province is now “Newfoundland and Labrador”.
born and bred Labradorian here. Labrador is the main land part of Newfoundland and Labrador. This link provides the history on the Border with Quebec. The present border was set in 1927 by the privy council. Several times Quebec took a look at the decision, but found no legal recourse to change it. I lived in Labrador City, which is about 15km from the border to Quebec. I was in french immersion there, and our geography books came from Quebec and every now and then you’d find a picture in one showing Labrador as a part of Quebec, which pissed us off.
FWIW, here’s what’s printed on my National Geographic map of Quebec, published in March 1991:
Spiff, the boundary may have never been physically surveyed, but, I can tell you that current maps clearly delineate the boundary. I’m pretty sure that the boundary was surveryed from airplane, can’t find a cite though. I’ve propected all over Labrador and the parts of Quebec surrounding it, and I can tell you exactly when I was over the border from government survey maps and ariel photographs. With all the mineral resources in that area, the boundary location is very important and is clearly delinated on survey maps, so someone took the time to map it out. You might not find stakes on the ground saying 'this is the quebec side" but you don’t find that between any other province either.
[minor hijack]
You might find it interesting though that Labrador is the only place in Canada (reasonably sure on that) where ‘map staking’ of mineral claims is allowed. Everywhere else, you have to physically place stakes at the boundaries of your claim, in Labrador you just have to send into the Government the claim boundary lines. They cross check it to insure no overlaps with other claims. This became important during the staking rush in the mid 90’s after Voisey’s bay was found. Up to 70% of Labrador was map claimed for mineral exploration. That was a fun couple of years in the field.
Every map of Quebec issued by the province (anyway, every map I have seen, including tourist maps) shows Labrador as part of Quebec. As mentioned above, the British privy council, apparently the court of last resort in the matter decided in 1927 that it belonged to Britain, not Canada (Newfoundland being part of Britain in those days). Since it was the British privy council, it is at least plausible that they were not exactly a disinterested tribunal. At any rate, Quebec has never accepted this decision. Presumably, to hammer home the point, the province of Newfoundland changed its official name to Newfoundland and Labrador and has made some effort to force, for example, sports announcers to mouth the whole thing when describing a team from Newfoundland–er, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Although it might seem like a pointless fight, there is an awful lot of hydro-electric power up there and it is worth fighting over. Quebec actually got the best of it when they signed a long term contract (I think it may have been 50 years) to develop and sell the power and pay Newfoundland 0.1 c per KWH. Newfondland has been trying to renegotiate the contract for as long as I have lived here (getting on to 35 years), but Quebec has shown no interest in that.
As did the National Geographic map that I referred to. I merely reported what the editors of National Geographic felt obligated to print next to the Quebec-Labrador boundry that was on their map.
Quebec’s recognition of the boundary is irrelevant. The baoundary question was settled at the time between the two national governments concerned (Britain and Canada) and Quebec, as part of Canada, lies within the same boundaries. Quebec’s current position is mostly derived from the provincial government’s periodic attempts to make everyone believe that they are an independant nation, and not really part of Canada (and therefore not bound by Canadian government boundary agreements).
- From “How to be a Canadian, even if you already are one” by Ian and Will Ferguson.
Regarding Alaska, you’re not quite correct. The boundary along the panhandle was subject to considerable dispute before it was finally settled.
Ed
Bookkeeper: You say that " Quebec’s recogition of the boundary is irrelevant" This sounds like official goverment policy. If Quebec manages to someday seprate from Canada, what then?
If they separate, then by all rights they should lose all the land granted to them ater 1867.
Well, since Rube summoned me I guess I should contribute. I’m afraid I have to disagree with Hari Seldon’s summary:
Newfoundland did not belong to Britain, any more than Canada belonged to Britain. Both were independent Dominions within the Commonwealth. See: Statute of Westminster, 1931. The two Dominions could not agree on the boundary, so the Imperial government referred it to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a decision. I don’t know of anything that would suggest the British government favoured one dominion over the other, and in any event, the Judicial Committee was a court, independent of the British government.
It’s also not the case that the Privy Council set the boundaries, if that means deciding on the best location for the boundary, policy, and so on. The British Parliament had defined the boundary in a statute in 1825, but the wording used was ambiguous. The Privy Council’s job was to decide exactly what that statutory grant meant - an interpretative exercise, like other judicial decisions.
The precise point in issue was that the defintion of the boundary referrred to the coast, but also included a phrase along the lines of “the heads of the rivers” (can’t find the exact wording on line). The statute was open to at least two interpretations: that the British government had only intended Newfoundland to have jurisdiction over a narrow strip of land along the coast, for the purpose of fishing, sealing and whaling; or that they’d given a much larger grant, up to the the watershed of the rivers flowing into the Atlantic along the Labrador boundary.
Here’s a summary of the arguments in the case:
Ultimately, their Lordships decided in favour of Newfoundland and against the Canadian claim.
Here’s another article on it: The ownership of Labrador has been disputed since Confederation.
Okay, a while ago, a part of my hair (namely, the front, centre of my bangs) gor shaved (not a party… elch, the story is pointless). So, it’s slowly growing back, and is now ~a centimetre long, and since my hair parts in the middle, looking pretty ridiculous.
Now, this isn’t terrible, since I have a pretty “individual” look going on anyway, so some people might call it a fashion statement.
Despite that, I hate it. It’s too short for gel… do I just have to wait for it to grow out further?
sigh That’s called “missing the ‘New Thread’ button.”
Elch.
I thought it was a deep metaphor for the difficulties of artificially dividing land by boundaries, and the ecological effects of clear-cutting timber damming the rivers of Labrador. 
Sorry to make you do the heavy-liftin’, Northern, but my posting time is limited to short breaks at work and the even shorter intervals when I’m home and the two-year old is asleep. It’s only fair, though, that you should start steering the legislative drafting questions my way. You’ve been tackling them and con law too, and I know it’s not fair.
BTW, it seems to me that you’re using up some good bar time posting, or does Regina have a cyber-cafe that serves Bass Ale now?
Regards,
Rube