The feds take sides

Again, from Sue Kelland-Dyer's Thursday rant on the Labrador boundary non-issue:

If you had North Dakota taking part of Manitoba, if you had New York taking part of Quebec, if you had Ontario taking part of Quebec in a map, it would not be tolerated. It is tolerated here by both the federal and provincial governments, we’re nothing in this nation.

Here is the map of the Quebec provincial electoral district of Duplessis, one of two which abut Labrador (the other is Ungava); the map, issued by the provincial elections office, which raised SK-D's ire when it was portrayed during the Quebec election-night coverage in April:


Pay particular to two territorial divisions, the ones which border the 52 North line that forms part of the Labrador border, namely, Lac-Jérome and Petit-Mécatina. The NO stands for [territoire] non-organisé, meaning that the area is not incorporated into a municipality. Neither of these NOs have any permanent settlements.

Note how, according to the DGEQ, both Lac-Jérome and Petit-Mécatina extend into the headwaters of the seven rivers, north (and in a few cases, east) of the astronomical parts of the Labrador boundary. In case it isn't clear, notice how the internal boundary between the two divisions is project northward across the boundary into Labrador.

How is this bit of cartographical fiction on Quebec's part "tolerated" by the federal government?

Not very well. Here's a detail from the Elections Canada map of the corresponding federal riding in Quebec, Manicouagan:
And here are the official Statistics Canada maps of the two non-organised divisions in question:

Two different agencies of the Government of Canada, both of which, correctly, side with the Constitution and Labrador against the ludicrous cartographic fantasies of some Quebec government cartographers.

And yet, according to SK-D, Quebec's cartographic fiction is "tolerated" by the federal government.

Where, when, and how?