labradore

"We can't allow things that are inaccurate to stand." — The Word of Our Dan, February 19, 2008.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Sue Kelland-Dyer is wrong

There, was that so hard?

No, in fact, it was very easy.

Sue Kelland-Dyer's default setting is "wrong".

Sue Kelland-Dyer, law school dropout or some such, should read s. 3 of the British North America Act (now Constitution Act), 1871:
3. The Parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the Legislature of any Province of the said Dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such Province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon to by the said Legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any Province affected thereby.
Sue Kelland-Dyer, crack researcher or some such, should read the Terms of Union:
2. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador shall comprise the same territory as at the date of Union, that is to say, the island of Newfoundland and the islands adjacent thereto, the Coast of Labrador as delimited in the report delivered by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty's Privy Council on the first day of March, 1927, and approved by His Majesty in His Privy Council on the twenty-second day of March, 1927, and the islands adjacent to the said Coast of Labrador.

...

3. The Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1940, shall apply to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the same way, and to the like extent as they apply to the provinces heretofore comprised in Canada, as if the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador had been one of the provinces originally united except in so far as varied by these Terms and except such provisions as are in terms made or by reasonable intendment may be held to be specially applicable to or only to affect one or more and not all of the provinces originally united.
And Sue Kelland-Dyer really ought to read s. 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982:
An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including
(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces...
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
If Sue Kelland-Dyer — who, let us repeat, is wrong, wrong, wrong-diddley-ong, wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, and almost always is — could or would read these constitutional statutes, she would have no choice by to conclude the following.

First, the Labrador is included in the province, and with the boundaries set in 1927; secondly, that those facts are constitutionally entrenched by the Terms of Union; and thirdly, that only a constitutional amendment, as laid out in the Constitution Acts of 1871 and 1982 can in any way change the Labrador boundary.

In other words, no province, not even Quebec, can change a boundary merely by publishing erroneous maps.

Back in the early 1980s, Brian Peckford was wrong when he suggested otherwise. He was mongering fear.

John Ottenheimer was wrong when he suggested otherwise. He was mongering fear.

Carl Powell is wrong when he suggests otherwise. He is mongering fear.

And, especially, Sue Kelland-Dyer is wrong when she suggests otherwise. She is mongering fear.

In Quebec, the Dorion Commission concluded, almost forty years ago now, that all the maps in Quebec wouldn't and couldn't alter the Quebec boundary. Crack researcher Sue Kelland-Dyer should have no trouble locating a copy of the report (sub nom. Rapport de la Commission d'étude sur l'intégrité du territoire du Québec; QEII has a copy, Sue) and its massive, seven-volume, 19-tome section on the Labrador boundary. (By way of reference, the famous Privy Council "Joint Appendix" had just thirteen volumes).

And surely crack research Sue Kelland-Dyer, who seems to know everything about everything, would have to conclude: if the Quebec maps which purport to claim all or part of Labrador have, and must be given, legal effect, then so, too, must be the Newfoundland maps, over the years, which omitted Labrador altogether.

Right?

In the instant matter of the supposedly eroding Labrador boundary, Sue Kelland-Dyer is wrong.

Her wrong-ness can easily be proven. Here's an easy hypothetical to turn into a real-world set of facts. Sue, build a cabin somewhere in the headwaters of the five rivers. Live in it. Apply to vote in the next Quebec election. When you are denied, sue the Quebec government for breaching your democratic rights under the Charter. If you are so confident that your Labrador boundary theory is right, that these maps somehow have changed the lawful, constitutional definition of the boundaries, you will win, and prove your point. However, in fact, you will lose, and thereby confirm everything you will read above.

Sue Kelland-Dyer is wrong about the Labrador boundary.

She is wrong.

Sue Kelland-Dyer, as frequently happens, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

5 Comments:

At 1:14 AM, July 18, 2007 , Blogger Mark said...

Heaven for bid any of those people take the time to read anything...

 
At 10:21 AM, July 18, 2007 , Blogger Sue said...

Sue Kelland-Dyer is not wrong - the maps are altered - despite the ultimate outcome - no prvince should be allowed to display territory which is not theirs. Further - one major global publication calls the Upper and Lower Churchill as power potentials in Quebec.
Also for investors in mineral explorations are using these maps for reference. Quebec is wrong and we will not correct them. You my friend are gutless and ost certainly afraid of Quebec.

 
At 11:26 AM, July 18, 2007 , Blogger WJM said...

Sue Kelland-Dyer shouldn't refer to herself in the third person.

Sue Kelland-Dyer IS wrong, as is anyone else, who suggests that the Labrador boundary has changed, or could change, as the result of maps.

Whatever the PORTRAYAL of the boundary is, the only way the boundary itself can be changed is by a constitutional amendment approved of, inter alia, by the House of Assembly in St. John's.

What about these "investors in mineral exploration"? I would hope they'd be using 1:50K topo maps for their reference, myself; I wouldn't be investing in such companies. Has Quebec approved any mineral staking anywhere inside the 1927 line? Huh?

And unlike you and the rest of the paranoid delusional Newfoundland nationalist townie wierdos, no, I have no fear of Quebec whatsoever. I have had several letters debunking Quebec's supposed "claims" published in Quebec papers over the years. A healthy, mature, relationship with Quebec is the key to Labrador's economic future, not the paranoid stylings of Joey Smallwood and his intellectual heirs, who are still kicking around, who think building a highway connecting Labrador and Quebec is tantamount to treason.

 
At 7:03 AM, July 20, 2007 , Blogger Sue said...

I am not a law school dropout.

 
At 12:05 PM, July 20, 2007 , Blogger WJM said...

I am not a law school dropout.

1) What then? What's the story there, and I'll correct my text.

2) You don't allow me to comment on your blog. Tell me why I should allow you to comment on mine. Thanks.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home