We need to be very careful not to confuse jurisdiction with sovereignty or
ownership. The Canadian government has "jurisdiction" and "sovereignty", I
believe, over all the land and inland waters of Canada, for certain
purposes. The Provinces are not enclaves within Canada, they are parts of
Canada!
David
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 bjbutler@... wrote:
> Interestingly, the official Canadian topo map (15'x 30', Berry Point)
> covering the Northwest Angle clearly marks an Ontario-Minnesota
> boundary running up the middle of the inlet. Indeed, the
> words "Ontario" and "Minnesota" are overprinted on the lake!
>
> BJB
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@y..., michael donner <m@d...> wrote:
> > thanx david
> > this is quite helpful in several ways
> > tho i think the wording you mention here from section 2 doesnt
> narrow the
> > definition of navigable waters at all
> > but rather broadens it to include all artificially constructed
> waterways
> > just as well as all the naturally navigable waters that have been
> reserved
> > to the crown in canadian law since the first articles of
> confederation in
> > 1867
> >
> > section 14 also
> > by saying vessel includes every description of ship or boat or
> watercraft
> > of any kind whatsoever etc
> > is especially inclusive & suggestive of the most liberal possible
> > definition of navigation & navigable waters
> >
> > & later sections reinforce these views further when they refer
> sweepingly to
> > 15 any navigable water over which parliament has jurisdiction &
> > 18 any thing cast ashore or stranded or left on any public property
> > belonging to her majesty in right of canada &
> > 22 any water any part of which is navigable or that flows into any
> > navigable water etc
> >
> > so all together it seems to me that the terms used in this law
> really do
> > provide a lot more support for the conclusion reached below
> >
> > m
> >
> >
> > >
> > >"Navigable waters" in Canada appear to be defined much more
> narrowly:
> > >
> > >Navigable Waters Protection Act:
> > >"navigable water" includes a canal and any other body of water
> created or
> > >altered as a result of the construction of any work."
> > ><http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-22/76767.html>
> > >http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-22/76767.html
> > >
> > >David
> > >
> > >On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
> > >
> > >> bus&ss indicates that the point adopted in 1925 for the new
> north limit of
> > >> the usa in the lake of the woods displaced it northward from
> swampland into
> > >> open water
> > >>
> > >> & nicholson 1979 says about the 1925 change
> > >> as the international boundaries of canada are also coincident
> with its
> > >> provincial boundaries except where they pass thru navigable
> waters etc
> > >> provincial recognition by manitoba followed in 1928 as it had to
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> so it would appear that not only were the claves eliminated by
> the 1925
> > >> change but a manitoba minnesota ontario binational tripoint
> was
> > >> eliminated as well
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Northwest angle used to have several enclaves in its NW arm of
> Lake of the
> > >> >Woods, that were removed in 1925. A map of the issues is on
> p137 of
> > >>Stephen
> > >> >B. Jones, (1945), _Boundary-making a handbook for statesmen,
> treaty editors
> > >> >and boundary commissioners_, Carnegie endowment for
> international peace,
> > >> >division of international law, monograph No.8. Washington DC.
> > >> >
> > >> >As martin said , this has been republished recently.
> > >> >
> > >> >BW
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> still trying to visualize what tripoints do remain now tho
> > >> so excuse me if i ramble on
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> within canada it appears there must be a crown manitoba
> ontario tripoint
> > >> very close by
> > >> at the first landfall due north of the changed minnesota north
> point
> > >>
> > >> & i am glad at first to realize this because i have been trying
> to upgrade
> > >> my count of the canadian internal multipoints
> > >> having just broken thru last night on multimap to a fairly
> credible count
> > >> of 25 places where the prolific nunavut northwest territories
> boundary
> > >> touches the seacoast
> > >> the great majority of these on victoria & mackenzie king
> islands btw
> > >> & so i have been scurrying all over the map of canada trying to
> complete
> > >> this try
> > >> which has appeared to involve only about another dozen points or
> so
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> but
> > >> oh
> > >> the try has actually just gotten blown to smithereens
> > >> because i realize i cant say what navigable waters actually are
> > >> or more to the point what canada thinks they are
> > >>
> > >> i think they are probably any waters navigable by even the
> smallest craft
> > >> given that the royal preemption of them dates to earliest times
> > >> & they very probably include lakes & rivers equally
> > >> & could easily include waters both above & below the first head
> of
> > >>navigation
> > >> & at any stage of flow
> > >>
> > >> so the most liberal interpretation
> > >> which now seems the most likely one
> > >> would add a pair of crown waters tripoints just about everywhere
> a stream
> > >> or pond crosses any provincial or territorial boundary
> > >> & this amounts easily to hundreds of additional primary
> federative tripoints
> > >> & a really unresolvable mess
> > >> unless the canadian government publishes an official list or
> map of them
> > >> which frankly i find hard to imagine
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> so my revised conclusion is that canada
> > >> which begins by having 0 zero triprovincial points
> > >> plus its obvious quartet of federative dry multipoints along the
> 60th
> > >>parallel
> > >> & about 3 dozen somewhat less obvious coastal tripoints
> > >> trails off into a myriad of mostly obscure freshwater federative
> tripoints
> > >> & is therefore probably just not susceptible to the kind of
> exhaustive
> > >> finite analysis enjoyed by the usa & most other countries
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> & i realize now too that the same imponderability extends
> equally to the
> > >> caus binational tripoints
> > >>
> > >> we can easily point to the few all dry ones
> > >> menhpq & the half dozen on the 49th parallel west of the red
> river
> > >> & a couple of unnavigable wet ones i guess
> > >> nhpqvt & akbcyt
> > >> but we will probably never be able to account for all the wet
> ones
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> & thus unexpectedly both canada & caus
> > >> for the same reason
> > >> must remain by & large terra incognita
> > >>
> > >> m
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>