On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
> so brian & david
> this is me max again now & not nicholson
> i think the great challenge for us who are accustomed only to the
> american
> federal system is to tear off our cultural blinders & realize that there
> might be an entirely different federal system at work up there in canada
Speak for yourself! I am a Canadian, and for 3 years I was a colleague of
Norman Nicholson as professors at the University of Western Ontario (me a
young assistant professor, he a senior Full professor at the time. Not
that makes me an expert on boundaries.
I still find it very hard to believe that the Provinces totally dry, with
holes in them for every inland water body or water course. The Province of
Ontario regulates boaters, requiring life jackes and no drinking, etc.,
could I get off if the OPP pull me over by pointing out that we aren't in
Ontario? Do I have to remove from my Provincial bird lists all the
waterfowl that I have seen only on or over the water but never on land?
Amazing if true!!
David
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, michael donner wrote:
> following are extracts from
> the boundaries of the canadian federation
> nicholson 1979
>
>
> pp2ff
>
> by sovereignty is meant the authority of the state to have control of or
> rule over the territory & persons & objects present there
>
> canada being a federal state has divided some aspects of sovereignty
> between the federal government & the provincial governments
>
> canada is made up of 10 provinces & 2 territories
> written before nunavut became the 3rd territory in 1999
> each with its own boundaries
> but not all of these boundaries separate areas with similar administrative
> functions
>
> some are true interprovincial boundaries
> such as the boundary between alberta & saskatchewan
>
> sometimes however a boundary separates a province from a territory
> or from canadian territorial waters
>
> as the last 2 are under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government
> such boundaries might be termed federal provincial
>
> tho provincial boundaries may coincide with international boundaries
> a provincial boundary can never be coextensive with a purely national boundary
> because all navigable waters are under the control of the federal government
>
>
> p74f
>
> officially canadian territorial waters means any water designated by any
> act of the parliament of canada or by the governor in council as the
> territorial waters of canada
> or any waters not so designated being within 3 marine miles of any of the
> coasts bays creeks or harbors of canada
> & includes the inland waters of canada
>
>
> p84
>
> canadian waters means the territorial sea of canada
> & all internal waters of canada
>
> canadian fisheries waters means all waters in the fishing zones of canada
> all waters in the territorial sea of canada
> & all internal waters of canada
>
>
>
> so brian & david
> this is me max again now & not nicholson
> i think the great challenge for us who are accustomed only to the american
> federal system is to tear off our cultural blinders & realize that there
> might be an entirely different federal system at work up there in canada
> which the usgs & other american mapmakers are also predictably confused about
> & which even official canadian mapping may occasionally obscure
>
> false previous impressions & future amazement could be the least of it
>
> for as we have seen
> canadian federal waters may confound americans
>
> but they do not confound tripoints
>
> rather they produce tripoints
>
> they produce domestic federative tripoints as real as our 2 district of
> columbia federative tripoints & our 18 maritime federative tripoints at the
> 3 mile limit
>
> & on the caus line they produce what might be called interfederative tripoints
> for lack of a better name
> meeting not only with several of the individual united states but also
> indisputably with united states federal waters at the 4 places where these
> also meet the 3 mile limits of alaska & washington & maine
>
> tho oddly all 4 of these places happen to fall in or near disputed areas
> & so may also be indeterminate just now albeit for a different reason
>
>
> but i think the real trick is in swallowing the news that canada
> thanxxx to its sovereignty & jurisdiction & ownership of its federal waters
> may well possess incalculably more federative tripoints than the 83 we
> yanks enjoy
>
> m
>
>
> >
> >I personally don't think there are Federal waters inland in Canada. It is
> >my understanding that Provincial fishing regulations apply once one gets
> >upstream of the tidal zone, even on navigable waterways. But I know that
> >the federal government regulates environmental protection on salmon
> >spawning streams in british Columbia. There mighyt even be false memories,
> >and may not really be relevant to the "BoundaryPoint" questions. But I
> >will be amazed to find out that Ontario, Manitoba, and Minnesota do not
> >meet at some point in Lake of the Woods. I have occasionally been amazed
> >before....
> >
> >David
> >
> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Brian J. Butler wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I agree about being careful with jurisdiction vs. sovereignty. In fact
> >> I had been contemplating this issue myself. I just checked the USGS Beau
> >> Lake, ME topo sheet showing the Maine - New Brunswick - Quebec tri-point,
> >> which I visited last summer. This map has the labels "Maine" and "Quebec",
> >> as well as the corresponding county (or whatever MRC stand for in Canada)
> >> names overprinted on the lake along the boundary line.
> >>
> >> So, do you prefer to think of these junctions as state/province tri-points
> >> or do Canadian federal waters confound them?
> >>
> >> BJB
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: David Mark <dmark@...>
> >> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 7:46 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Northwest Angle 2 enclaves and map
> >>
> >>
> >> > 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>
> >> > > > ><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/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> >><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=190462.1393721.2979173.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700126166:N/A=55
> >1014/?http://www.debticated.com target="_top"> Your use of Yahoo!
> >Groups is subject to the <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Yahoo! Terms
> >of Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>