Problems with demarcation According to the 1927 Privy Council decision in London, the land border's shape was in part defined by the Laurentian Divide. According to Henri Dorion and Jean-Paul Lacasse, cartographers and geographers have stated that it was impossible to define the exact border based on the Privy Council's ruling, as there are polyrheic areas (belonging to both river basins at the same time) and
arheic areas (belonging to neither). Other issues also exist; therefore, they argue that the possession of these areas should be negotiated during demarcation. Moreover, the area between the 52nd parallel north and the watershed is subject to an active dispute, as Quebec contends that the region was granted despite Newfoundland not requesting it (
ultra petita). Legal scholars say this argument may have merit, but only a political resolution to the problem is possible. In 2018, there were no voters in the contested area registered on the Quebec electoral list.
Position of Canada and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador The
government of Newfoundland and Labrador believes that the Privy Council decision has legal force.
Joey Smallwood, the premier of Newfoundland at the time it joined Confederation, stated that Quebec had nothing to do with the definition of the border as it was not a separate
dominion of the
British Empire. The province further argues that since Quebec did not officially oppose Newfoundland's entering Confederation in 1949 (sealed by the
Newfoundland Act), it tacitly recognized the border. It also cites the
Constitution Act, 1982, which contains the Newfoundland Act, to confirm it. In 2007,
John Ottenheimer, N.L. minister for intergovernmental affairs, said in relation to the Labrador border: In cartographical representations of the country, the federal government also uses the border with a straight line at the 52nd parallel north.
Position of Quebec , drawn according to the standards set by the provincial government. Two boundaries may be seen to the south of
Labrador – one on the 52nd parallel (recognized by Canada and the province of
Newfoundland and Labrador) and the other on the
St. Lawrence-
Atlantic watershed (claimed by Quebec). Quebec has never officially recognised the decision of the Privy Council. Several theories and accusations have been put forward to explain the unfavourable ruling: the judges' alleged
conflict of interest (either by favouring the colony of Newfoundland to the more autonomous Dominion of Canada, or by having financial stakes in mining companies), the lack of representation of Quebec, or the will to award more than was asked for, which resonate in Quebec's society. Following the news of the unfavourable judicial ruling, Taschereau was displeased with it, but successive governments largely tended to avoid the issue. In 2001, when Newfoundland sought to
amend the Newfoundland Act by changing its official name to
Newfoundland and Labrador, two Quebec ministers issued a statement, which said: With Quebec contesting the border, it also sought to assert its official position on maps. • the territory of Labrador must appear but should not be expressly identified; • the border symbol used for the border between Labrador and Quebec must be different from other interprovincial or international boundaries (in the legend, they propose to name it "Quebec–Newfoundland and Labrador border (this border is not binding)", ); • on the length of the border with Labrador, two markers saying "1927 delineation of the Privy Council (non-binding)" () must be put, one on the 52nd parallel and the other north of
Schefferville, whenever possible; additionally, Labrador must be coloured in a way that does not offer too much contrast with Quebec; • Quebec's territory should be coloured to the watershed, rather than to the 52nd parallel north. However, both Quebec's claimed border and the Privy Council delineation should appear.
Reaction from legal scholars Legal scholars have generally considered Quebec's claims and accusations to be dubious at best and frivolous at worst. While they said that
ultra petita claims might have some merits and could therefore serve as a possible justification for partial adjustment of the border (though not through the court system), they state that the Privy Council decision is binding and has full legal force, dismissing allegations of conflict of interest or lack of representation of Quebec as unproven or not valid reasons to review it. Henri Dorion initially conceded, despite his opposition to the border as described in his 1963 book, that legal remedies are unavailable and that the border as drawn in 1927 was becoming more and more entrenched, which politicians also recognized at the time. Later in his life, he seemed to have changed his position towards deeming Quebec's claims baseless as he believed that the passage of time and politicians' actions further undermined Quebec's cause. He stressed that the government of Quebec had implicitly recognized the Privy Council delineation in several separate instances, for example in the case of
Iron Ore Company of Canada, which tried to make estimates of the amount of provincial taxes due to exploitation of the natural resources and whose estimates Quebec accepted. He later also pointed to the fact that and Aimé Geoffrion, the litigants on behalf of Canada, were both from Quebec, so the contention that Quebec was not represented was, in his opinion, unfounded. ==Maritime border dispute==