The Quebec-Labrador boundary line is a subject woven through the modern histories of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.
It’s an entirely settled dispute — the answer written into the Canadian constitution — and yet still rearing up time and again.
In its latest iteration, the Parti Quebecois is publicly calling for compensation for Quebec, based on the assertion the boundary isn’t and hasn’t been where it should be. The final chapters of the PQ’s Blue Book on sovereignty, a policy document describing an independent Quebec released in late June, refers to a 1927 decision out of the British Privy Council, the case famous for defining the overland boundary between provinces.
The PQ acknowledges there’s “no legal recourse” to challenge that decision.
At the same time, per an English translation of the document: “For Quebec, the only way to redress this injustice would be to propose a political settlement, or even financial compensation. Thus, an independent Quebec would submit a claim for redress of this injustice as part of the overall negotiations with Canada.”
A letter to the editor from PQ leaders, published July 17 by French-language news outlet Le Devoir, reiterated the claim of injustice.
A more recent piece published by the National Post on July 22, featured PQ energy critic Pascal Paradis saying the issue “of course” also links to ongoing negotiations between provinces and their wholly-owned energy corporations on Churchill Falls hydroelectricity — involving benefits from the existing hydroelectric facility and future development of hydro power.
On behalf of Paradis, a PQ staff member declined an interview. He directed CBC News to two statements posted on X and Facebook, attributed to Paradis. Neither directly references the border, but they do address the negotiations between the governments of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador on Churchill River power.
Paradis condemns the idea of the Quebec government under Christine Fréchette and the Coalition Avenir Québec could sign any related agreement on water and power resources, ahead of the election in Quebec this fall.
Approaching a centenary
Historian and professor at Memorial University, Sean Cadigan, noted the PQ’s comments followed comments from Wakeham, who raised the border during a debate around Churchill River power in his province’s legislature in 2025.
Wakeham pointed to a document filed at the time by Hydro-Québec with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. The company’s annual report included a map — of a kind commonly used in Quebec — defining the Quebec-Labrador border as non-definitive, not final.
Hydro-Québec takes its cue from the government of Quebec. Since the 1927 boundary decision — but also the subsequent writing of the border into Newfoundland and Labrador’s Terms of Union with Canada — successive provincial governments in Quebec have not recognized the boundary, and reiterated the idea of a non-definitive border through official statements, government reports, and provincial agencies of all sorts.
It means reports and maps are the subject of daily news headlines year over year, decade over decade. It’s a news item in Newfoundland and Labrador, for example, at the time of every Quebec election, as Elections Quebec includes an alternative boundary in its electoral mapping.
A map of the Labrador electoral riding from Elections Canada. (Elections Canada)
“I find that bothersome, and I find that we’re about to enter into an MOU with a province that doesn’t recognize our borders, and it’s about time they did, and I would ask that it be included in this MOU,” Wakeham said last year, addressing an early-stage accord for a new plan for cross-border power development.
Cadigan said Wakeham’s comments prominently brought the border up, again, at an “unfortunate time.” That’s given the sensitive resource negotiations but also ahead of the 100-year anniversary of the 1927 decision not far off.
“Centenaries are always significant,” Cadigan said.
Centenaries carry their own power, he said, suggesting the border between the provinces has the potential to become a subject of more intense public discussion and debate now in similar fashion to the way Newfoundland and Labrador has looked back in a meaningful way at events shaping its history, as it did with the First World War and Beaumont-Hamel.
It’s not equating the two, but making the point there are times when events are given more attention, weight and emotion than otherwise.
The PQ or others in Quebec may have raised the subject regardless, Cadigan said, but it was early fuel.
“We gave the PQ a gift if you will,” he said, adding there’s also the upcoming Quebec election to consider.
“Every politician is going to be trying to align popular support behind them. They want to sort of rally the people to their particular flag. So in that respect, pointing to old grievances about the place of Quebec in Confederation might help the PQ.”
One of the complaints around the 1927 decision is Quebec, as a province of Canada, did not have the same ability to represent its interests at the time as Newfoundland and Labrador.
Terra nullius
“I’m not sure if the dispute such as it is 1785918026 is real or if it’s just kind of discursive – about getting people upset, getting people engaged, promoting nationalism, trying to get ‘a better deal’ out of Newfoundland,” said University of Montreal geography professor Kathryn Furlong, adding she doesn’t know anyone who believes the border would change at this point.
Furlong is co-author of Maîtres Chez Eux, a book released in April, examining Churchill River power development and Hydro-Québec’s presence in Labrador.
She said what sets the stage for back and forth — and has through the decades — is the persistence in Quebec leaders in sustaining their objections to the 1927 boundary decision. That’s paired with then actively, visually representing that objection in official, government materials.
Kathryn Furlong is a professor of geography at the University of Montreal. (CBC)
She wonders if people in Newfoundland and Labrador understand the extent to which the idea of the “wrong” border exists and is embedded in the worldview of many in Quebec.
Furlong recalled her first day at the University of Montreal in 2010, walking into the view of a large, wall map and its undefined border.
“For people in Quebec, I think it’s something that they just internalize as a kind of fact. Sort of throughout their lives, they see these maps [and] they don’t question it” she said.
“I think many people even when I’ve said it to them have not realized that this is what they’ve been looking at. And it’s just kind of a very internalized sort of – I was going to say propaganda – but a message that people get.”
Furlong suggested calls for compensation, like those recently from the PQ, notably speak of the territory in the sense of natural resource extraction and value, mines and dams, and as though it’s the “terra nullius” of European explorers. It doesn’t speak to caretaking of the environment, governance, or the real costs of providing infrastructure and services for people in the region.
That would be a far more difficult discussion and debate.
“I mean, if it was stolen, it was stolen from Indigenous people,” she said.
As also conveyed in Maîtres Chez Eux, Furlong said the border hasn’t been a real barrier to Quebec development in hydroelectricity, but has so far functioned to the advantage of the Quebec government and hydro, “because what the border allows you to do is divide the costs from the benefits of the [hydro] project.”
Five rivers
A common discussion point and flashpoint on both sides of the border for decades is the fact the southern part of the boundary lines cuts through five major river systems flowing to the south, into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
It was cited back in May 1965 by then-Quebec premier Jean Lesage, who spoke at the time about making an agreed border change a requirement of any agreement allowing for Churchill Falls hydroelectric development.
As reporter Gordon Pape wrote for the Montreal Gazette: “The premier claims this control is essential for future hydroelectric developments in this area if, as, and when Quebec ever decides to act.”
Lesage offered Smallwood “a corresponding chunk of Northern Ungava” in Northern Quebec. It was, even at the time, per Pape, “the type of geographical horse-trading that would fit more naturally into the 17th century at a time when the European empire builders were passing around huge parcels of land in North America with a fine disdain for ownership or prior claims.”
The exchange never happened, the same way attempted sales of Labrador Peninsula territory to Quebec by Newfoundland and Labrador at points both before and after the 1927 decision never happened in the end.
Daniel Johnson Sr., who succeeded Lesage as premier, would ultimately agree to a borderless power sales contract for Churchill Falls’ development in Labrador, referencing only a sales point and with no reference to the border line.
Still, the five rivers and southern portion of the border would contribute to skirmishes for decades. By 1980, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was again highlighting the splits.
A 2013 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador map showing the hydrology of the transboundary rivers of southern Labrador. (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador)
“Five interprovincial river systems — the Romaine, Natashquan, Little Mecatina, St. Augustine, and St. Paul — with headwaters located in Labrador and flowing south through Quebec to the Gulf of St. Lawrence, could provide about 3,350 MW, though their development would require a joint venture between Newfoundland and Quebec,” it stated in its annual report.
That idea of needing a joint venture was challenged when Quebec decided to develop the Romaine River. In that case, per environmental assessment documents, while Newfoundland and Labrador challenged on a few fronts, not enough of the river system and expected flooding was considered to impact Newfoundland and Labrador’s side of the line for more engagement than had already taken place with Quebec’s power company, prior to construction.
Politics on both sides
At this point, Wakeham says the border simply isn’t up for debate.
He hasn’t said if he still considers it necessary for it to be written in as part of any memorandum of understanding, or future commercial agreements on Churchill River power.
What is clear is the latest comments from the PQ are fanning the flames and the premier is getting pressure to act on his earlier words. Former Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative leader Ches Crosbie said Wakeham should be taking a hard line, having the border written into any future power agreement, unlike the 1960s, and shutting down the back and forth once and for all.
“Quebec is a schoolyard bully on this issue, and they’ll keep shoving people around on it as long as they think they’ll get something for doing so. So what I say is we need to shove back,” Crosbie said in an interview.
Both Cadigan and Furlong said they see caution warranted, and care, with thought to what’s ultimately best for building the relationship between neighbours.
“I think people do genuinely feel some kind of injustice [over the border] but I do also feel this is — it’s like any kind of political tool. It functions to build nationalism, to build a sense of injustice which is often helpful for nationalism,” Furlong said.
Download our free CBC News app to sign up for push alerts for CBC Newfoundland and Labrador. Sign up for our daily headlines newsletter here. Click here to visit our landing page.
