Duceppe says it's up to NFLD whether it wants to leave Canada

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. - Newfoundland and Labrador has a strong nationalist history and would have to decide whether to follow a sovereign Quebec out of Canada, says Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe.
Duceppe was talking separation in St. John's on Wednesday where opposition to the Meech Lake Accord - which would have recognized Quebec as a distinct society - helped kill the deal 20 years ago.
It's part of his cross-country tour gathering input on sovereignty as the issue simmers on the political back burner.
Duceppe visited Memorial University where a student asked if he thought Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and other provinces would secede if Quebec left the country.
"Newfoundland was once a nation, even (had) a national anthem, so it's different from Alberta," Duceppe said, casting doubt on Western separation.
"But it's your decision. I don't want to talk about what you have to decide," he said to laughter from a packed lecture hall.
Newfoundland was once a dominion that functioned much like its own country until 1934, when a British-appointed commission oversaw it.
It became part of Canada on March 31, 1949, after just 52 per cent of voters in a referendum supported joining the country.
Talk of separation is a sometime political sport in the province. Debate flared three years ago when the Progressive Conservative government of Premier Danny Williams used a sovereigntist rallying cry in its throne speech.
"Our province will achieve self-reliance by becoming masters of our own house," Williams declared.
The French translation - "maitres chez nous" - was former Quebec premier Jean Lesage's clarion call in the 1960s, and became a theme of the Quiet Revolution.
Williams clarified at the time that he has no taste for separation. He was ensnared in a nasty dispute with Ottawa over offshore oil royalties and equalization payments, and said the phrase was used to connote economic self-sufficiency.
Still, Williams warned at the time: "We're not going to be slapped repeatedly in the face by federal governments."
After speaking to students, Duceppe told reporters Quebec could work well with Newfoundland if his province separated.
"We have more proximity with Newfoundland and Labrador, especially Labrador, than we do have with B.C.," he said.
"We have trade, we have some business disputes at certain times - that's part of life also - but I think that we could work as a sovereign state, and Labrador and Newfoundland the way they want."
Duceppe said the Williams government has every right to sue Hydro-Quebec for a bigger share of hydroelectric profits from the 1969 deal to develop the Churchill Falls project.
Williams has said the agreement has reaped some $22 billion for Quebec but only about $1 billion for his province.
Terms negotiated based on the commercial value of energy 40 years ago don't adjust for higher power values and will not expire until 2041.
Duceppe's tour marks the 20th anniversary since the deal to bring Quebec into the Constitution as a distinct society collapsed.
The accord died when legislatures in Newfoundland and Manitoba failed to ratify it by the June 23, 1990 deadline.
Duceppe said his ideal vision for Quebec is as a sovereign nation within a larger "economic body" modelled on aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement or the European Union.
But Bloc co-founder and former Parti Quebecois premier Lucien Bouchard said in February that the province should focus on more pressing issues because sovereignty isn't achievable in the short term.
Political science student Brian Thoms asked Duceppe about the fiscal practicality of Quebec separation when the heavily indebted province faces a looming $4.5-billion deficit.
"He never really answered what a sovereign Quebec would do to alleviate these issues without resorting to massive tax increases by filling the gap of the federal government's (existing) taxes and fees."
Federal Conservative strategist Tim Powers, a Newfoundlander, said Duceppe can learn from his home province.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
I'm beginning to feel that Duceppe is and should be charged as - a traitor to his country. He appears to be attempting a mutiny.
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
I'm beginning to feel that Duceppe is and should be charged as - a traitor to his country. He appears to be attempting a mutiny.
Then you better start looking also at those that want the west to seperate too :roll:
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Sure, NL can separate. Go ahead. First, though, NL and Quebec will have to settle their border dispute. THen, NL will have to pay back all the money Canada has poured into it for fifty years, including all the federal money spent on the offshore oil developments.

Right after those issues are settled, Danny can go straight to wherever he wants to go.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I'm beginning to feel that Duceppe is and should be charged as - a traitor to his country. He appears to be attempting a mutiny.

Then you don't know what mutiny is. A citizen is expected to obey the law, but is still free to voice his opinion. The same applies even to soldiers. A soldier is expected to obey orders, but is still free to voice his opinion. Duceppe has not violated any laws. So why the pointless rhetoric?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Sure, NL can separate. Go ahead. First, though, NL and Quebec will have to settle their border dispute. THen, NL will have to pay back all the money Canada has poured into it for fifty years, including all the federal money spent on the offshore oil developments.

Right after those issues are settled, Danny can go straight to wherever he wants to go.

There's a problem with the logic there. NL would have to pay Canada back before it can separate. Since it would be a part of Canada until separation, then certainly it would get part of that money back. Remember, NL paid its taxes into it too.

I'd rather unity over separation. But if we must separate, then I'd hope it be an amicable separation and not civil war as some would be itching for.
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
Yup. And what about those that want to kick Quebec out?
You 've been hitting the nail on the head so far in thids thread .
It is easily forgotten too by them of those that want to stay in canada and have voted to do so ....twice so far!
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
You 've been hitting the nail on the head so far in thids thread .
It is easily forgotten too by them of those that want to stay in canada and have voted to do so ....twice so far!

Ah, but those who voted to stay in Canada are not real Quebecers. Don't confuse me with those facts again, 'cause my mind is already made up that each and every Quebecer wants to separate, and that no other Canadian wants to. But somehow, it's our patriotic duty to want to kick Quebec out because they won't leave of their own free will. Yeah, never mind the contradiction; who said this argument is supposed to be logical.

Now as for those who want to separate, god forbid they ought to have freedom of thought and expression within the confines of decency and mutual respect in this country? That's not what our country's about. It's about charging anyone who disagrees with us with mutiny, even if a friggin' soldier in any other democratic country would have that right. We're not about freedom of thought after all.

This is Canada!:canada: And in Canada, you tow the party line. That's what we're all about!:lol:
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
By the way, inasmuch a I disagree with much of what Coulter had to say, and can't understand why the university had invited her, I'd still stood p in her defense in her right to be treated with respect as a person no matter what we may think of her views, and was quite critical of the students who'd shouted her away even making her fear for her safety.

So no, I'm not taking sides here.
 

VanIsle

Always thinking
Nov 12, 2008
7,046
43
48
Then you don't know what mutiny is. A citizen is expected to obey the law, but is still free to voice his opinion. The same applies even to soldiers. A soldier is expected to obey orders, but is still free to voice his opinion. Duceppe has not violated any laws. So why the pointless rhetoric?
mu·ti·ny
(my
ÁtÆn ), n., pl.
-nies, v., -nied, -ny·ing.
n.
1. revolt or rebellion against constituted authority, esp. by sailors against their officers.
2. rebellion against any authority.
v.i.
3. to commit the offense of mutiny; revolt against authority.
[1560–70; obs. mutine to mutiny (< MF mutiner, deriv. of mutin mutiny; see MUTINEER) + -Y3]
Syn.2. uprising, overthrow, coup, takeover.
Sorry - I disagree with you. A mutiny is exactly what I feel Duceppe is attempting to do. He wants to take over parts of Canada bit by bit.. He does not make any pretense that he is a Canadian and he wants other provinces to join him. His own little French country. I've said it before and I still repeat - for anyone living in the province of Quebec, Canada, who does not want to be a Canadian - find a country of your own on land of your own. When you are proud to call yourself a Canadian then stay where you are - you are at home with the rest of us Canadians.