Quebec referendum, 1995

The Quebec referendum in 1995 was after the vote in 1980, the second referendum on the question of whether the province of Quebec to secede from Canada and an independent state should be. The referendum took place on 30 October 1995. In strictly legal terms, although it was only a question of whether Quebec should negotiate with the federal government on a loose economic and political association. But the separatist provincial government never had doubts about the fact that they would unilaterally proclaimed independence in the negotiations fail.

The result was very close. 50.58 % No votes were compared with 49.42 % in favor, with a stake of 93.52 % of registered voters. Rural areas and the provincial capital of Quebec in favor of independence, while the city of Montreal and areas along the southern border they refused. About 60% of francophone Canadians agreed, however, the English-language minority population and the indigenous people spoke out clearly against from.

Background

A similar referendum in 1980 failed with 59.56 % rejection. Two years later, the Canadian Constitution was dissolved by the Constitutional Act of 1982 completely from the control of the British Parliament. While it would not have been illegal if the federal government would have complemented by itself the Constitution, but the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was obliged under customary law to consult the provincial governments and obtaining their consent.

The prime ministers of the provinces rejected the constitutional amendment from first closed. After long negotiations, but an agreement could be reached with nine out of ten provinces. René Lévesque, the Prime Minister of Quebec, was not informed of the other provinces of the agreement and was faced with a fait accompli. For this reason, he refused to sign the Constitution Act. Despite his refusal, the amendment was ratified, and also had validity for Quebec. Lévesque felt cheated Quebec had been " left in a time of crisis in the lurch " from Canada and this "betrayal" would have serious consequences.

After Brian Mulroney had become 1984 New Canadian Prime Minister, he tried, with additions to the Constitution Act, the Québec government still to convince them to consent. But the Meech Lake Accord of 1987 could not be ratified within the specified period and the Charlottetown Accord of 1992 was rejected in a national referendum, which the separatists gave new impetus in Québec.

Lucien Bouchard, the environment minister in Mulroney's cabinet, united disappointed liberal and conservative member of Parliament from Quebec in the new party Bloc Québécois, whose goal was the independence of Quebec. In the general election, 1993, the Bloc Québécois won 54 of 75 seats in Quebec, and thus became the second largest party in the lower house. The following year, the separatist Parti Québécois won by Jacques Parizeau, the elections to the National Assembly of Quebec. Parizeau promised to hold a referendum during his tenure.

Referendum question

On September 7, 1995, one year after his election as Prime Minister of the province, Parizeau presented the referendum question should be put to the vote on 30 October. On the ballots, the question was printed in both French and English. In areas where the Aboriginal languages ​​are spoken every day, the ballots were trilingual. In French, the question was:

German translation:

The said agreement was referring to the sovereignty plan of the provincial government of 12 June 1995, which was sent to all households a couple of weeks before the referendum.

Campaign

For the whereabouts of Québec in Canada, the " Federalists " ( fédéralistes ) began at the. Their main actors were Jean Chrétien, the Canadian Prime Minister, Daniel Johnson, Chairman of the Parti libéral du Québec and Jean Charest, President of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Opposite them were the 'separatists ' ( souverainistes ), were in favor of separation from Canada and / or negotiations on a loose economic and political partnership. They were led by Jacques Parizeau, the Prime Minister of the province, Lucien Bouchard, leader of the Bloc Québécois and Mario Dumont, leader of the Action démocratique du Québec.

Parizeaus campaign started slowly ride and first opinion polls showed that two-thirds of the respondents would vote no. But different from the media more widespread tactless remarks of the Federalists led to an increased mobilization of advocates of sovereignty. Parizeau appointed Bouchard to the " Chief Negotiator " in possible negotiations for a positive outcome of the referendum. In December 1994, Bouchard was suffering from necrotizing fasciitis, and his life was saved only by the amputation of a leg. His recovery and his public appearances on crutches sparked a wave of sympathy. Bouchard took over from Parizeau directing the campaign. His undiminished commitment to the independence of Quebec, despite this serious disease were the advocates of sovereignty back confidence.

Under Bouchard's leadership, the advocates of sovereignty brought on more and new opinion polls showed that the majority of Quebecers were now for independence. Even Bouchard's careless statement three weeks before the vote, Quebecers were the " white race with the lowest birth rate ", it changed little.

A week before the vote, the advocates of sovereignty lay in the polls with around 5 percent lead. This projection shrank again after Jean Chrétien had appeared on television, but the difference between the two camps was within the margin of error of 2 percent. On October 27, a large demonstration of the Federalists found on the Place du Canada held in Montreal, which was attended by around 100,000 people from outside Québec. They celebrated the unity of Canada and urged Quebecers to vote 'no'. Chrétien, Charest and Johnson gave speeches. Also present were Mike Harris, Frank McKenna, John Savage and Catherine Call Beck, the Prime Minister of the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Iceland. The demonstration was controversial, since different companies had greatly reduced travel offered to bring as many demonstrators to Montreal. This was the Returning Officer 's view represents a illegal support of the No Committee

Arrangements in the event of approval

If approved, Parizeau intended to occur within two days ago, the National Assembly and to ask for support for the sovereignty bill, which had already been submitted to Parliament. According to a speech that Parizeau had prepared for this eventuality, " Québec reach out in partnership with their Canadian neighbors " would. He would begin negotiations with the federal government over a political and economic association and proclaim the independence of Québec at any possible failure of the talks. On October 27, Lucien Bouchard's office sent out a call to all military bases in Quebec press release, in which he called for the creation of a Quebec army after the Declaration of Independence. Bouchard announced that Québec will take stationed in the province of fighter aircraft of the Canadian Air Force in possession.

The federal government made few provisions for the case of a consent. Some cabinet members discussed possible scenarios. For example, the question of independence in the Supreme Court should be clarified. High-ranking officials were discussing the implications of a positive outcome of the referendum on issues such as national borders, the federal debt and whether Prime Minister Jean Chrétien would remain in office since he was elected in an electoral district in Quebec. Defence Minister David Collenette was preparing measures to increase security at some federal agencies. He also ordered the transfer of fighter aircraft to other provinces so that they could be used in possible negotiations not as a deposit.

The natives insisted on their own self-determination. Chiefs of the First Nations stressed that it would be a violation of international law, they should be forced to join an independent Quebec. In the week before the vote, she demanded to be full negotiating partner in any constitutional issues that would result from the referendum. In particular, the Grand Council of the Cree spoke out vehemently against it out to be part of an independent state Québec. Matthew Coon Come Great chieftain wrote a legal opinion that the Cree territories are entitled to remain in Canada. On 24 October, the Cree held a separate referendum in which 96.3 % favored the retention in Canada. The Inuit in the region of Nunavik spoke at a separate referendum with 96 % also made against an independent Quebec.

Result

The referendum question was rejected by the voters of Quebec, but with a much smaller difference than in the year 1980: 50.58 % No votes were compared with 49.42 % in favor. 93.52 % of the 5,087,009 registered voters as many as never before participated in the referendum. The French-speaking Quebecers supported the independence to around 60 %, but the populous metropolitan Montreal agreed by a majority against it, as is the thinly populated northern areas and the regions of Outaouais and Estrie on the southern border. In 80 of 125 constituencies of the National Assembly, the proponents were forward, but these were predominantly rural, while the urban regions except the provincial capital of Quebec rejected. Was particularly strong rejection in the English-speaking minority and the indigenous people.

Controversies

Invalid votes

86.501 ballots (1.82 %) were declared invalid because they had not been filled in correctly. Soon were allegations that provided by the Parti Québécois election officials in the electoral districts Chomedey, Marguerite -Bourgeois and Laurier - Dorion had interpreted the regulations too strict. Where the percentage of invalid votes was disproportionately high ( 12 %, 5.5% and 3.6% respectively ). For example, were ballots that were marked with a check mark instead of a small cross or where the voter had used a pencil instead of a pen, have not been counted. These were to electoral districts in which was particularly evident refusal. In April 1996, a study from McGill University confirmed the correlation that constituencies with greater rejection also had a higher degree of invalid votes.

In May 1996, the Directeur général des élections du Québec, the returning officer had to perform an investigation of invalid votes. He came to the same conclusion as the University, but said these irregularities it were isolated cases. Two of the 31 suspected campaign workers were indicted for contempt of the rules, but later acquitted in court, there are no obvious electoral fraud is identified. Furthermore, it was a further publication of the Returning Officer that the proportion of invalid votes, was a clear frame and was even higher in the past, partly ( in the provincial elections in 1989, this example 2.63% ).

In 2000 presented the Alliance Quebec, an interest group of English-speaking minority, an action against the returning officer, since he had denied her access to all the wrong ballots. The grouping was convinced that no votes had been systematically invalidated - as part of a government conspiracy of the Parti Québécois to influence the vote in their favor. The action was dismissed.

Ignoring the issue limitation

According to the referendum law of Quebec, which was in force before the referendum of 1980, all the costs of the campaign had to be approved and supported by a yes or no committee. Spending on both sides were limited to five million dollars. Expenses of any persons or organizations that did not belong to any of the committees were banned after the official start of the campaign. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1997 that this restriction is too strict and violates the principle of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Eight weeks before the vote was an obscure lobbying group called the Canada option. It was founded by board members of the Canadian Unity Council, a private non-profit organization that works for the unity of Canada. This refers Although self -government as an independent and impartial, but at that time was heavily subsidized by the Canadian Ministry of Culture. So she received in 1995 alone, a public contribution of $ 3,350,000. Option Canada, caused a stir when she founded a "Committee for the registration of electors outside Québec ". This should make people who had gone forth in the two years prior to the vote from Quebec, are relieved, but participate. Since 1989, it allowed the election law Québec former inhabitants of the province to participate in elections and voting, provided that they announce in writing their intention to again take up residence there. Shortly after the vote was won Option Canada redissolved.

Also controversial was a demonstration three days before the vote in Montreal, some 100,000 opponents of independence participated in the. Aurèle Gervais, the Communications Manager of the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as the Students' Association of Algonquin College in Ottawa were charged after the demonstration. They had organized buses to bring as many opponents to Montreal. The amounts spent for they had not as required by law charged with the No - committee, which is why they were not included in the accounting. The Supreme Court of Quebec dismissed the case in 1997, as the acts were carried out outside the province and therefore did not fall under the election law. In the eyes of the independence advocate a time-limited special offer of Canadian Airlines appeared particularly suspicious: Two days before the demonstration, the airline announced an " agreement rate " with up to 90 % discounted ticket prices.

2006 asked the Returning Officer the retired judge Bernard Grenier, to investigate the incidents involving Option Canada and undeclared issues of the No Committee. In May 2007, Grenier came to the conclusion that referendum opponents would have spent $ 539,000 illegal. However, there were no indications that the demonstration in Montreal was part of a plan to sabotage the independence movement. He also rebutted the charges against Jean Charest, the then Vice-President of the No Committee and now Prime Minister of Québec.

Faster naturalizations

Officials from immigration authorities from across Canada were flown to Quebec to work overtime. You should make sure that as many immigrants who met the statutory provisions were naturalized before the referendum and thus were entitled to vote. The goal was to complete 10,000 to 20,000 independent method of living in Québec immigrants to mid-October. The federal government also cut the time for people who had lost their Canadian citizenship and wanted to obtain new documents issued by half. Immigration Minister Sergio Marchi has faced in mid-October 1995 by the Bloc Québécois with the accusation that his ministry preferred treat applications from persons of which one could assume that they will vote no. Marchi replied that this procedure had been applied earlier in other provinces, in order to reduce the many open issues. Also, he pointed out, just the Bloc Québécois have criticized the slowness of working in the past.

Electoral register

1998 presented activists of the Parti Québécois the Returning Officer a list of 100,000 names. Supposedly, these individuals may have lost three years earlier listed on the electoral roll, but was not at the Régie de l' Assurance Maladie du Québec -, state health insurance Province, filed. After extensive studies of the Returning Officer announced, about 56,000 were not eligible to vote due to this fact and would therefore be removed from the electoral roll. In the same year it was announced that 32 foreign students of Bishop's University had participated illegally in the referendum and were sentenced to a fine. In response, the provincial government changed the electoral law so that voters are required to present their passport, her driver's license or their health insurance card in the future when voting.

Aftereffect

The day after the vote lost Jacques Parizeau announced his imminent resignation as chairman of the Parti Québécois and as Prime Minister of the Province of Quebec. One reason was the controversy after he had to admit defeat. Parizeau said in his speech, the other side had only with money and the voices of minorities won the referendum ( "par l' argent puis Votes ethniques "). The remark sparked a media frenzy out (especially in the English-language media ) and Parizeau was accused of being a racist. Lucien Bouchard was the only candidate for his successor and took over both offices on 29 January 1996.

The promised by the Federalists before the referendum constitutional changes that should take more consideration to the particular situation of Québec, did not materialize. Bouchard announced that he would be carried out a third referendum if the view would be that the consent was sufficiently large. The Federal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien asked in 1996 the Supreme Court of Canada, relating to clarify three specific questions of sovereignty of Québec (see Reference re Secession of Quebec ). The court took this position in August 1998 and came to the conclusion that Quebec do not have a unilateral right to secede, but the government was committed to a corresponding desire to negotiate.

In June 2000, dominated by the Liberal Party Federal Parliament passed the controversial law clarity (English Clarity act, French Loi de clarification ). It stipulates that the federal government must lead secession negotiations with a province only if the referendum question is " unequivocal " formulated and has been endorsed by a " clear " majority ( the lower house would decide for themselves whether these conditions are met). In response to the continuing separatist -dominated National Assembly of Quebec passed a law "on the respect of the exercise of fundamental rights ", which explicitly emphasizes the self-determination under international law. It speaks of the union from the right to limit the powers, authority, sovereignty and legitimacy of the National Assembly and the democratic will of the people of Quebec. The constitutionality of both laws and their applicability remain unsolved to this day.

After the extremely narrow victory, the federal government launched a pro- Canada advertising campaign. The aim of the current from 1996 and funded by tax dollars campaign was to promote a variety of activities, making explicit promote Quebec as part of Canada. The contribution of the federal government should be emphasized on the development of Québec. Most supported projects were indeed legitimate, but was a big part of the budget by corruption lost. For example, were advertising agencies who were close to the Liberals, preferential treatment, a portion of the money went as a donation back to the Liberal Party. The processing of this sponsorship scandal dominated the headlines from 2004 and 2006 eventually led to the dismissal of the government of Paul Martin.