Québec referendum 1995

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Results by constituency of the National Assembly

The 1995 Québec referendum was the second referendum after the 1980 vote on the question of whether the province of Québec should separate from Canada and become an independent state. The referendum took place on October 30, 1995 . From a purely legal point of view, it was only a question of whether Québec should negotiate a loose economic and political association with the federal government. But the provincial separatist government never left any doubts that if the negotiations failed, it would unilaterally proclaim independence.

The result was very close. 50.58% no votes were compared to 49.42% yes votes, with a participation of 93.52% of the registered voters. Rural areas and the provincial capital Quebec favored independence, while the city of Montreal and areas along the southern border opposed it. Over 60% of Francophone Canadians agreed, but the English-speaking minority population and Native Americans clearly opposed it.

background

A similar referendum in 1980 failed with 59.56% rejection. Two years later, the Constitutional Act of 1982 completely removed the Canadian Constitution from control of the UK Parliament . While it would not have been illegal for the federal government to amend the constitution on its own initiative, the Supreme Court ruled that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was required by common law to consult provincial governments and obtain their consent.

The prime ministers of the provinces initially unanimously rejected the constitutional amendment. However, after long negotiations, an agreement was reached with nine out of ten provinces. However, René Lévesque , Québec's Prime Minister, had not been informed of the settlement by the other provinces and was presented with a fait accompli. For this reason he refused to sign the constitutional law. Despite his refusal, the amendment was ratified and also applied to Québec. Lévesque felt betrayed: Québec had been "abandoned in a time of crisis" by Canada and this "betrayal" would have serious consequences.

After Brian Mulroney became the new Canadian Prime Minister in 1984, he tried to convince the Québec government to approve it with amendments to the constitutional law. But the 1987 Meech Lake Accord could not be ratified within the set deadline and the 1992 Charlottetown Accord was rejected in a national referendum, which gave the separatists in Québec a new boost.

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

Referendum question

On September 7, 1995, a year after his election as prime minister of the province, Parizeau presented the referendum question, which was due to be voted on October 30. On the ballot papers, the question was printed in both French and English . In areas where indigenous languages ​​are spoken every day, the voting papers were trilingual. In French the question was:

"Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signed le 12 juin 1995?"

In English:

"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

In German translation:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after a formal offer of a new economic and political partnership to Canada, under the Bill on the Future of Québec and the Accord signed on June 12, 1995?"

The aforementioned agreement referred to the provincial government's sovereignty plan of June 12, 1995, which had been sent to all households a few weeks before the referendum.

campaign

Jacques Parizeau

The “federalists” (fédéralistes) campaigned for Québec to remain with Canada . Its main actors were Jean Chrétien , the Prime Minister of Canada, Daniel Johnson , chairman of the Parti libéral du Québec and Jean Charest , chairman of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada . Opposite them stood the “sovereignists” (sovereignistes) who advocated a separation from Canada and / or negotiations over a loose economic and political partnership. They were led by Jacques Parizeau , the prime minister of the province, Lucien Bouchard , the chairman of the Bloc Québécois and Mario Dumont , the chairman of the Action démocratique du Québec .

Parizeau's campaign took off slowly and initial opinion polls showed that two-thirds of those questioned would vote no. But various tactless remarks by the federalists, widely circulated by the media, led to greater mobilization of the sovereignists. Parizeau named Bouchard "chief negotiator" in possible negotiations after a positive outcome of the referendum. In December 1994 Bouchard developed necrotizing fasciitis and the only way to save his life was to amputate one leg. His recovery and public appearances on crutches sparked a wave of compassion. Bouchard took over the running of the campaign from Parizeau. His undiminished commitment to Québec's independence despite this grave illness gave the sovereigns confidence again.

Under Bouchard's leadership, the sovereigns caught up more and more and new opinion polls showed that the Quebecers were now overwhelmingly in favor of independence. Even Bouchard's careless statement three weeks before the vote that Quebecers were “the white race with the lowest birth rate” did little to change that.

A week before the vote, the sovereigns were in the lead with around 5 percent in the opinion polls. That lead shrank again after Jean Chrétien appeared on TV, but the difference between the two camps was within the 2 percent error rate. On October 27, a large federalist demonstration took place on Place du Canada in Montreal , attended by around 100,000 people from outside Québec. They celebrated the unity of Canada and called on the Quebecers to vote no. Chrétien, Charest, and Johnson made speeches. Also present were Mike Harris , Frank McKenna , John Savage and Catherine Callbeck , Prime Ministers of the Provinces of Ontario , New Brunswick , Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island . The demonstration was controversial as various companies had offered heavily discounted trips to bring as many demonstrators as possible to Montreal. In the opinion of the election officer, this represented illegal support for the No Committee.

Precautions in case of consent

If approved, Parizeau intended to appear before the National Assembly within two days, asking for support for the law on sovereignty that had already been submitted to parliament. According to a speech Parizeau prepared for the case, "Québec would extend a hand in partnership with its Canadian neighbors." He himself would start negotiations with the Canadian federal government on a political-economic association and, if the talks failed, proclaim Québec's independence. On October 27, Lucien Bouchard's office sent a press release to all Quebec military bases calling for the creation of a post-independence Quebec army. Bouchard announced that Québec would take possession of the Canadian Air Force fighter jets based in the province.

The federal government took only a few precautions in the event of approval. Some cabinet members discussed possible scenarios. For example, the question of independence should be resolved before the Supreme Court . Senior officials discussed the impact of a positive referendum outcome on issues such as state borders, federal debt and whether Prime Minister Jean Chrétien could stay in office as he was elected in an electoral district in Québec. Defense Secretary David Collenette prepared measures to increase security at some federal agencies. He also ordered the relocation of fighter planes to other provinces so that they could not be used as pledge in possible negotiations.

The natives insisted on their own right of self-determination . First Nations chiefs stressed that it would be a violation of international law if they were forced to join an independent Québec. In the week leading up to the vote, they asked to be a full negotiator on any constitutional issue arising from the referendum. The Grand Council of the Cree in particular spoke out vehemently against being part of an independent Québec state. Grand Chieftain Matthew Coon Come wrote a legal opinion that the Cree Territories were entitled to remain with Canada. On October 24th, the Cree held their own referendum, in which 96.3% voted to stay with Canada. The Inuit in the Nunavik region also voted against an independent Québec in a separate referendum with 96%.

Result

The referendum poll was rejected by Québec's voters, but with a much smaller difference than in 1980: 50.58% no votes compared to 49.42% yes votes. 93.52% of the 5,087,009 registered voters took part in the referendum, more than ever before. Around 60% of the French-speaking Quebecers favored independence, but the majority of the densely populated metropolitan area of Montreal voted against it, as did the sparsely populated north and the Outaouais and Estrie regions on the southern border. In 80 of the National Assembly's 125 constituencies, the supporters came out on top, but these were mostly rural, while the urban regions, with the exception of the provincial capital, Québec, were opposed. The rejection was particularly strong among the English-speaking minority and the indigenous people.

be right proportion of
No 2,362,648 50.58%
Yes 2,308,360 49.42%
Valid 4,671,008 98.18%
Invalid 86.501 01.82%
Participation 4,757,509 93.52%

Controversy

Invalid votes

86,501 ballot papers (1.82%) were declared invalid because they had not been filled out correctly. Soon there were allegations that the election workers provided by the Parti Québécois in the electoral districts of Chomedey, Marguerite-Bourgeois and Laurier-Dorion had interpreted the regulations far too strictly. There the proportion of invalid votes was disproportionately high (12%, 5.5% and 3.6%, respectively). For example, ballot papers that were marked with a check mark instead of a cross, or where the voter had used a pencil instead of a ballpoint pen, were not counted. These were constituencies in which the rejection was particularly evident. In April 1996, a McGill University study confirmed the association that constituencies with higher levels of rejection also had higher levels of invalid votes.

In May 1996, the Directeur général des élections du Québec , the election officer, carried out an investigation into the invalid votes. He came to the same conclusion as the university, but said that these irregularities were isolated individual cases. Two of the 31 suspected election workers were charged with disregarding the regulations, but were later acquitted in court because no obvious election fraud was apparent. In addition, another publication by the polling officer showed that the proportion of invalid votes was well within limits and had been even higher in the past (in the provincial election in 1989, for example, it was 2.63%).

In 2000 the Alliance Québec , an advocacy group for the English-speaking minority, filed a lawsuit against the polling officer who had wrongly denied her access to all ballot papers. The group was convinced that no votes had been systematically declared invalid - as part of a conspiracy by the Parti Québécois government to influence the vote in their favor. The lawsuit was dismissed.

Disregard of the spending limit

According to the Quebec Province Voting Act, which came into force prior to the 1980 referendum, all campaign costs had to be approved and borne by a yes or no committee. Spending on both sides was limited to $ 5 million . Spending by any person or entity outside of any of the committees was prohibited after the campaign officially started. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1997 that this restriction was too strict and contrary to the principle of freedom of expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

Eight weeks before the vote, an obscure lobby group called Option Canada emerged . It was founded by board members of the Canadian Unity Council , a private, non-profit organization that promotes the unity of Canada. Although this describes itself as independent of the government and impartial, it received massive financial support from the Canadian Ministry of Culture at the time. In 1995 alone, she received a government contribution of $ 3.35 million. Option Canada caused a stir when it set up a "Committee to Register Voters Outside Québec". This was to make it easier for people who moved from Québec to participate in the two years prior to the vote. Since 1989, the electoral law of Québec has allowed ex-residents of the province to vote and vote, provided they state in writing that they intend to reside there. Shortly after the vote was won, Option Canada was dissolved again.

A demonstration three days before the vote in Montreal , in which around 100,000 opponents of independence took part, was also controversial . Aurèle Gervais, communications officer for the Liberal Party of Canada , and the Algonquin College student union in Ottawa were charged after the demonstration. They had organized coaches to bring as many opponents as possible to Montreal. However, they had not settled the amounts spent on this with the No Committee as required by law, which is why they were not included in its bookkeeping. The Québec Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit in 1997 because the acts were conducted outside the province and therefore not covered by electoral law. In the eyes of the pro-independence advocates, a temporary special campaign by Canadian Airlines appeared particularly suspicious: Two days before the demonstration, the airline had announced a "unified tariff" with up to 90% discounted ticket prices.

In 2006, the election officer asked retired Judge Bernard Grenier to investigate the Option Canada incidents and undeclared issues of the No Committee. In May 2007, Grenier concluded that the opponents of the referendum had illegally spent $ 539,000. However, there is no evidence that the demonstration in Montreal was part of a plan to sabotage the independence movement. He also denied the allegations against Jean Charest , the then Vice-President of the No Committee and now Prime Minister of Québec.

Faster naturalizations

Immigration officials from across Canada had been flown into Québec to work overtime. They should ensure that as many immigrants as possible who fulfilled the legal requirements were naturalized before the referendum and were therefore entitled to vote. The aim was to have 10,000 to 20,000 pending cases pending by immigrants living in Québec by mid-October. The federal government also cut the deadline by half for people who had lost their Canadian citizenship and wanted new documents issued. Immigration minister Sergio Marchi was confronted by the Bloc Québécois in mid-October 1995 with the accusation that his ministry was giving preferential treatment to requests from people who could be assumed to vote no. Marchi replied that this procedure had already been used in other provinces in order to reduce the many pending issues. He also pointed out that the Bloc Québécois in particular had criticized the slow working method in the past.

Electoral roll

In 1998, Parti Québécois activists presented the polling officer with a list of around 100,000 names. Allegedly, these people were on the electoral roll three years earlier, but were not registered with the Régie de l'Assurance-Maladie du Québec , the provincial health insurance company. After extensive investigations, the election officer announced that around 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 became known that 32 foreign students from Bishop's University had illegally participated in the referendum and were therefore fined. In response, the provincial government changed the electoral law so that in future voters will have to show their passport, driver's license or health insurance card when voting.

Aftermath

The day after the lost vote, Jacques Parizeau announced his early resignation as Chairman of the Québécois Party and Prime Minister of the Province of Québec. One reason for this was the controversy after he had to admit defeat. Parizeau said in his speech that the other side won the referendum only with money and the votes of the minorities (“par l'argent puis des votes ethniques”). The comment sparked media hype (especially in the English-speaking media) and Parizeau was accused of being a racist. Lucien Bouchard was the only candidate for his successor and took over both offices on January 29, 1996.

The constitutional changes promised by the federalists before the referendum, which were supposed to take more account of Québec's special situation, did not materialize. Bouchard announced that he would hold a third referendum if there was a prospect that approval would be high enough. In 1996, the federal government of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien asked the Supreme Court of Canada to clarify three specific questions regarding the sovereignty of Québec (see Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec ). The court commented on this in August 1998 and came to the conclusion that Québec had no unilateral right to secession, but that the government was obliged to negotiate if it so requested.

In June 2000, dominated by the Liberal Party Federal Parliament passed the controversial Clarity Act (Engl. Clarity act , fr. Loi de clarification ). It stipulates that the federal government may only conduct secession negotiations with a province if the referendum question is worded “unequivocally” and has been approved by a “clear” majority (the lower house would decide for itself whether these conditions are met). In response to this, the National Assembly of Québec, which was still dominated by separatists, passed a law “on the respect for the exercise of fundamental rights”, which explicitly emphasizes the right to self-determination under international law . It denies the federal government the right to restrict the powers, authority, sovereignty and legitimacy of the National Assembly, as well as the democratic will of the people of Québec. The constitutionality of both laws and their applicability remain unclear to this day.

After the extremely narrow victory, the federal government launched a pro-Canada advertising campaign. The aim of the tax-funded campaign, which began in 1996, was to promote various leisure activities and to explicitly market Québec as part of Canada. The contribution of the federal government to the development of Québec should also be highlighted. Most of the projects supported were legitimate, but a large part of the budget was lost to corruption . For example, advertising agencies that were close to the Liberals were given preferential treatment, and part of the money was returned to the Liberal Party as a donation. The processing of this sponsorship scandal dominated the headlines from 2004 and finally led to the election of the government of Paul Martin in 2006 .

literature

  • Robin Philpot: Le Référendum volé . Les intouchables, Montreal 2005, ISBN 2-89549-189-5 .
  • Mario Cardinal: Point de rupture: Québec / Canada, le référendum de 1995 . Bayard Canada, Montreal 2005, ISBN 2-89579-067-1 .
  • Anne Trépanier: Un discours à plusieurs voix: la grammaire du oui en 1995 . Presses de l'Université Laval, Québec 2001, ISBN 2-7637-7796-1 .
  • Jean Levasseur: Anatomie d'un référendum, 1995: le syndrome d'une désinformation médiatique et politique . Éditions XYZ, Montreal 2000, ISBN 2-89261-288-8 .
  • Jack Jedwab: à la prochaine? Une rétrospective des référendums québécois de 1980 et 1995 . Éditions Saint-Martin, Montreal 2000, ISBN 2-89035-345-1 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Patriation of Constitution ( English, French ) In: The Canadian Encyclopedia . Retrieved March 15, 2015.
  2. ^ Peter Benesh: As Quebec goes, so goes Canada. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , September 12, 1994.
  3. ^ An Act Respecting the Future of Québec. Simon Fraser University, accessed September 4, 2009 .
  4. ↑ David Gamle: Bouchard: 'It's My Job. Toronto Sun , February 20, 1995.
  5. ↑ Susan Delacourt: Flesh-eating disease claims leader's leg. Tampa Tribune , February 20, 1995.
  6. ↑ Charles Truehart: Quebec Damages Separatist Causeswithheart Remark on Low Birth Rate Province. The Washington Post , October 18, 1995.
  7. ^ Ed Garsten: Canadians rally for a united country. CNN , October 28, 1995, accessed September 4, 2009 .
  8. ^ We, the people of Quebec, declare ... Toronto Star , Sept. 7, 1995.
  9. ^ Jacques Parizeau: The victory speech that never was. ReoCities, 1995, archived from the original on March 4, 2016 ; accessed on September 4, 2009 .
  10. ^ Robert McKenzie: Sovereignty declaration possible in 'months' Parizeau stresses swift action if talks fail. Toronto Star, October 17, 1995.
  11. ↑ Diane Francis: Separatists in the army? We'll never know. Toronto Star, September 14, 1996.
  12. ↑ David Crary: Canada's renegades rally to a champion. Hobart Mercury, October 18, 1995.
  13. ↑ a b Rheal Seguin: Ministers plotted to oust Chrétien if referendum was lost, CBC says. The Globe and Mail , September 9, 2005.
  14. ^ A b Jill Wherrett: Aboriginal peoples and the 1995 Quebec referendum: A survey on the issues. Canadian Parliamentary Library, February 1996, archived from the original June 13, 2006 ; accessed on September 4, 2009 .
  15. ↑ crr.ca ( Memento from January 15, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
  16. ^ Daniel Drolet: By the numbers . Ottawa Citizen , November 1, 1995
  17. ↑ Mysterious doings on referendum night. The Globe and Mail , November 9, 1995.
  18. ↑ Sandro Contenta: "Fears filled of referendum plot: New report says 'charges of electoral bias ... are plausible'." Toronto Star, April 29, 1996.
  19. ^ Sandro Contenta: "31 face charges over rejection of No ballots: But 'no conspiracy' to steal vote found." Toronto Star, May 14, 1996.
  20. ↑ Nelson Wyatt: "English rights group eyes cash for fight over rejected ballots." Toronto Star, August 3, 2000.
  21. ↑ Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General) , Supreme Court judgment
  22. ^ A snapshot of Option Canada's history ( Memento June 3, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), Montreal Gazette , May 30, 2007
  23. ↑ Don Macpherson: “Vote-hunting bid to lure outside voters not a formula for stability.” Montreal Gazette, August 22, 1995.
  24. ↑ Québec Referendum (1995) ( English, French ) In: The Canadian Encyclopedia . Retrieved March 15, 2015.
  25. ↑ ['No' side illegally spent $ 539K in Quebec referendum: report "No 'side illegally spent $ 539K in Quebec referendum: report"], Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 29, 2007.
  26. ↑ Citizenship Blitz in Quebec. Montreal Gazette, August 31, 1995.
  27. ^ Minutes of the House of Commons debate of October 16, 1995. Parliament of Canada, accessed September 4, 2009 .
  28. ↑ Pierre O'Neill: “Le camp du NON at-il volé le référendum de 1995?”. Le Devoir , August 11, 1999
  29. ↑ vigile.net ( Memento from February 22, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
  30. ↑ Reference re Secession of Quebec ( Memento of May 6, 2011 in the Internet Archive ), judgment of the Supreme Court
  31. ↑ Clarity Law
  32. ↑ Loi sur l'exercice des droits fondamentaux et des prérogatives du peuple québécois et de l'État du Québec