ABORIGINAL PEOPLES AND THE
1995 QUEBEC REFERENDUM:
A SURVEY OF THE ISSUES
1995 QUEBEC REFERENDUM:
A SURVEY OF THE ISSUES
Prepared by:
Jill Wherrett
Political and Social Affairs Division
February 1996
Jill Wherrett
Political and Social Affairs Division
February 1996
Following the election of the Parti Québécois in the fall of 1994, the Quebec government initiated steps toward secession. A draft bill calling for a unilateral declaration of independence was made public in December 1994, followed by the introduction of an Act respecting the future of Quebec (Bill 1) in the National Assembly on 7 September 1995.(5) The bill affirmed that a new Quebec constitution would recognize the existing constitutional rights of aboriginal nations, in a manner "consistent with the territorial integrity of Quebec." The bill clearly stated that Quebec would retain its boundaries as they currently exist within Canada. It also provided that under the new constitution, the right of aboriginal nations to self-government on the lands over which they have full ownership and their right to participate in the development of Quebec would be recognized.
In the lead-up to the referendum, aboriginal groups reacted in opposition to this position. In particular, the Crees argued that they had a right to maintain their territory in Canada. The Crees and the Quebec government dominated the debate on this issue, along with academic commentators. Since the referendum, the Crees and the Quebec government have continued to conflict on this matter, and the status of aboriginal territory has also become a prominent part of federal-provincial rhetoric on the terms of a possible secession.
A. Aboriginal Perspectives
1. The Crees of Quebec
The Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), under leadership of Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, have been the most outspoken aboriginal group. The Crees have asserted for many years that they are a people, with a right to self-determination recognized under international law. They argue that no annexation of them or their territory to an independent Quebec should take place without their consent, and that if Quebec has the right to leave Canada then the Cree people have the right to choose to keep their territory in Canada. Cree arguments generally do not claim the right to secede from Canada; rather, the Crees see themselves as a people bound to Canada by treaty (the JBNQA), and as citizens of Canada.(6)
The Crees have stated that a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec would be a violation of fundamental principles of human rights, democracy and consent. If secession were to proceed, the Crees argue they would seek protection through the Canadian courts as well as asserting Cree jurisdiction over its people and lands.
In the period leading up to the referendum, the Crees were active at both the domestic and international levels. A Cree Commission held 14 hearings in 10 different communities during August and September 1995. Its report, "The Voice of a Nation on Self-Determination," affirmed Cree opposition to secession without their consent, and restated their commitment to maintain a relationship with the federal government.
In October 1995, the Crees released a study, Sovereign Injustice, which cited a variety of Canadian and international sources to support their case.(7) The book updates a study completed in 1991 and submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its forty-eighth session in February 1992. Sovereign Injustice emphasizes that aboriginal peoples have a right to self-determination, including a right to stay in Canada. It argues that the forcible inclusion of the Crees in any future Quebec state would lack validity and legitimacy from the viewpoint of international, Canadian, and aboriginal law and practice. Such an action, the Crees assert, would also seriously detract from Quebec’s claims that it is resorting to fair or democratic process to achieve its goals.
The study also argues that there is no rule under Canadian or international law that would ensure the present boundaries of Quebec would become those of a sovereign Quebec state.
The paper notes that portions of Quebec annexed to the province in 1898 and 1912 constitute in large part the traditional territories of the James Bay Cree and other aboriginal peoples, which were added to the province without their consent. It concludes that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provides for permanent federal obligations that could not be unilaterally undertaken by Quebec.
To highlight their opposition to Quebec secession, the Crees held a separate referendum on 24 October 1995. Cree voters were asked: "Do you consent, as a people, that the Government of Quebec separate the James Bay Crees and Cree traditional territory from Canada in the event of a Yes vote in the Quebec referendum?" The Crees voted 96.3% to stay with Canada. Of 6,380 eligible voters, 77% participated in the Cree referendum.
Cree concerns over secession continue in the post-referendum period. In late January 1996, Coon-Come urged the prime minister to make a formal declaration in the House of Commons supporting the Cree decision to remain in Canada if Quebec secedes. The Crees again asserted that the JBNQA is a treaty that binds the federal government to protect Cree interests in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec.(8) The Crees also appeared during Senate Committee hearings on Bill C-110 (An Act respecting constitutional amendments). They opposed the bill, arguing that reforms should not be made at the expense of the Crees and other aboriginal peoples.(9) In their view, Bill C-110 could constrain the federal government from tabling constitutional initiatives to protect the rights of aboriginal peoples in the context of Quebec secession. The Crees proposed an amendment in the event that the Senate supported the bill, a non-derogation clause to ensure that the Act would not constrain the powers of Parliament to propose or to authorize an amendment to the constitution in order to: a) recognize, affirm or protect the aboriginal peoples and their aboriginal and treaty rights or other rights and freedoms, or b) preserve and protect the national unity and territorial integrity of Canada. The Crees also called for their inclusion in federal unity initiatives.
2. Inuit of Northern Quebec
The Inuit of Northern Quebec also raised significant concerns over the future of their territory. Like the Crees, they assert the right to self-determination, and the choice to remain in the Canadian federation. The Inuit held a separate referendum, on 29 October 1995. Inuit voters were asked the question: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign?" With about 75% of eligible voters casting ballots, 96% voted against Quebec’s becoming sovereign. This result was similar to the outcome of the vote carried out by the Inuit parallel to the 1980 Quebec referendum, in which 94% had voted "no."
Inuit continue to argue that they have rights to remain Canadian citizens and keep northern Quebec within Canada, which are supported by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the JBNQA. For reasons similar to the Crees’, the Inuit opposed Bill C-110. They recommended that the proposal be reconsidered, and if not, supported the adoption of an amendment identical to that put forward by the Crees.
3. Other Aboriginal Groups
Leaders of other aboriginal peoples in Quebec have also expressed their opposition to taking aboriginal land out of Canada. In early October 1995, First Nations Chiefs, in a statement entitled "Reaffirmation of Aboriginal Peoples of Quebec and Labrador’s Right to Co-Exist in Peace and Friendship," articulated their resistance to the forcible inclusion of aboriginal people in a new, independent state, arguing that it would be contrary to international law.(10)
Contrary to usual practice, many aboriginal peoples exercised their right to vote, the exception being Mohawks of Kahnasetake, Kahnawake, and Akwesasne. Elsewhere, Indians registered a strong federalist voice.(11) Published referendum results show that more than 95% of aboriginal peoples who participated in the referendum voted "no."
During the final week of the referendum campaign, Quebec chiefs, along with Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Ovide Mercredi, made it clear that they expect to participate in any discussions on Canada’s future.
http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/...HE REFERENDUM AND POST-REFERENDUM DEBATES(txt)
