Referendum of 1995 in Quebec

The referendum of 1995 in Quebec , held on October 30th, 1995, invited the Québécois to come to a conclusion about the sovereignty in Quebec. It was rejected by 50,58% of the voters. The Québécois referendum of 1980 and the referendum pancanadien of 1992 (bearing on the Agreement of Charlottetown) treated both of similar subjects and were also rejected.

Summary

Formulated by the majority party with the National Assembly, the Left Québécois, the chief clerk question of 1995 was:

Do you accept that Quebec becomes sovereign, after having formally offered to the Canada a new economic and political partnership, within the framework of the bill on the future of Quebec and the signed agreement on June 12th, 1995 ? .

The agreement of June 12th, 1995 had been discussed and accepted by the Québécois Parti, the Québécois Bloc and the democratic Action of Quebec. The text of the agreement had been sent to the voters by the post office during the program chief clerk. The law chief clerk stipulated that the negotiations with Canada and the other provinces were not to last beyond on October 30th, 1996, except decision of the Québécois National Assembly.

To 50,58% of the 4,7 million votes expressed (on 5 million voters, that is to say close to 95 % of the voters, one of highest rates of participation to a democratic vote), the answer is not . The variation is of less: 50,000 votes.

History

In May 1980, a first referendum bearing on the Sovereignty-association was organized by the Québécois Party, elected in 1976. With a participation of 85,6 % of the voters, 60 % of the voters decided against the project of the Prime Minister Rene Lévesque.

The camp souverainiste-associationist demolishes, the partisans of the Status quo and the nationalist-federalists of Quebec will try in their turn to find a solution with the Canadian constitutional problem, without exit since 1931.

In September 1980, the Prime Minister of Canada Pierre Elliott Trudeau organizes a constitutional conference which ends in a failure, like all the preceding conferences. One month later, on October 2nd, 1980, the federal government of Trudeau presents a plan of unilateral constitutional repatriation. The federal plan is badly accommodated by the majority of the provincial Prime Ministers. April 16th, 1981, the Prime Ministers of eight provinces meet with Quebec in order to make public their own constitutional project.

Three provinces, the Quebec, the Manitoba and Newfoundland dispute the project of unilateral repatriation of Trudeau before their respective Court of Appeal. Quebec will carry its legal cause until in Supreme court. In September 1981, the nine judges of the most Canadian court give an account of their verdict: unilateral repatriation is legal, but according to six of the nine judges, opposite with constitutional conventions. The judgment forces the federal government to obtain the support of the provinces, which it will succeed in doing with the nine anglophone provinces, but not Quebec.

The new constitutional law is promulgated on April 17th, 1982. The Parliament of Quebec does not ratify the document.

In 1984, the chief of the federal progressist-conservatives, Brian Mulroney, is elected while promising to make return Quebec in the Canadian family “ in the honor and the enthousiasme ”. Three years later, the new Canadian government will propose an offer in Quebec which will become the Accord of the lake Meech. The Agreement crumbles in 1990, in spite of the support of Quebec which was seen there recognizing like distinct company inside renewed Canada.

The Prime Minister for Quebec, Robert Bourassa, sign a new agreement, the Agreement of Charlottetown, on August 28th, 1992. By Referendum, the Inhabitants of Quebec and the Canadians will reject it on October 26th, 1992.

In September 1994, the Liberal party of Quebec (PLQ, federalist) is beaten with the legislative elections by the Parti Québécois (PQ, souverainist). The elections grant 47 seats and 44,3 respectively; % of the voices with the PLQ, against 77 seats and 44,7 % of the voices with the PQ. Among the promises made by the Québécois Parti of the new Prime Minister Jacques Parizeau is the organization in the year which follows of a referendum on the Souveraineté of Quebec.

The countryside

Principal spokesperson of the camp of YES: the Prime Minister for Quebec and chief of the Committee for YES, Jacques Parizeau, the chief of the Québécois Block and Chief of the Opposition to the House of Commons with Ottawa, Lucien Bouchard, and the chief of the party of the democratic Action of Quebec, Mario Dumont.

Principal spokesperson of the camp of NOT: the chief of the Liberal party of Quebec, Chief of the Opposition to the National Assembly of Quebec and chief of the Committee for NOT, Daniel Johnson, which will quickly be put on side at the profit of the Prime Minister of Canada, Jean Chrétien.

Whereas the surveys showed a victory of NOT at the beginning of countryside, the camp of YES the watch a strong rise which will be allotted by several commentators of the media to the increasingly important place that takes Lucien Bouchard. The surveys of the time show that several Inhabitants of Quebec considered it more charismatic.

Surveys as from mid-October show even the YES majority one, which will intensify the federalistic countryside. Jean Chrétien will have then to be implied more actively in the countryside. This intensification will culminate whereas buses and planes are chartered in order to gather several thousands of Canadians of all the other provinces with Montreal on October 27th, 1995, to express for a support with NOT and them “ love for Québec ”.

The political chroniclers remain divided on the real consequences of this rassemblement : some believe that holding of YES were shaken by this demonstration of solidarity and were brought to vote NOT, therefore that would have directly caused the victory of this option ; others believe that several Inhabitants of Quebec saw it as an intrusion of the remainder of Canada in a business which concerns only them, which would have led them to vote OUI ; finally, several consider that a combination of these effects is possible.

Among the arguments of the two camps figurent :

importance of Quebec in the Confederation: 1/4 of the economy, 31 % of the GDP, 1/4 of the population,
the statute of the French-speaking people. Jean Chrétien promises a statute of “ company distincte ” in Quebec.

In the days which precede the poll, of the transfers of capital are announced, active of Quebec towards the Ontario. The Canadian dollar drops vis-a-vis the Dollar of the United States, of the banks of this last country refuse even the Canadian currency.

With the the United States, the Secretary of State Warren Christopher affirms that the commercial links with Canada are not acquired for the country which would succeed the Canadian Confederation of before an independence of Quebec.

Results

All in all, 50,58 % of the voters who moved (4,7 million on 5 million registered voters) vote against the project of sovereignty.

For the first time, the French-speaking Inhabitants of Quebec give a majority support to the project of the movement souverainist with 60 % of the recorded votes, any confused ethnic origin. In 1980, the support was only of 50 %.

In the allophones and even more the english-speaking, the support with YES is very low or zero, just like in 1980. Put aside a substantial support coming from the communities Haitian, South American, and Maghrebian, the not-French-speaking people vote NOT.

The analysis of the votes of the Autochtones of Quebec show that the Inuit S and the Cris of the Baie James are opposed mainly to the souverainist project. 95 % of NOT were recorded in the two communities. The support is higher among members of the other nations autochtones which do not have a territory with horse between the border of the Quebec and the Ontario, for example the Huron-Wendats Innus and the .

Discusses about the course of the referendum

Little time after the referendum, the controversy burst about the course of the countryside and the validity of the results of the poll. During the referendum, various irregularities were announced to the Managing director of the elections of Quebec (DGEQ), Pierre F. Side. After the referendum, this one will launch an investigation to try to make the light into these questions.

Rejected ballot papers

Some: 5426 ballot papers were declared null in the district of Chomedey, that is to say 11,6 % of all the bulletins. Comparatively, the average in the whole of Quebec was of 1,8 %. One even saw in one of the offices of poll only 130 bulletins declared valid and 152 cancelled. In Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 5,5 % of the votes were cancelled and 3,6 % in Bay-tree-Dorion. The publication of these figures made scandal, especially in the anglophone media.

Using the means placed at its disposal by the Québécois Electoral law, the DGEQ, Pierre F. Side, led an investigation and ordered the opening of the boxes of poll to subject the bulletins for the examination by a judge, Alan B. Gold. Following the analysis, Pierre F. Side carried felt sorry for against 31 tellers to have rejected in an unreasonable way of ballot papers.

The liberal deputy Thomas Mulcair as of the academics of the Université McGill claimed that the calculation of the votes had been fraudulent in all Quebec the evening of the referendum and reproached the DGEQ for having taken action only against some people.

The report/ratio of the DGEQ concludes that several votes were indeed rejected without valid reasons, but that as a whole, the irregularities were isolated. Two tellers were continued by the DGEQ in 1996, but they were judged not culprits by the Cour of Quebec. This court concluded that the tellers had not made any criminal act and that the rejected votes were not it in a fraudulent or irregular way.

The obviousness submitted to the Court did not make it possible to conclude that there had been a systematic attempt to reject votes. The judgment was maintained in Superior court and Court of Appeal.

Among the information made public by the DGEQ, is a table indicating the number of votes rejected during the elections and the referendums to Quebec since 1970. The following table presents the available data:

Source: Managing director of the elections of Quebec

In 2000, the lawyer of Alliance Quebec, Michael Bergman, brought a continuation against the DGEQ to have refused to make it possible the lobby to have access to all ballot papers of the referendum. In spite of the results of the investigation of the DGEQ and the judgments of the courses Québécois, Alliance Quebec is convinced that valid ballot papers were systematically rejected by the government of the Québécois Party in order to steal the referendum of 1995. Alliance Quebec affirmed to want to carry out its cause until in Supreme court.

Expenditure of the Committee for NOT

The Law Québécois chief clerk stipulates that all the expenditure must be authorized and entered by the committees of YES and of NOT after the deposit of the decree engaging the countryside. In 1995, the committees of YES and NOT had each one an authorized budget of 5 million Canadian dollars. An expenditure carried out by any person or groups other that the official committees is illegal after the decree. Any person enfreignant this law is liable to a fine going until 30 000 $. The non-payment of the fine can lead to the imprisonment. The Law Québécois chief clerk was adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec a few three years before the referendum of 1980.

It is known that the federal government of Canada spent more 30 million dollars during the countryside chief clerk in order to support his option, the federalism. Via its ministries, agencies and companies of state, the federal one inter alia organized public gatherings, bought ad spaces so that they are not available to the Committee of YES, prevented the Committee of YES from diffusing a publicity on television public of Radio-Canada and makes distribute Canadian flags and other symbols free.

In February 2004, the deposit of the report/ratio of the auditor general Sheila Fraser, revealed at the great day what the Québécois media called the “ Scandal of the mixed liability companies ”. In English Canada, the expression Sponsorship Scandal and Adscam are used. Little time after the referendum, the methods employed during the program was transformed into permanent programs promotion Canadian unit. The report/ratio mentions generalized non-observance of the rules of attribution of the contracts in the management of the program of the mixed liability companies. See: Scandal of the mixed liability companies.

Implication of the Council of the Canadian unit

Approximately eight weeks before the vote chief clerk of 1995, an organization of lobbyists montréalais named Option Canada is established. The group is composed business men and political organizers resulting from three federalistic political parties, that is to say the Liberal party of Canada, the Liberal party of Quebec and the Parti progressist-conservative Canada.

According to the governmental registers, the group is built-in on September 7th, 1995. Always according to the same sources coming from the federal government and the Québécois government, the founders are active members of the Conseil of the Canadian unit.

It is Option Canada which establishes the Committee to Register Voters Outside Quebec in order to help of the citizens who already lived Quebec to be registered on the electoral roll. Since 1989, a clause of the Electoral law of Quebec makes it possible ex-residents of Quebec to announce their intention to return to Quebec soon and to vote by the post office before their return. The Committee, which operated during all the program chief clerk, distributed folders including the form of DGEQ allowing to be registered on the list of voters. The folders gave inter alia a number of assistance without expenses which was the same number as that of the Council of the Canadian unit.

After the referendum, the DGEQ, Pierre F. Side, caused production of 20 continuations with the criminal concerning this illegal expenditure and opened an investigation into Option Canada and its intrigues. Following a judgment of the Supreme court of Canada intervened on October 17th, 1997, several articles of the Law chief clerk of Quebec were considered to be unconstitutional, which forced the abandonment of the investigation of the DGEQ. Information which could have been collected before this date was partly made public in his annual report.

The gathering of the Place of Canada

The committee of NOT organized a large gathering of citizens with Montreal, on October 27th, three days before the vote. Some 150 000 Canadians of all the provinces of Canada were given go to the Place of Canada, with the downtown area, for what the organizers called a Unity Rally (“; Gathering of the unité ”). Several federalistic politicians took part in the event, in particular the Prime Minister for Ontario Mike Harris, the Prime Minister of New Brunswick Frank McKenna, the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia John Savage and the Prime Minister for the Island-of-prince-Edouard, Catherine Callbeck. The conservative leader Jean Charest, the Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien, the chief of the Liberal party of Quebec Daniel Johnson addressed to crowd for the occasion.

To make come all these people from the anglophone provinces, the organizers obtained important reductions on plane tickets of Air Canada and train tickets of Via Rail. Via Rail is a company of State whereas Air Canada was one in the past. The entire amount of the reductions in price was estimated at 4,8 million. This money was not authorized nor entered in the report/ratio of expenditure of the Committee for NOT. This infringement is, within the meaning of the law, a case of fraud chief clerk.

Moreover, according to several witnesses, of the neighbouring buildings mysterious alarms of fire during the event would have had, thus forcing people present to leave their establishments and to melt themselves in the crowd gathered in the Place of Canada.

Citizenship and Canada immigration

The statistics compiled by the analysts of Citizenship and Immigration Canada show that approximately 43 855 new Inhabitants of Quebec obtained the Canadian citizenship with the current of the year 1995. Approximately the quarter of these certificates of citizenship (11 429) was allotted during October. It was the first time that the residents of the Quebec received more certificates of citizenship than the residents of the Ontario. The phenomenon did not reproduce since.

By examining the data over more a long period, one can see that the increase in attributions of certificate leaped of 87 % between 1993 and 1995. For the year 1996, one observes a fall of 39 % of attributions compared to the previous year. These facts brought several people of the movement souverainist to the conviction that the referendum of 1995 was actually gained by YES. In June 2005, the members of the Parti Québécois gave each other a new political program which declares that if the Québécois people carry the party in power, this one will amend the electoral law so that it becomes necessary to present an electoral map with photograph in order to vote and also that Quebec will invite representatives of the United Nations to supervise the process chief clerk in the possibility of a third referendum on sovereignty.

Electoral roll

In 1998, militants pequists of the area of Montreal presented a list of 100 000 names with DGEQ. They affirmed that these 100 000 people registered on the electoral roll used for the referendum of 1995 were not registered with the Régie a health insurance of Quebec (RAMQ). After a deepened checking, the DGEQ concluded that 56 000 of the 100 000 people did not have indeed the right to vote and should consequently be withdrawn from the list in the future.

The same year, of the militants pequists of the Estrie also presented a case of fraud chief clerk to the DGEQ. Following the investigation of the DGEQ, 32 foreign students of the Université Bishop with Lennoxville were found guilty to have voted illegally in 1995 and had to pay a fine.

Consequences

In the short run

If Quebec remains for the moment in the federation, the weakness of the victory of NOT imposes, theoretically, at the federal government and the other provinces, to take account of the will of the French-speaking Inhabitants of Quebec to see itself recognizing a clean identity.

The speech of defeat of Jacques Parizeau in front of the partisans of YES, the evening of the vote, causes the controversy still today, because it blames the vote of the anglophone minorities and allophones, mainly of the area of Montreal, as well as the expenditure carried out by the camp of NON : “ We are beaten, it is vrai ! But by quoi ? Money and of the votes ethniques ”. Strongly criticized for this comment which tends to develop certain voters for their ethnic origin, he announces his departure of the political life the shortly after the poll, starting from the red living room of the National Assembly. As of the following day, the two candidates had a presentiment of with the succession, Bernard Landry and Pauline Marois, announce both that they will not be candidates if Lucien Bouchard, the chief of the Québécois Bloc, agrees to become chief of the Parti Québécois. Bouchard will announce its decision to do it later a few weeks. Jacques Parizeau leaves his station of Prime Minister for Quebec in January 1996.

The shortly after the end result, on the foreign exchange market, the Canadian dollar passes from a course of 0,7272 USD to a course of 0,7518 USD.

In the medium term

Re-elected in 1997, the government Chrétien deposits, in 1999, the C-20 bill, said Loi on clearness (the text of the law), in order to give weapons to the federal government in the possibility of another referendum. Concretely, the government of Jean Chrétien claims a " claire" majority; in favor of independence, meaning that victory of 50% + 1 of voice would not be sufficient. The National Assembly retorts with the bill 99, known as Loi on the exercise of the basic rights and the prerogatives of the Québécois people and the State of Quebec .

Another initiative of the federal government by the Liberal party of Jean Chrétien is to set up a programme of visibility of Canada at the Quebec, while taking part financially in events like festivals, in order to counterbalance the souverainist influence in the province. This program is possibly known under the name of Programme of the mixed liability companies . Allegations of unjustified expenditure of public funds lead, according to an independent report/ratio submitted to the federal government by Sheila Fraser, the auditor general of Canada, at a board of inquiry on the program (henceforth in the memories under the name of Scandale of the mixed liability companies), known under the name of the judge it chairing, the Commission Gomery, whose report is published beginning 2006.

See too

Referendum of 1980 in Quebec

External bonds

files of Radio-Canada
the political year in Quebec: 1995-1996
the Managing director of the Elections of Quebec
Cover of the JACK
The Evolution off Support for Sovereignty - Myths and Realities (English pdf)

Random links:

(28978) Ixion | Unary system | Stephend | MVTM | William Boog Leishman