Talk:1995 Quebec referendum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sources for illegal spendings and citizenship scandal

This goes way back. The illegal spendings by the federal governement and various private groups revolving around mostly the Liberal Party of Canada were reported in the French language media even during the 1995 referendum campain. However, the first serious journalistic enquiry into Option Canada was the work of Claude Arpin who published this article in the Montreal Gazette on March 20, 1997:

• Unity group waged secret referendum battle

Later, Radio-Canada journalist Normand Lester continued the enquiry and made a lot of his findings public on French television. After publishing The Black Book of English Canada, he was demoted to different job and subsequently quit Radio-Canada. This event caught of lot of media attention at the time.

Nothing got more media attention however than his recent publication of Les secrets d'Option Canada which is the most boring book to read as it contains mostly a series of evidence in the form of bills and cheques incriminating Option Canada members and collaborators. The evidence was kindly given to Heritage Canada (which requested an investigation by the RCMP the minute they learned about the publication of the book, something they had neglected to do since at least 1997) and also the Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec which announced yet another inquiry on the illegal spendings of 1995.

There are a lot of online sources on this suject if you read French:

• Collection of articles on Option Canada at Vigile.net (Most articles in French)

The first source for the other scandal, that of the illegal attribution of citizenship papers to about 11 429 permanent residents just during the month of October 1995 is a Le Devoir article. I have yet to find an English media that also covered the topic, but I am still searching. The said article, published by Pierre O'Neill on November 8, 1999 can be read online here:

• Le camp du NON a-t-il volé le référendum de 1995? (Did the NO side steal the 1995 referendum?)

I can translate it upon request. -- Mathieugp 00:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Mathieu, about that last source you reference, regarding the citizenship list theory. Unfortunately I cannot read French very well, so I can't be sure what's said in the Le Devoir article, so I thought I'd ask.

I'm looking at two reports from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, from 1993 and 1995. According to them, the numbers used in your source regarding the number of people granted citizenship in Quebec, found on the last page of each PDF, are correct.

However, currently this Wikipedia article claims:

It was the first time that Quebec residents received more citizenship certificates than Ontario residents, which has not occurred again since.

According to the numbers I'm looking at, this is false.

• In 1993, the Quebec : Ontario ratio of granted citizenships was 23 779 : 85 525.
• In 1995, the Quebec : Ontario ratio of granted citizenships was 43 855 : 127 998.

The article does not refer to the ratio over that period. Here is what the article says:

"In the course of the sole referendum year of 1995, Ottawa a thus attributed citizenships to 43 855 new Quebecers. For the sole moth of Octobre, 11429 certificats were emitted, that is to say 1/4 of the total attributions of the year. It was the first time Quebec saw itself get more citizenships than Ontario. And it never reoccurred since."

Maybe that was not clearly what was implied in the Wikipedia article.

Lost in translation, I'm sure ;-).

The verification to be made would be, using the data Le Devoir got from Ottawa in 1999, is is true that for the sole month of October, 1/4 of all citizenships were granted and that 11429 beats the number Ontario got during the same month. Comparing today's data with that of 1999 would be a good check also. -- Mathieugp 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, but unfortunately the reports by Citizenship and Immigration Canada only show annual totals rather than monthly. I'll keep looking, though. --Willmolls 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Which means Ontario still received more granted citizenships in 1995 by a difference of 84 143. Not only more than Quebec, but a larger difference than 61 746 in 1993.

Further, according to these reports, from 1992 to 1995 Ontario consistently had not only the most citizenship grants, but a majority of citizenship grants throughout the country, pulling in over 50% of citizenship grants every year.

This article goes on to claim that:

The data also shows an increase in certificate attributions by 87% between 1993 and 1995.

I'm not the best with math so I ask you to be patient with me. I asked Dr. Math to help me on this one, because I haven't had to do a problem like this for a while. My girlfriend took a course on statistics, but unfortunately she's out of town and can't help me with this, so this is all my own work =D.

Using the formula Dr. Math gave me, I found:

• In Quebec, between 1993 (23 779) and 1995 (43 855) there was a 84% increase in citizenship grants.

Meaning the article's claim is almost correct, but is, however, out of context, as I also found:

• In British Columbia, between 1993 (19 336) and 1995 (35 552) there was a 83% increase in citizenship grants.

Which is only 1% less than Quebec. For the sake of reference, there was 81% increase between 1992 and 1995 in Ontario, though this drops off when only measuring between 1993 and 1995 (about 50%).

It is fair to point out a spike in citizenship grants between 1993 and 1994 in Quebec, but it's important to add that this was a trend true of both Ontario and B.C. as well.

It seems to me that if there were a conspiracy to quickly register new citizens who'd vote "No" in the referendum, that spike would have occured (at the earliest) between 1994 and 1995, when the PQ took back power. Yet between 1994 (40 507) and 1995 (43 855) there was only an 8% increase in citizenship grants.

While the article makes it seem apparent that something unusual is afoot, looking into the numbers reveals how not-so-out-of-the-ordinary these citizenship grants really were. Frankly it seems a bit of a stretch to point out a conspiracy happening in these numbers. I don't think it's worth pointing out in this article.

But I wanted to ask if I've overlooked anything (which wouldn't surprise me). Again, as I said, I can't read French very well, so I can't be sure was said in the Le Devoir article. As well I'm not very good at math, so my numbers could be wrong.

Makes me think, I suppose these are all things I should work on ;-).

Cheers! --Willmolls 08:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Full translation of Pierre O'Neill's article

Did the No camp steal the 1995 referendum? New documents accredit the sovereignist thesis.

The information collected by Le Devoir shows that Ottawa conceived and implemented a wide-scale plan of intervention to substantially inflate the number of voters willing to vote against the sovereignty of Quebec.

According to statistics compiled by the analysts of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the number of attributions of citizenship in Quebec suddenly rose from 23 799 in 1993 to 43 855 in 1995, that is to say a rate of increase in 87 % in two years.

Now this is what I was talking about. I found it to be almost true (I calculate 84%), but it's still out of context. There was an 83% increase in British Columbia between 93 an 95, and an 81% increase in Ontario from 1992 to 1995. Either way, what does it really matter as the PQ didn't even take back power until 1994, and as I said before there was only an 8% increase between 1994 and 1995 in Quebec. The real spike occured a year earlier, and happened throughout the country, not just Quebec.

Either the author was wrongfully tried to show that there was a important increase in Quebec but failed to mention (or notice) that the same was true for the other provinces, or, more likely, he was trying to give an idea of the general trend before going into further details for the months just before and after the referendum. -- Mathieugp 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

In the course of the sole referendum year of 1995, Ottawa has thus attributed citizenships to 43 855 new Quebecers. For the sole moth of October, 11429 certificates were emitted, that is to say 1/4 of the total attributions for that year. It was the first time Quebec saw itself get more citizenships than Ontario. And it never reoccurred since.

I'm still trying to find where in these reports, or anywhere else, I'd find month-by-month numbers. They don't seem to be available in the reports published. I'm wondering where Le Devoir got this information. Is there another source to back this up?

I'm suspicious about this because of the 8% rise between 1994 and 1995. If there were a dramatic spike in October of that year that was particularly out of the norm, wouldn't it be reflected between these two years? 8% amounts to only a 3 348 change, but 11 429 amounts to 26% of the whole year. Given the upward trend of all provinces, an increase of about 8% in Quebec would be expected, but that increase isn't nearly enough to account for an unusual spike in October, unless citizenship grants in October are normally that high - meaning the year before citizenship grants in October were around 8 081.

Regardless, it'd probably just be best to find another source that can back up these numbers.

Other French language media covered the issue. I remember seeing a report on this in Radio-Canada TV. -- Mathieugp 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The federal government thus decreed as many citizenships in Quebec, than there were new voters registered on the electoral list.

On the other hand, the post-referendum year of 1996 was marked by a significant fall of 39 % of attributions of citizenships to Neo-Quebecers.

Of all total citizenship grants in Canada there was an average drop of 32%.

In fact, this kind of "significant" rising and falling has happened before. Between 1988 and 1990 there was a "sudden" 77% increase throughout the whole country. From there, the number steadily grows until 1996, which saw the aforementioned drop of 32%.

As of the end September 1995, senior officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada gave the order to accelerate the process of attribution of certificates and to prioritize the requests which were on standby at the time of the launch of the referendum campain.

Again, are there any other sources that could back this claim up?

The Radio-Canada report was more detailed. Some people claimed to have received their citizenships in a gymnasium with a bunch of other immigrants. -- Mathieugp 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder how the federal government was going to be sure these new citizens were going to vote "No". In fact, how did they know they were going to vote at all? I suppose I can understand that you might expect them to vote "No", but you can't be sure. I don't know, to me, drawing conclusions from all this seems a bit far-fetched.

They have just sweared the allegiance to the Queen of Canada. Even I would have voted No under these circumstances. ;-) -- Mathieugp 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and my skepticism about how they would vote is even more definitely corrected by this article (which took forever to find) published before the vote in the Gazette:

OTTAWA (Special) - Citizenship Court judges from across Canada are being sent into Quebec to work overtime on ensuring as many qualified immigrants as possible gain their Canadian citizenship before the referendum. Most of Quebec's new Canadians traditionally are federalists and expected to vote No in the expected Oct. 30 vote. With polls suggesting a close vote, Ottawa is sparing no effort to accredit them. It is also halving the time needed to process certificates for those who have lost theirs. The goal is to have the 10,000 to 20,000 citizenship applications outstanding in Quebec processed by mid-October.

Still, this makes me wonder: Is this really underhanded or fundamentally wrong? To give residents of Quebec the right to vote in a referendum deciding it's future? It seems only natural - part of the democratic process to make sure everyone effected gets there say. I continue to think the sovereignists are over-reacting by saying the election was thusly "stolen" because of this.

Either way, now we have more than one verifiable source that something was up, so I'll remove the disputed tag, but we still don't have any other sources that back-up those specific numbers cited by the Le Devoir article - though this Gazette article puts those numbers in the ballpark, so they seem reasonable at this point. --Willmolls 04:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the date for this article? What is not written in this article is that in order to process all these people, Ottawa had to violate its own immigration law procedures and regulations. -- Mathieugp 13:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

August 31, 1995 - roughly two months before the vote. The article does mention that Ottawa was "also halving the time needed to process certificates for those who have lost theirs", but it unfortunately doesn't mention anything about laws being violated.

Right around this time, a BQ member of parliament found out about this, and confronted then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Sergio Marchi during Question period (see "Immigration"). He said, in response:

Mr. Speaker, what is being done with respect to citizenship processing in the province of Quebec leading up to the referendum is nothing different from any lead up to any provincial campaign. My department has done likewise with the provinces of Manitoba, New Brunswick and Ontario. If we compare the number of citizenship processings with the year of the Ontario election, it is up some 45 per cent. Is the hon. member suggesting that we should somehow slow down the process? Is the hon. member suggesting that it is not proper to have the persons exercise their democratic right to vote? Exactly what is his point?

When further pressed later on during Question period, he again reiterated "There is a view at the lead up of every provincial and federal election, including the referendum this time as well as in 1980, that if there is an ability to speed up the processing with the viewing of granting the franchise of the vote it will be done." To further his point, he again pointed to the 49% increase in Ontario during it's election between 1993 and 1994. He also pointed out that the Bloc had "criticized [Ottawa] in the past for moving too slowly on the applications. Now they are saying we are moving too fast. Which one is it?"

The biggest concern I would have is something the Bloc member brought up - were security checks bypassed to certify these new citizens? The Bloc member suggests yes. Sergio Marchi says no. I'll keep looking for a definite answer to that question. In the meantime, I think all of this should be mentioned in the article. --Willmolls 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I think if you're really looking for a conspiracy in these numbers, you'll find one. But outside of that, I don't really think any of this proves anything particularly suspicious or out of the ordinary was happening. But, that's just how I see it. --Willmolls 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Other doubtful manoeuvres

It is not the first time that are facts letting people believe that the federal resorted to doubtful operations to inflate the vote of No side are brought under the light. In 1998, the PQ members in the region of Montreal submitted to the national council of their party a dossier aiming to demonstrate that more than 100 000 voters registered on the electoral list used for the 1995 referendum did not have the right to vote.

On the basis of information received from the Chief Electoral Officer and Control of Quebec Health Insurance Manager, the PQ militants had endeavoured to demonstrate that these 100 000 names registered on the electoral list did not figure on the list of recipients of the RAMQ. At the end of an exhaustive examination of the dossier, the Chief Electoral Officer had finally recognized that 56 000 people registered on the electoral list did not have the right to vote and that these names were to be erased from the list.

Are there any other mainstream sources (in English or French) that I could look at about this? (Don't worry, I wont ask you to translate another article, but thank you for translating this one.) I think a few other sources about this might clarify a few things about what was going on and what this really means.

All French language media reported on this as far as I remember. Welcome to Canada, half the citizens gets half the news and the other half gets what's left. ;-) -- Mathieugp 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly agree. You may be right about a lack of cynical coverage outside of Quebec of the federalist side during the referenudm, but given polls that showed Quebecers didn't really think voting "Yes" meant independence, it doesn't seem the media in Quebec was doing a very good job informing the public on the consequences of a "Yes" vote. But, to each their own agenda, I suppose. --Willmolls 22:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm also curious about whether or not anything along these lines (people voting illegally due to not being properly registered) may have happened before, in previous referenda or elections (and not necessarily just in Quebec).

There was a big fraud case involving the Quebec liberals in 1998. I can look for it if you want. -- Mathieugp 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Making the point that the electoral list comprised a greater number of illegals than the majority of No votes over Yes votes, the sovereignists never ceased claiming that Ottawa stole their referendum.

But when you consider all the rejected "No" ballots mentioned earlier in this Wikipedia article, it all balances out, right? ;-) Only joking.

It is also the determination of the PQ members from the Estrie region that contributed to the exposure of the electoral fraud in this area. In the spring of 1998, 32 students of Bishop University, in Lennoxville, were condemned to have voted illegally during the referendum of 1995.

Again, other mainstream sources to back this up would help. Do we know what they may have been voting for? Was it part of a systemic plot or were the students just clueless about proper procedure on voting? And while 100 000 votes may have swayed the referendum, 32 confirmed illegal votes probably would have not.

Well my friend, I must agree that it certainly seems a public inquiry into the matter would be the only way to get some concrete answers, but I don't think this would be enough evidence to expose a legitimate conspiracy that would justify one. By the sounds of things on both sides of the debate, the other side was plotting against them, but isn't that always the way with big political events like this? --Willmolls 22:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for other media that covered it. However, there is a limit to what we can find online. Links tend to go broken over time. -- Mathieugp 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Referendum Judged Effectively Unconstitutional

I have not seen a good reference in Wiki to this law, the one that sets up the "umbrella" committees, and their financing. Is there one? If so, where is it? If not, why not start one?Toddsschneider 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

On September 8, 1995, Mr. Justice Lesage of the Superior Court of Quebec, while refusing to grant an injunction against the holding of the referendum, issued a declaratory judgment to the effect that Bill 1, "which would grant the National Assembly of Quebec the power to proclaim that Quebec will become a sovereign country without the need to follow the amending procedure provided for in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982", constituted "a serious threat to the rights and freedoms of the plaintiff granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." He found that:

"All of the actions taken by the Quebec government, and the procedure stated in the draft bill, indicate that the government, through the Premier and other Cabinet Ministers, has undertaken, on behalf of Quebec, to proceed with a unilateral declaration of independence and to obtain Quebec's recognition as a state distinct from Canada.

"It is manifest, if not expressly stated, that the Quebec government has no intention of resorting to the amending formula in the Constitution to accomplish the secession of Quebec. In this regard, the Quebec government is giving itself a mandate that the Constitution of Canada does not confer on it.

"The actions taken by the Government of Quebec in view of the secession of Quebec are a repudiation of the Constitution of Canada. [ ...]

[...]

"The constitutional change proposed by the Government of Quebec would result in a break in continuity in the legal order, which is manifestly contrary to the Constitution of Canada."Toddsschneider 17:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Secession is generally a break with the rule of law and the constitutional order. No surprise there. G. Csikos, 28 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.83.200 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Chretien Planned to Denouce Referendum as Illegal

should this be added under the section, preparation for YES? According to his memoir, Chretien noted that he prepared a speech to give the next day, in case if the Yes side won. The speech would denouce the referendum as illegal and therefore invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.11.3 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

This paragraph strikes me as being very POV and doesn't really contribute any factual information to the article:

"Provincial laws did not applied to federal government who spent over 30M$ between october 1st and october 30th on federalist propaganda such as public held and flags. It was later recalled in the sponsorship scandal as a complaint from quebecers. However no illegal behavior where seen in those acts since provincial laws should not be applied to federal government."

On the question of provincial laws applying to the federal government, well that simply isn't true. The federal government is not above the law even though it has often acted as if it were the case. The link between the illegal money of 1995 and the sponsorship scandal is pretty obvious, but nothing in this paragraph helps to support it. -- Mathieugp 07:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The Quebec government can pass laws applying to people operating withing its jurisdiction. The Canadian government does not operate within its jurisdiction, but outside it. Thus Quebec laws do not apply to the Canadian government.

I am not sure what you mean. Your sentences are not very clear to me. What I know for certain is that the Canadian government cannot just ignore laws passed by a provincial government. For example, if a building is considered historic by the Quebec government and a law has been passed to protect the said building and the surrounding areas, the federal government cannot just ignore it, destroy the building and build something else over it. However, if the Quebec government were to pass a law which is very clearly outside the constitutionally defined jurisdictions of the provinces, then the federal government could very well decide to ignore the law. That's the theory at least. -- Mathieugp 14:47, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's precisely what he said. The Quebec Government cannot pass laws applying to people outside its jurisdiction. On the other hand, neither can the Quebec Government pass laws which contradict federal law, which is to say, the federal government can pass laws which affect existing Quebec legislation. That's not necessarily being 'above the law,' or even 'acting as though this were the case,' (though I've lived in Quebec long enough to know that provincial politics here is quite often dirtier and more twisted than much of what we see at the federal level . . . while we're on the topic of the perfectly healthy elephants living in the closets of people who are opening others' closets to reveal elephants) it's simply a fact that since Quebec is a province of Canada, it isn't necessarily in a position to decide which of its somewhat peculiar legal vagaries are free from federal meddling. If Quebec behaves unconstitutionally, then going on about jurisdiction is . . . more than a little pointless. It's long been an underpinning of Western political thought that those who didn't vote for the sovereign in a democracy are still subject to its laws. On the other hand, Quebec law, if constitutionally sound, certainly *does* apply to federal actors operating within Quebec. It was clear, but if he's saying that the federal gov't can operate with legal impunity in Quebec, then he can certainly be clear and wrong at the same time. Sigma-6 05:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Brings up an interesting, somewhat unrelated, but perhaps analogous point, however. Take the American Embassy in Ottawa. The Embassy plans violated Ottawa's building codes. The building was too tall for the area of the Byward Market in which it was placed, and this threatened not only the aesthetic beauty of the area, but also the values of a large number of million-dollar condos on Sussex which had previously commanded a view of Parliament Hill. The building is also a dreadfully ugly monolithic structure which was obviously (and openly admittedly) intended to evoke a sense of the military might of the country it represented; an evocation totally out of touch with the architectural tone of the rest of the downtown core. The general opinion in Ottawa was that it ought to be redesigned, or at the very least reduced in scale to comply with the city's long-standing codes. The Americans simply went ahead and built it anyway. I am of the opinion that not only does this fit your example pretty well (however transposed,) but it also illustrates that there is nothing novel in the powerful simply doing what they like when faced with the objections of the relatively weak. The real solution lies in compromise; or in the case of Canada/US relations (and maybe its analogues?) the ability of the weak to grin and bear it, gaining their concessions where they can feasibly make their stands and refusing to yield where it is a crucial matter of principle to do so. . . we do, after all, have to get along, since we can't really physically fly our nations elsewhere. . . ;) Sigma-6 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not analogous. My recollection is that the laws of the foreign country apply within the embassy. The US embassy (or an embassy in general) is considered to be American soil with American jurisdiction, and they can do what they want with it provided they comply with international law and the agreements made with the host country. Entirely different from what amounts to domestic federal-provincial dispute over jurisdiction. 24 June 2007

Isn't it? If Ottawa has a height restriction, then 'within the embassy' would be up until the ninth floor, would it not? Are you splitting hairs on technicalities while I'm talking about the *spirit* of a small power dealing with a larger one, or am I misunderstanding what you mean? It seems to me you've used something irrelevant to the comparison to invalidate it. Sigma-6 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Rejected ballots - pen/pencil

had rejected numerous ballots without valid reasons, [...] (for instance, rejecting ballots with check-marks or "X"s that were crooked, too large, made with a pen instead of a pencil, etc.)

shouldn't 'pen' and 'pencil' be swapped? The ballots were surely not required to be filled out with pencils? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.70.134.105 (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall about 1995, but all the (Quebec-located) elections I remember being a part of, they gave us pencils. AngusCA (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Article title (possible page move)

There is some question as to the appropriateness of the current article title, as well as the title of Quebec independence referendum, 1980. Centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Quebec referendums. Regards.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Quebec referendum, 1995 → Quebec status referendum, 1995

• Support The standard naming convention for referendums is - "Demonym subject, year". The new title is consistent with Saar status referendum, 1935, Puerto Rican status referendum, 1998, Mahoran status referendum, 1976, Bonaire status referendum, 2004 and many others. Please note that there is a parallel move request over at Talk:Quebec referendum, 1980#Requested move. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support per standard naming convention. Number 57 00:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose rename to Quebec sovereignty referendum, 1995. I don't think it is appropriate to have the word "status" in the title of this article. This referendum was referred to as an "independence", "sovereignty" or "separation" referendum, although the official term used by the Parti Québecois was "Sovereignty-partnership". Nobody in Canada calls it a "status" referendum. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sovereignty is fine by me. Number 57 19:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose No move is needed. The current title is sufficiently precise: there were no other Quebec-wide referendums in 1995. It is also the common name. Nobody calls it a "status" referendum. There is no need to name referendum articles in a systematic way worldwide. Indefatigable (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that when people in Canada say Quebec referendum 1980 or 1995 nobody gets mixed up. As much as I agree with Indefatigable, Wikipedia does has a naming convention for such matters. The question is: is it a convention that may be broken, or is it a policy that must be abided by? I have a feeling it is the latter. And if it is the latter than we'll have to discuss a change in policy before leaving the page like it is. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a name change will confuse people. The Guideline is by no means an ironclad rule: it states: "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Rjensen (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Voter suppression

A section was added claiming there was voter suppression in certain localities, yet the only source is a 2014 article from the Montreal Gazette which itself cites dubious sources. Could we obtain a statement from a more reliable publication or judgement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.83.68.58 (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Reform of the article

Hi folks, just proposing a few things I'd like to do. Would love to hear thoughts:

-I think we should "branch out" the controversies and the contingencies, summarize them and link to new articles, and keep the focus on the referendum and the campaign. It seems most information was added as a "flood" after one report or another, and the bloat seems to be on the pet issues of both sides.

-I'm going to work on sourcing elements of the campaign.

-Pictures would be helpful.

Let's start a discussion about this! :-) Knoper (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've noticed a new IP bringing unsourced changes to the article the last few days without any discussion.--Dekk01 (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed red/blue bar

While kind of neat, the red/blue bar didn't really add anything to the article and took up far too much space. If anyone objects, please let me know. Knoper (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Topics for Discussion

I've worked on a lot of edits to this article, just some items I'd rather have discussed before adding:

-Bertrand v. Quebec, which resulted in a declaration from the Superior Court before the referendum that it was illegal, but refused an injunction. I'm think of just throwing in a sentence or two, as Quebec's lawyers defaulted, but it did result in some minor changes to the Sovereignty bill.

-More polls reflecting Quebec's general feelings would be nice, even a separate section. Article as is is a bit too leader centric, in my mind (this is generally what sources reflect)

-Re @Bearcat: 's recent edits, there were a few such incidents, I'm just earmarking them in my Cardinal and am hopefully going to introduce a new paragraph.

-I included the Chretien knife incident at the end, too prejudicial?

Any thoughts/comments, please message me. I'd especially appreciate any sovereignist viewpoints. Knoper (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quebec referendum, 1995/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Coemgenus (talk · contribs) 18:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

I'll review this over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll have intermittent internet access over the next few days. I apologize for the delay, but I will get to this next week. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm back. I'll get started today, sorry for the delay. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• There are no errors that I can see, but the lede is a little thin for an article this long. Maybe a sentence or two more on background, and a bit about the course of the campaign?

Background

• Do you think a link to French Canadian would make sense in here somewhere?
  • I've always been a bit loath to use the term, as I believe the preference here would be Quebecois. Am willing to be corrected, though.
    • That's fine.
• "...new Prime Minister Brian Mulroney..." maybe "newly elected Prime Minster..." might sound better.
  • Prime Ministers technically aren't elected, they're appointed.
• A brief description of the Meech Lake Accords would add some context. Not a whole paragraph, just a sentence or two.
  • done
• Same for the Charlottetown Accord. To a non-Canadian, it's not clear what's being talked about.
  • done
• "...their popular vote total (44.75%) was considered disappointing." By whom? This needs a citation.
  • in progress

Prelude

• Did all the other parties boycott the Commission? If so, it might just be better to say "The other major parties all boycotted the Commission.", which also resolves the passive voice problem.
  • I don't think "all" other parties did, Federal and provincial NDP may not have. Knoper (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • OK, Brest left as is, then. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• You write about a "Yes" vote without saying which side was "Yes" and which was "No".
  • in progress

Referendum question

• You could probably combine notes 1 and 4, couldn't you?
  • done
• "...who had no input with regard to the drafting." could probably just be "...who had no input in the drafting."
  • will do
• More later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Participants

• "Both committees had an authorized budget of $5 million each." Maybe "Each committee had an authorized budget of $5 million."?

Unity Rally

• "Bouchard strongly attacked the rally..." is rather purple prose. Maybe "Bouchard criticized the rally..."?

Result

• A link or brief description for "allophones" would be helpful to non-Canadians.

Negotiations

• This part has some problems: "Reform leader Preston Manning intended to immediately call for Chrétien's resignation and for a general election if the referendum was successful.[114] This was despite the fact that the Liberals, even disregarding Quebec seats, had a sizable majority in the House of Commons." For one, you already mention Manning above, so his last name alone should suffice. The "the fact that" construction is also kind of awkward. I'd recommend something like "Manning intended to immediately call for Chrétien's resignation and for a general election if the referendum was successful, even though the Liberals, independent of their Quebec seats, had a sizable majority in the House of Commons." The second, third, fourth paragraphs could probably be combined, too.

Spending limits and Option Canada

*Where you have "pursuant to" you can nearly always just write "under". It's a style thing, not a rule, so if you disagree, it's fine. I just think it reads better that way.

Remaining issues

• I think the only thing left is the lede, right? --Coemgenus (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I think so. I'll get on it. Really appreciate all your help. Knoper (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see things are moving along. Anything I can do to help?--Dekk01 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The only thing left is to expand the lede a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede??? Sorry but english is my 2nd language. My comment was mostly directed to Knopper. Sorry :( --Dekk01 (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede means the lead section, the first few paragraphs. Any progress, Knoper? --Coemgenus (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was on vacation. I'll try and do something tonight. Tough to fit the whole thing in and keep it snappy. Knoper (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That looks great. I'm happy to promote this to Good Article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Bertrand v. Quebec

The post currently says: "The looming referendum prompted a number of actions in the Quebec Superior Court, which were consolidated under the application of prominent lawyer Guy Bertrand."

This is really really vague on the one hand, and probably wrong on the other. "A number of actions in Quebec Superior Court": what does "a number of" mean? I am aware of precisely two files opened, one by Bertrand in Quebec City which seems to have been bifurcated into Bertrand No. 1 and Bertrand No. 2; and the other in Montreal by Singh, Henderson et als. led by law professor Stephen Allan Scott and lawyer Brent Tyler.

The Singh file was NEVER "consolidated" under the Bertrand file. I suspect the author of that word "consolidated" meant "joindered", a possibility under the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure, but a difficult possibility when the files are in different cities.

In fact, a law article by H. Wade MacLauchlan indicated that the filing of "Singh" subsequent to the filing of "Bertrand" "sparked" the advisory reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Again, as to the Singh file in Montreal: while that was still pending and frozen for all intents, lawyer Brent Tyler filed another "separate" case, which after a foray or two at Quebec Court of Appeal, led to Judge Michel Côté of Quebec Superior Court ruling that the second "case" was indeed merely a variation on Singh, that the two files were one, and that the boxes of evidence and the proceedings in the second file, must be placed into the first file of Singh (originally filed in Montreal in 1995). That was not a joinder, but perhaps a "consolidation" (if using the regular dictionary, and not the law dictionary) of two parts of the same file.

You might like to have a look at the plumitif (docket) in Bertrand No. 1:

http://en.calameo.com/books/0001117904b86352bb16d

And see what you can make of it. But I don't think you will find any joinders here.

In the result, there was no consolidation of "a number of actions" under the Bertrand file. Wondering where you got that alleged information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.65.90 (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

My source for the information was from Haljan's "Constitutionalizing Secession", here is the footnote: https://books.google.ca/books?id=7jDvBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT504&dq=bertrand+v.+quebec&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQg4TK1ObLAhUBPxQKHZ2TDoAQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q=bertrand%20v.%20quebec&f=false

If this is incorrect, by all means, change and cite; I sense a bit of anger in your response, our only agenda is the truth. Appreciate you pointing this out. Knoper (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)