The Grand Council of the Crees

Section 1, Sovereign Injustice - Grand Council of the Crees

1. Who Are "People" with the Right to Self-determination

Posted: 0000-00-00

1.1 Aboriginal Peoples as Distinct "Peoples"

1.2 Quebecers as a Distinct "People"

1.3 Can Aboriginal People be Foricbly Included as Part of the
"Québec People" for Secession Purposes?

1. Who Are "People" with the Right to Self-determination?

"...the Cree Nation reaffirms its fundamental status and rights in the context of the possible secession of Quebec from Canada, including our right to self-determination and to freely determine our political status and that of our traditional territory..." {13}

Grand Council of the Crees, Annual General Assembly, 1994

"...there is no clear principle in international law and there is no clear definition in any of the United Nations covenants - of which I am aware - that would say that there is a right of self-determination by the peoples of Québec as a whole, but no right to self-determination by an Aboriginal people." {14}

G. Robertson, 1992

In terms of international law, there is no generally accepted definition of "peoples". In this regard, R. Stavenhagen comments: {15}

"There is no legal definition of a people. There is not even an accepted sociological or political definition of a people. The United Nations carefully avoided to define 'people', even as it has conceded all peoples have the right of self-determination." {16}

M.C. L?m describes the situation in international law as follows:

"...neither the Charter, the Declaration, the Covenants, nor any other international law instrument defines the 'peoples' who hold this right [of self-determination]. As a result, the meanings of both 'self-determination' and 'peoples' remain contentious, and fluctuate with U.N. practice." {17}

Yet, the practice of the United Nations is to retain a very broad meaning of the term "peoples" for questions pertaining to self-determination.{18} Within this broad context, commentators have identified both objective{19} and subjective{20} elements. As Y. Dinstein provides:

"Side by side with the objective element, there is also a subjective basis to peoplehood. It is not enough to have an ethnic link in the sense of past geneology and history. It is essential to have a present ethos or state of mind. A people is both entitled and required to identify itself as such."{21} [Emphasis added.]

E.-I. Daes underlines that the motive of some governments in limiting the notion of "peoples" is simply to deny certain peoples their fundamental rights:

"Governments often have sought to narrow the definition of 'peoples' in order to limit the number of groups entitled to exercise a self-determination claim."{22}

C. Tomuschat squarely challenges the view of some writers that "whenever a State has come into being, the ethnic communities within that State are legally barred from asserting themselves as peoples"{23}:

"This legal minimization of communities flies in the face of realities and is hard to explain since, according to all available ethnic criteria - language, custom, self-consciousness, etc. - these are true peoples. This seems too harsh as a construction designed to establish a peaceful balance between all the interests at stake."{24}

Tomuschat suggests that populations that are in fact "peoples" should not be denied that status in law because of a fear that it could entail "devastating consequences" and that such status does not automatically mean that a right of secession should follow:

"It should be possible to call a people, in the ethnic sense, a people, in the legal sense, without having to fear that such recognition entails devastating consequences. International law cannot and should not promote secessionist moves, which, if successful, normally do not make the world any better."{25}
[Emphasis added.]

However, to deny people a certain status in order to deny them their human rights is a prohibited form of discrimination.{26} In particular, this prohibition would apply if an indigenous people were to be denied its status as a "people" in order to be denied the human right to self-determination.{27}

J. Woehrling suggests that one of the constitutive elements to qualify as a "people" is that a collectivity must have the capacity to form a viable state from the point of view of the size of its population.{28} However, the notion that size can be a determining factor whether a people has a right to self-determination has been flatly rejected.{29} In the 5-expert study commissioned by the Québec National Assembly, it is indicated:

"...l'absence de viabilité du futur ?tat n'est certainement pas une condition ? laquelle l'accession ? l'ind?pendance est jurdiquement subordonn?e..."{30}

Also, as O. Kimminich emphasizes:

"...it can never be accepted that 'a group of people must be big enough...to enjoy the right to self-determination'.{31} The numerical smallness of a group entitled to self-determination is one of the factors limiting its choice among the various modes of implementation of this right, but it does not nullify the right. If the creation of an independent sovereign State is excluded by factors like the numerical smallness of the group, other possibilities for the realization of the right of self-determination remain.

The exclusion of certain possibilities is a factual one, not a legal one."{32}
[Emphasis added.]

In view of the ongoing attempts by governments to deny Aboriginal peoples their legal status as "peoples" as understood under international law, this aspect is examined further under the following sub-heading.

1.1 Aboriginal Peoples as Distinct "Peoples"

"...almost all proponents of rights of indigenous peoples insist on the fact that these populations are peoples, hence enjoying self-determination according to the wording of Article 1 of the two International Covenants on human rights."{33}

C. Tomuschat, 1993

In the Constitution Act, 1982, the "Aboriginal peoples of Canada" are defined as including Indians, Inuit and Metis.{34} Despite this unqualified recognition of Aboriginal peoples as "peoples" in Canada's Constitution, the federal government has to date advocated in international forums that indigenous peoples not be referred to as "peoples" in international instruments, unless it is indicated that the term per se has no implications under international law.{35}

Moreover, the Québec National Assembly has formally recognized Aboriginal peoples in Québec as distinct "nations"{36} and not simply ethnic groups.{37} As nations, it is increasingly recognized in Québec that Aboriginal peoples have a right to self-government.{38} At the same time, it would appear that, for many Québec sovereignists, the status of "nations" for Aboriginal peoples is of a secondary order and that there are only "two founding nations"{39} (i.e. English and French Canadians) in Canada.{40} However, maintenance of this two founding nations theory can lead to a convoluted logic as the following statement by M. Seymour (Universit? de Montr?al) suggests:

"Sans parler des nations autochtones, le Canada est constitu? de deux nations fondatrices, les Qu?b?cois et les Canadiens."{41} [Emphasis added.]

As M. Adam states:

"...la doctrine du pacte entre deux nations fondatrices... [est] historiquement mal fond?e et r?fut?e par les autres parties constituantes..."{42}

In the 5-expert study commissioned by the Québec National Assembly, the experts state that the Grand Council of the Crees are correct to challenge the position of the government of Canada in not recognizing Aboriginal peoples as "peoples" under international law:

"On a soulign?, ? juste titre, l'incoh?rence de l'attitude consistant ? reconna?tre l'existence de peuples autochtones au plan interne et ? la refuser dans la sph?re internationale: 'It has never been demonstrated by the Canadian government why indigenous peoples would not constitute 'peoples' under international law'."{43}{44} [Emphasis added.]

L. Pilette states:

"...la garantie [dans l'art. 35(1) de la loi constitutionnelle de 1982] fait mention des peuples autochtones, une notion qui constitue l'un des ingr?dients du droit ? l'autod?termination en droit international." {45}[Emphasis in original.]

M. van Walt van Praag highlights the fact that state governments invalidly attempt to deny the right to self-determination to distinct peoples by treating them as "minorities":

"Peoples are recognized as such when they have asserted and forced upon the world the recognition of peoplehood. 'Minority' is a term frequently related to numbers rather than to other criteria; but the distinction is often artificial. Attempts by governments to describe distinct peoples under their rule as 'minorities' in order not to admit any validity to claims to self-determination should not be regarded as determinative."{46} [Emphasis added.]

A most blatant example of seeking to diminish the rights of Aboriginal peoples in Québec to determine their own future by diminishing their status is found in recent Québec legislation. In An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec,{47} the preamble describes the status and rights of "Quebecers" and those of "Amerinds" and "Inuit" in terms of an unacceptable double standard:{48}

"Whereas Quebecers are free to assume their own destiny, to determine their political status and to assure their economic, social and cultural development;....
...
Whereas Québec recognizes the right of the Amerinds and the Inuit of Quebec to preserve and develop their specific character and to assure the progress of their communities".{49} [Emphasis added.]

However, it is increasingly difficult to deny indigenous peoples their status as "peoples" and therefore their right to self-determination. In order to better comprehend the "peoples" issue in the context of Québec secession, the issue of Quebecers as a distinct people is examined under the next sub-heading.

1.2.Quebecers as a Distinct "People"

"Si nos concitoyens anglais du Québec ne se sentent pas appartenir ? notre nation, si beaucoup d'allophones y r?pugnent, si les autochtones s'y refusent, puis-je les y englober par la magie du vocabulaire?"{50}

F. Dumont, 1995

"...il est odieux de refuser aux autres un droit qu'on s'accorde ? soi-m?me. Si les Qu?b?cois ont le droit de d?cider qu'ils sont un peuple distinct du peuple canadien, les Am?rindiens, les Gasp?siens, les habitants de l'ouest de Montr?al ou d'autres ont un droit ?quivalent. Ils peuvent d?cider qu'ils sont des peuples distincts du peuple qu?b?cois ou qu'ils ne sont pas des peuples distincts du peuple canadien." {51}

J.-P. Derrienic, 1995

In contemporary Québec society, efforts are being made and encouraged to transform the French-Canadian nation centered in Québec into a more pluralist Québec nation. D. Juteau and M. McAndrew describe the need for a pluralist approach for a sovereign Québec as follows:

"L'adoption de mesures visant ? institutionnaliser le pluralisme normatif au Canada influencera les orientations que se donnera la nation qu?b?coise nouvellement constitu?e. Qui plus est, la transformation de la dynamique ethnique au Québec, dont le remplacement de la nation canadienne-fran?aise, fond?e sur l'id?e d'une origine commune, par la nation qu?b?coise rendra possible l'?mergence de ce troisi?me mod?le en sol qu?b?cois. En effet, contrairement ? la nation canadienne-fran?aise, la nation qu?b?coise, bien qu'incorporant des ?l?ments ethniques pr?existants, peut s'imaginer et se r?aliser comme nation volontariste et politique..." {52}
[Emphasis added.]

The authors conclude that, in order to attain a pluralist objective, regardless of whether Québec becomes independent, the nation should be a nation of "citizens" and the word "Qu?b?cois" should refer to multiple groups.{53}

Similarly, S. Langlois describes how Québec is changing from a homogeneous, ethnic-oriented society to a more pluralist conception:{54}

"La perception que nous venons de d?crire s'appuie sur l'id?e que le Québec constitue d'abord une nation au sens organique, au sens ethnique du terme. Or, la nation qu?b?coise est aussi en train de changer, en suivant une voie qui caract?rise le reste de l'Amerique tout enti?re, en une nation ?lective..."{55} [Emphasis added.]

L. Balthazar refers to the ethnocentric nationalism that still exists, but emphasizes the evolution that is taking place in Québec:

"Il se trouvera toujours des nationalistes pour insister sur les diff?rences entre les 'vrais' Qu?b?cois (les francophones de naissance) et les autres. Mais, dans l'ensemble, le nationalisme qu?b?cois ?volue vers une conception de l'identit? qui int?gre les diverses composantes du Québec moderne."{56}

Other Quebecers question the type of pluralism {57} among some Québec nationalists in the event of an independent Québec. As P. Gagnon provides:

"Les 'nationalistes'{58} qu?b?cois comptent sans doute faire preuve de g?n?rosit? envers les minorit?s en s'engageant, entres autres, ? maintenir la Charte des droits du Québec, mais c'est le principe d'homog?n?it?,{59} non pas celui de diversit?, qui semble soustendre les fondements de la souverainet?."{60} [Emphasis added.]

Also, a member of a cultural minority who is "openly sovereignist" expresses her disillusionment, after hearing the views expressed by her peers before the Commission des jeunes sur l'avenir du Québec. D. Truong describes the testimony of so-called "pure stock" Québec youth as follows:

"Propos subtilement x?nophobes, ricanements face aux craintes, intol?rance et ethnocentrisme, les jeunes soi-disant Qu?b?cois pure laine qui n'avaient en bouche qu'assimilation, n?gation des diff?rences culturelles et monolithisme linguistique. J'eus envie de fuir cette foule orn?e d'oeill?res."{61}

As A. Norris observes:

"In polite nationalist circles, the official line these days is that Quebec nationalism {62} has ceased being an ethnic phenomenon, and has evolved into a geographic movement, blind to national or cultural origins and embracing all residents of Quebec territory.

But less polished nationalists keep slipping up with utterances that, to many allophones, betray quite another message."{63}

Whatever the degree of transformation taking place in Québec towards a more pluralist society, such changes do not mean that Aboriginal peoples must be part of a single Québec people for purposes of self-determination or secession. Similarly, the fact that Canada constitutes a pluralist, multicultural society does not per se deny Quebecers from having a distinct status and identity.

At the same time, there appears to be some contradiction and confusion as to who is intended to be included in the notion of "Qu?b?cois(es)" and whether it is French-Canadians or a broader group claiming a right to self-determination. This indecisiveness or confusion is specifically highlighted in the five-expert study commissioned by the Québec National Assembly: {64}

"...droit du peuple qu?b?cois (ou des Canadiens fran?ais ? la distinction demeurant souvent ind?cise ou embarrass?e {65})..."{66} [Emphasis added.]

L. Dion states that it is French Canadians who form a nation and not Quebecers:

"Les Canadiens fran?ais forment une nation. Mais les Qu?b?cois ne forment pas une nation. Les uns et les autres sont membres de la communaut? politique canadienne, fondement du syst?me politique canadien."{67}

Sovereignist jurist J. Brossard declares that it is the French-Canadian nation that has the right to self-determination and to choose its political status.{68} However, Brossard then adds:

"En th?orie pure, ce droit revient aux Franco-Qu?b?cois; en pratique, il va de soi que tous les citoyens du Québec peuvent y participer."{69}

Small minority opinions among francophones even suggest that only "Qu?b?cois de souche" {70} should vote in the Québec referendum on secession, excluding allophones and anglophones. This was the view expressed recently by Bloc Qu?b?cois MP Phillippe Par?.{71} As a Gazette editorial observes:

"As bigoted and undemocratic as the concept is, Mr. Par? is not alone to suggest that the voice of immigrants and anglophones is not valid. Last week, poet Raymond L?vesque{72} told a sovereignty commission that immigrants should be denied a vote because the issue of independence concerns only the founding (francophone) people of Quebec. Mouvement-Québec president Guy Bouthillier said this week that the non-francophone vote is one of 'race, a massive vote in the name of one culture opposed to the projects of another.'"{73}

Alternatively, it has also been said that anglophones should be accorded the right to vote in the referendum but have different coloured ballots, so as to distinguish francophone votes from the others.{74}

The Bloc Qu?b?cois and the Parti Qu?b?cois (to some extent{75}) have distanced themselves from such views. However, it would appear that the policies and positions of both these separatist parties contribute to the confusion concerning the notion of "Qu?b?cois".{76} For example, while the BQ claims in its policy book to perceive Canada as made up of many nations, including Aboriginal nations,{77} another part of the same book erroneously describes Québec as "[u]n peuple, une histoire, un territoire".{78} On the other hand, in the attempt to sell Québec independence to the international community, Premier Jacques Parizeau contradicts the BQ and erroneously states:

"How many nations live in [Canada's] midst? For Quebecers, who have spoken French on this continent since 1608 and who make up 25 per cent of Canada's population, the answer is obviously two."{79}

Yet, in the same article, Parizeau subsequently expresses a contrary position in referring to the "11 native nations of Quebec".{80} Depending on the argument that Parizeau and other separatists are putting forward at a given moment, the number of "nations" existing in Canada or Québec apparently can significantly differ.{81}

Also, the PQ policy programme describes "le peuple qu?b?cois" in terms that would suggest "French Canadians" or "francophones of America":

"Canadiens du XVIIe si?cle, Canadiens fran?ais du XIXe si?cle et maintenant Qu?b?cois, rarement a-t-on vu un peuple chercher aussi longuement son identit? et pourtant, en assumer l'essentiel avec autant de persistance.

Ce peuple est n? en Am?rique et se dit d'Am?rique. Depuis toujours, il est de langue fran?aise et a constamment voulu renforcer la base de sa culture et le fondement de sa solidarit?. Francophones d'Am?rique, c'est ainsi que les Qu?b?coises et les Qu?b?cois veulent aujourd'hui s'inscrire dans la liste des peuples qui forgent la civilisation plan?taire."{82} [Emphasis added.]

Further, the PQ policy programme adds that "ce n'est peut ?tre que le gouvernement du Qu?b?c, le seul qui soit l?gitime aux yeux des Qu?b?coises et Qu?b?cois."{83} The PQ also say that "sans la langue fran?aise, la nation qu?b?coise n'existerait plus."{84} While all these statements might be true for many French Quebecers, they obviously do not reflect the reality of Aboriginal peoples{85} or, for that matter, of non-francophones in Québec.

M. Thibodeau concludes:

"There is little doubt that the French inhabitants of Quebec do constitute a 'people' for the purposes of invoking a claim to self-determination."{86}

While there is little doubt that French Canadians constitute a distinct people, the question arises whether the "Québec people" are also a distinct people for purposes of self-determination or secession, and just who is included in this unit of "self". This issue has been raised by the National Assembly's Committee on Sovereignty in the following terms:

"...la ligne de d?marcation entre un peuple, une minorit? importante qui d?tient des droits historiques comme la communaut? anglophone du Québec, et les nations autochtones qui r?clament un nouvel ?largissement du droit ? l'autod?termination, n'est pas facile ? d?terminer avec pr?cision." {87} [Emphasis added.]

Ghislain Picard, Vice-Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, raised the same question before the Committee on Sovereignty:

"Qui le terme 'Qu?b?cois' d?signe-t-il?...Les Qu?b?cois francophones et les premi?res nations, ? l'int?rieur du Québec, font-ils partie d'un seul peuple? Si c'est l? votre point de vue, il va ? l'encontre de [n]otre droit ? l'autod?termination et ? l'autoidentification." {88}[Emphasis added.]

S. Scott (McGill University) indicates:

"S'il y a un peuple qu?b?cois, d?fini par ses liens de langue, de culture, d'histoire, il y a d'autres peuples d?finis de la m?me fa?on: notamment les autochtones et la communaut? anglophone."{89}

Also G. Lefebvre & P. Gaboury emphasize:

"Le peuple qu?b?cois de langue fran?aise a une histoire, une langue, une culture, une ?conomie, mais ce n'est pas le seul peuple, la seule nation habitant le territoire du Québec. L'existence des nations cris, iroquoise, atikamek, montagnaise, micmac, huronne, pour ne nommer que celles-l?, le rappelle."{90}

As L. Gagnon points out, the true base of the Québec independence movement is the French-Canadian nation centred in Québec:

"Ce qui est ? la base du mouvement ind?pendantiste, c'est l'existence d'une nation canadienne-fran?aise concentr?e au Québec {91} ? la nation ?tant d?finie comme une collectivit? ayant en commun une histoire, un territoire et un vouloir-vivre collectif."{92}

Gagnon adds that sovereignists today refer to a "territorial" nationalism, in which Quebecers of all origins are included and where contemporary institutions are substantially different from those in the rest of Canada. In this regard, she comments:

"Le raisonnement est 'politiquement correct', mieux adapt? ? une ?poque o? l'on se m?fie des nationalismes et de l'ethnocentrisme, mais il ne correspond pas ? la r?alit?." Les institutions qu?b?coises ne sont pas ? ce point diff?rentes de celles des autres provinces..."{93} [Emphasis added.]

In the Draft Report of the National Assembly's Committee on Sovereignty, it is said that the notion of who is a Quebecker is simply based on domicile:

"...Quebecers have become aware that they form a people, a distinct national collectivity. There is a broad consensus on the composition of the Québec people: a Quebecer is anyone who is domiciled in Québec." {94}[Emphasis added.]

While such a definition as to who is a "Quebecer" may serve to describe who are generally included in the multi-ethnic community {95} within the province, the criterion of "domicile" per se does not provide a suitable definition as to who are Quebecers for purposes of self-determination. In regard to this latter purpose, it cannot be said that there is a "broad consensus" that a common "domicile" is what forms a distinct people in Québec.{96}

For purposes of self-determination and secession, it would appear that a "people" can be made up of different peoples or different ethnic, linguistic, or religious groups ? if there is a common will to live together as a people.{97} However, "common will" connotes an essential voluntariness among the different individuals and peoples involved. In other words, there is nothing to suggest that, for purposes of self-determination or secession, different peoples can be compelled against their will to define themselves as a single "people". J.-P. Derriennic (Universit? Laval) emphasizes the element of voluntary will as follows:

"Il serait compl?tement paradoxal que le droit des uns de changer de statut politique entra?ne le droit pour eux d'imposer ? d'autres un changement dont ces derniers ne veulent pas."{98}

Although the PQ government insists that non-francophones in Québec are also Quebecers, it was discovered in April 1995 that a government pamphlet had recently been distributed in France that depicts those of "British and multi-racial orgin" as obstacles to Québec progress and not having a common "will" with French Quebecers. A. Riga quotes the offending pamphlet as follows:

"Until now, [Québec's cultural communities] have remained strangers to four centuries of Québec history and have massively indicated with their votes their will to live divorced from this history and remain attached to Canada."{99}

The above ambivalence is not to deny that the Québec people constitutes a people{100} (it is up to Quebecers to define themselves). For example, immigrants coming to Québec may be said to agree, at least to a significant degree, to identify with and integrate in Québec society. However, unless they freely desire, Aboriginal peoples cannot be defined as part of a single "Québec people" for purposes of self-determination and secession.

In this regard, it is worth noting the testimony of D. Turp (Universit? de Montr?al) before the National Assembly Committee on Sovereignty in 1992, where he emphasizes the subjective element of "common will" in defining a "people":

"Un peuple serait un peuple s'il a quelques caract?ristiques communes comme la m?me langue, la m?me culture, les m?mes traditions culturelles, religieuses et le reste; conception objective, mais une conception qui ?tait retenue surtout pour d?finir la nation plut?t que le peuple. La notion de peuple est peut-?tre plus d?finie dans la doctrine par la subjectivit?. ?tre un peuple, c'est avoir, c'est vrai des caract?ristiques communes, mais c'est aussi vouloir vivre ensemble, avoir une volont? de vivre en commun. Et ?a, ?a peut n'avoir rien ? voir avec le fait de parler la m?me langue ou d'avoir la m?me religion."{101} [Emphasis added.]

As this Study describes, the rights of "Québec" are referred to by some commentators as if they are synonymous with the rights of French-Canadians in Québec or alternatively with the rights of Quebecers as a people. The notion that "states" can be viewed as "peoples" under international law is criticized by D. Makinson as follows:

"This is a category mistake; the two concepts are different kinds of abstraction. A people is a kind of collectivity, or group of human beings; a State is a kind of governing and administering apparatus. Even when a State serves as representative or spokesman for a people, the two are never identical, just as a municipal council, even in the best and most democratic of circumstances, is something different from its constituency." {102}[Emphasis added.]

Also, R. Falk (Princeton University) highlights:

"The territory of Québec, as such, has no right to self-determination. This right inheres in a people, really in the peoples, that live in the territory, and these peoples alone can exercise that right. It cannot be exercised on their behalf."{103}
[Emphasis added.]

In addition, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada has distinguished between the rights of a "people" and a "province":

"[There is] the question of the relationship between self-determination for a people and self-determination for a province. In our view, the two are not equivalent, since the former is a natural entity and the latter an artificial one.

The French-Canadian people is not co-extensive with the boundaries of the Province of Quebec...[T]here are within the Province other groups which would possess an equal claim with Francophones to self-determination..."{104} [Emphasis added.]

J. Woehrling indicates that the Québec population constitutes a "people" for the purposes of external sovereignty.{105} However, the author is quick to add that Québec does not appear to meet any one of the three criteria in the 1970 United Nations Declaration on Friendly Relations {106} that would allow Québec to exercise external self-determination so as to affect the territorial integrity or political unity of Canada.{107} In this regard, it is concluded that Québeckers cannot claim i) to have been refused self-determination within Canada; ii) unequal and discriminatory treatment and violations of human rights; or iii) absence of a representative government.{108} Consequently, while Quebecers may be a people, they cannot rely on their right to self-determination to secede from Canada.

In the context of Québec secession, the undermining of the territorial integrity of Canada is no minor concern.{109} First, it is unclear whether the Atlantic provinces could survive in their present form.{110} Second, the current balance among the different regions in Canada would be seriously upended, with Ontario dominating the federation to the detriment of the Western provinces.{111} Third, French Canadians in provinces outside Québec could lose important linguistic and cultural protections.{112} Fourth, the initial secession of Québec could trigger other secessions within Canada.{113} As G. Craven observes:

"...secession can be a catching disease within a federal state: there is always the real danger that if one constituent region secedes, it will be followed by others. The pattern here seems to be that once the integrity of a federation is compromised by an initial secession, some psychological barrier is down, and the state's ability to retain its other regions is seriously diminished."{114} [Emphasis added.]

It is for these reasons, as well as other considerations pertaining to Aboriginal peoples, that the status and rights of Quebecers must be carefully examined in the Canadian and international context and not be casually assumed or addressed.

1.3 Can Aboriginal Peoples be Forcibly Included as Part of the
"Québec People" for Secession Purposes?

"...no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property."{115}

Woodrow Wilson, former United States President, 1917

"It is making fools of people to tell them seriously that one can at one's pleasure transfer people from master to master, like herds of cattle, without consulting their interests or their wishes."{116}

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

As evident from the discussion in the previous sub-headings, the PQ government and the Québec National Assembly cannot unilaterally decree that a single "Québec people" will exercise their vote on their collective future. Separate peoples may exist within a State or provincial territory with a right to internal or external self-determination. As A. Rosas points out:

"...on the subject of self-determination, the 'people' is conceptually indeterminate. If, for instance, a minority within an existing State is also a separate 'people', internal and external self-determination overlap."{117}

J.-R. Sansfa?on emphasizes that Aboriginal peoples are not Canadians or Quebecers like others:

"Faut-il le rappeler, les autochtones ne sont pas des Canadiens, ou des Qu?b?cois, comme les autres. Leur statut de premiers habitants du pays leur conf?re aujourd'hui plus que jamais des droits que seule la n?gociation d'un nouveau pacte de cohabitation pourra red?finir."{118}

For the PQ government or the National Assembly to attempt to compel Aboriginal peoples in Québec to be a part of a single "Québec people" for purposes of self-determination or secession would violate their right to self-identification. As D. Turp (Universit? de Montr?al), legal advisor to the Bloc Qu?b?cois, indicates, Aboriginal peoples are identified as distinct peoples under Canada's Constitution. Moreover, he makes clear that self-identification is directly linked to their right to self-determination:

"Dans la loi constitutionnelle de 1982, on parle des peuples autochtones. Il faut leur demander ? eux comment ils veulent ?tre identifi?s. C'est leur affaire ? eux, c'est leur droit ? l'autod?termination ? eux qui est en cause ici." {119}[Emphasis added.]

Turp further suggests that Aboriginal peoples are also "peoples" separate from Quebecers and there will have to be negotiations based on the right to self-determination of Aboriginal peoples:

"Je pense qu'il faudra accepter comme peuple que d'autres peuples, m?me s'ils sont sur un territoire qui est celui sur lequel Québec et son gouvernement exercent une juridiction effective, que d'autres peuples expriment leur droit ? l'autod?termination et d?terminent quelles sont les comp?tences qu'ils voudraient exercer sur ce territoire qui est le leur, bien avant qu'il n'ait ?t? celui du peuple qu?b?cois, et qu'une n?gociation de bonne foi s'engage entre le peuple qu?b?cois at les peuples autochtones."{120}
[Emphasis added.]

The right to self-identification of Aboriginal peoples is provided in the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989{121} as follows:

"Self-identification as indigenous and tribal shall be regarded as a fundamental criterion for determining the groups to which the provisions of this Convention apply."{122} [Emphasis added.]

Also, the draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples {123} provides:

"Indigenous peoples have the collective and individual right to maintain and develop their distinct identities and characteristics, including the right to identify as indigenous and be recognized as such."{124} [Emphasis added.]

Similarly, a Meeting of Experts convened in September 1991 in Nuuk, Greenland affirmed that:

" [indigenous peoples] constitute distinct peoples and societies, with the right to self-determination, self-government, and self-identification."{125} [Emphasis added.]

In addition, the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has stated that "self-identification" should be the basis for identification as a member of a racial or ethnic group, "if no justification exists to the contrary".{126}

E.-I. Daes, Chairperson of the U.N. Working Group on Indigenous Populations in Geneva, emphasizes the status of indigenous peoples as "peoples" and indicates that they cannot simply be lumped in with other "peoples":

"Indigenous groups are unquestionably 'peoples' in every political, social, cultural and ethnological meaning of this term. They have their own specific languages, laws, values and traditions; their own long histories as distinct societies and nations; and a unique economic, religious and spiritual relationship with the territories in which they have lived. It is neither logical nor scientific to treat them as the same 'peoples' as their neighbours, who obviously have different languages, histories and cultures." {127}[Emphasis added.]

Also, as early as 1917, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson declared:

"No people must be forced under sovereignty under which it does not wish to live."{128}

Further, as indicated in the French Declaration of Rights of 1795:

"Each people is independent and sovereign, whatever the number of individuals who compose it and the extent of the territory it occupies. This sovereignty is inalienable."{129}

Based on the above, the PQ government cannot compel Aboriginal peoples to be a part of the "Québec people" for purposes of self-determination or secession. Such a position has no basis in law and serves to substantially detract from any arguments of legitimacy or democracy that the PQ government might raise in favour of Quebecers. Aboriginal peoples are recognized as distinct peoples under Canada's Constitution. Also, to force Aboriginal peoples to identify as a single people with Quebecers would serve to effectively deny Aboriginal peoples not only their right to self-identification but also their right to self-determination.

Footnotes

{13} Grand Council of the Crees, Members' Resolution ? Cree Status and Rights in the context of possible secession of Quebec from Canada, Annual General Assembly, August 24, 1994.

{14} Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude sur toute offre d'un nouveau partenariat de nature constitutionnelle, 22 January 1992, No. 15, at CEOC-491 (G. Robertson). G. Robertson is the former Secretary of the Privy Council of Canada).

{15} T. Franck, R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M. Shaw, & C. Tomuschat, "L'int?grit? territoriale du Québec dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession ? la souverainet?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain (Québec: Biblioth?que nationale du Québec, 1992), Expos?s et ?tudes, vol. 1, 377, at 420; A. Cristescu, Special Rapporteur, The Right to Self-Determination: Historical and Current Development on the Basis of United Nations Instruments, (New York: United Nations, 1981), U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/404/Rev.1, at 37-41; L. Eastwood Jr., Secession: State Practice and International Law After the Dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, (1993) 3 Duke J. of Comp. & Int'l L. 299 at 303, n. 20.

{16} R. Stavenhagen, The Ethnic Question: Conflicts, Development, and Human Rights (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 1990), at 68.

{17} M.C. L?m, Making Room for Peoples at the United Nations: Thoughts Provoked by Indigenous Claims to Self-Determination, (1992) 25 Cornell Int'l L. J. 603 at 615-616.

{18} J. Brossard, Le droit du peuple qu?b?cois de disposer de lui-m?me au regard du droit international, [1977] C.Y.I.L. 84 at 93.

{19} Without being exhaustive or essential, objective elements can include: common language, history, culture, race or ethnicity, way of life, and territory. See generally Secretariat of the Int'l Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff Study, (1972) 8 Int'l Comm. of J. 23; and J. Woehrling, "L'?volution et le r?am?nagement des rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais" in J.-Y. Morin & J. Woehrling, Demain, le Québec...[:] Choix politiques et constitutionnels d'un pays en devenir (Québec: Les ?ditions du Septentrion, 1994) 15 at 127.

{20} See, for example, Secretariat of the Int'l Commission of Jurists, East Pakistan Staff Study, note 19, 1662, supra, at 47: "...a people begins to exist only when it becomes conscious of its own identity and asserts its will to exist."

{21} Y. Dinstein, Collective Human Rights of Peoples and Minorities, (1976) 25 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 102 at 104.

{22} E.-I. Daes, Some Considerations on the Right of Indigenous Peoples to Self-Determination, (1993) 3 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 1 at 5.

{23}C. Tomuschat, "Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World" in C. Tomuschat, (ed.), Modern Law of Self-Determination (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1993) 1 at 16.

{24} Id.

{25} Id.

{26} See International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, (1966) 5 I.L.M. 352. Adopted by U.N. General Assembly on December 21, 1965, opened for signature on March 7, 1966, and entered into force on January 4, 1969, art. 1, para. 1: "In this Convention, the term racial discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." [Emphasis added.]

{27} See, for example, N. Lerner, Group Rights and Discrimination in International Law (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991) at 26: "...when dealing with the Convention on Racial Discrimination...the definition [on racial discrimination'] that it contains in Article 1.1 is
broad enough to include all discriminatory acts, whether international or not, or whether successful or not, provided that the purpose or effect exists. As to the grounds, the definition covers all the groups in which we are interseted" [Emphasis added.] The "groups" Lerner refers to in his book include indigenous peoples. See also discussion in text accompanying notes 190 st seq., infra.

{28} J. Woehrling, "L'?volution et le r?am?nagement des rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais" in J.-Y. Morin & J. Woehrling, Demain, le Québec...[:] Choix politiques et constitutionnels d'un pays en devenir, note 19, 1662, supra, 15 at 126.

{29} See L. Bucheit, Secession [:] The Legitimacy of Self-Determination (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978), at 233: "...it is now difficult to imagine a territory so small and so fragile that it could not be recognized as a State under the present standards." See also Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), Submission: Status and Rights of the James Bay Crees in the Context of Quebec's Secession from Canada (Submission to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, February 1992), at 45-48, where authorities are cited to indicate that "viability" and "size" of population are not essential criteria.

{30} T. Franck, R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M. Shaw, & C. Tomuschat, "L'int?grit? territoriale du Québec dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession ? la souverainet?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain (Québec: Biblioth?que nationale du Québec, 1992), Expos?s et ?tudes, vol. 1, 377, at 425, n. 121. Unofficial English translation: "...the lack of viability of a future State is certainly not a condition to which the accession to independence is legally subordinated..."

{31} F. Przetacznik, The Basic Collective Human Right to Self-Determination of Peoples and Nations as a Prerequisite for Peace: its Philosophical Background and Practical Application, (1991) 69 Revue de droit international at 261.

{32} O. Kimminich, "A Federal' Right of Self-Determination?" in C. Tomuschat, (ed.), Modern Law of Self-Determination, note 23, 1662, supra, 83 at 96.

{33} C. Tomuschat, "Self-Determination in a Post-Colonial World" in C. Tomuschat, (ed.), Modern Law of Self-Determination, note 23,1662, supra, at 16, n. 39.

{34} Section 35(2).

{35} For example, in its written communications to the International Labour Organization (ILO) which was in the process of formulating the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), the Canadian government used erroneous and misleading arguments to discourage the ILO from using the term "peoples" when referring to indigenous peoples in ILO instruments. See International Labour Office, Partial revision of the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention, 1957 (No.107), Report VI(2A), Geneva, 1989, at 9, where the Canadian government's position is reproduced:

"Self-determination under international law can imply the absolute right to determine political, economic and social and cultural programmes and structures without any involvement whatsoever from States. Consequently, any use of the term "peoples" would be unacceptable without a qualifying clause which would indicate clearly that the right to self-determination is not implied or conferred by its use" [Emphasis in original]

The hypocrisy of the Mulroney government position was seen in August 1991, when the annual meeting of the federal Tory party in Toronto adopted a resolution (no. 244) recognizing "the right of the men and women of Quebec to self-determination" see P. Curran & T. Wils, "Quebec has right to decide its own future: PCs", The Gazzette, Montreal, August 10, 1991, at A1; M. Adam, "Le vote sur l'autod?termination du Québec sert mieux le PC que le pays", La Presse, August 13, 1991, at B2. In relation to the right of Quebecers to self-determination, former Prime Minister Mulroney stated that it was "no big deal": see P. Curran, "Self-Determination debate is no big deal, PM says", The Gazette, Montreal, August 8, 1991, at B1.

{36} See Québec National Assembly Resolution, Motion for the recognition of aboriginal rights in Québec, March 20, 1985. See also PQ government's Bill, An Act respecting the future of Québec, s. 8, where the term "Aboriginal nations" is used.

{37} See D. Schnapper, La communaut? des citoyens [:] Sur l'id?e moderne de nation (Paris: ?ditions Gallimard, 1994), at 29, where "nation" is distinguished from "ethnies" in that the latter are not politically organized. Moreover, "ethnies" are said to be defined by two dimensions: historical community and cultural specificity. For a somewhat modified definition of "nation" in both sociological and political terms, see C. Emanuelli, "L'accession du Québec ? la souverainet? et la nationalit?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain (Québec: Biblioth?que nationale du Québec, 1992), Expos?s et ?tudes, vol. 1, 61 at 66.

{38} See, for example, Committee to Examine Matters Relating to the Accession of Québec to Sovereignty, Draft Report, note 8, 1662, supra, at 31-32: "The ability of the aboriginal peoples to make choices will continue to grow provided agreements with government parties invest them with a greater degree of self-government now and in the future. Regardless of Québec's political and constitutional status, that trend will continue."

{39} However, see J.-P. Derriennic, Nationalisme et D?mocratie [:] R?flexion sur les illusions des ind?pendantistes qu?b?cois (Montr?al: Les ?ditions du Bor?al, 1995), at 125, where the author describes the "absurdities" when one attempts to codify equality between groups as groups and he remarks that the reaction of Aboriginal peoples was forseeable when it was said that there are "two founding peoples" in Canada. Also, in L. Dion, Le Duel constitutionnel Québec-Canada (Montr?al: Les ?ditions du Bor?al, 1995), the author states at 360 that he too was caught up in the "false duality" of French-Canadian nation and English-Canadian nation, which he adds is unrealistic at the cultural level and unsuitable for a political transposition.

See also A. Cairns, "The Fragmentation of Canadian Citizenship" in W. Kaplan, (ed.), Belonging: The Meaning and Future of Canadian Citizenship (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993) 181, at 185 et seq., where a "three nations" view of Canada is elaborated; H. Mintzberg, "Un mythe appel? le reste du Canada'", La Presse, September 23, 1995, at B3, where it is said that three founding peoples opened up the country ? the Aboriginal peoples, the French and the English; K. Coates, "Lord Durham Revisited: the Cultural Struggle of Nations and Peoples Within the Canadian State" in H.P. Glenn & M. Ouellette, (eds.), Culture, Justice and Law\ La culture, la justice et le droit 1992 (Montreal: Les ?ditions Th?mis, 1994) (Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice) 1 at 16: "[Lord Durham's] preoccupation with two nations' missed an essential element in the existing British North American landscape, namely the First Nations..."; and K. Swinton, "Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution" in in H.P. Glenn & M. Ouellette, (eds.), Culture, Justice and Law\ La culture, la justice et le droit 1992 (Montreal: Les ?ditions Th?mis, 1994) (Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice) 79 at 81.

See also J. Webber, Reimagining Canada [:] Language, Culture, Community, and the Canadian Constitution (Kingston/Montreal: McGill - Queen's University Press, 1994), at 30, where it is said that "the expression two founding peoples'...leave[s] little room for other contributions, especially those of aboriginal peoples..." In C. Taylor, "Le pluralisme et le dualisme" in A.-G. Gagnon, Québec: ?tat et soci?t? (Montreal: ?ditions Québec/Am?rique, 1994) 61 at 71, it is said that Québec leaders have explained that Confederation was a pact between "two founding peoples", but it was never viewed that way outside the province.

{40} See, for example, the preamble to An Act respecting the future of Québec where it is declared: "...Canada, far from taking pride in and proclaiming to the world the alliance between its two founding peoples, has instead trivialized it..."

{41} M. Seymour, "La nation en question", Le Devoir, July 8, 1995, at A7. Unofficial English translation: "Without speaking of the Aboriginal nations, Canada is made up of two founding nations, Quebecers and Canadians." [Emphasis added.] Not only must one include Aboriginal peoples in Canada's early history, but also it is stretching historical fact to suggest that Quebecers rather than French Canadians were one of the founding nations of Canada in 1867. See also discussion under the following sub-heading.

{42} M. Adam, "Au sujet de l'entente dite politique et d'un veto sp?cial pour le Québec", La Presse, August 26, 1995, at B2. Unofficial English translation: "...the doctrine of a pact between two founding nations...[is] historically unfounded and refuted by the other constituent partners..." Adam adds that this theory was given its death blow, in April 1981, when former Premier Ren? L?vesque signed an interprovincial agreement establishing that, in regard to the fundamental law, Québec is a province like any other. See also Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753 at 803, where this notion of a pact or "compact" is rejected: "Theories, whether of a full compact theory (which, even factually, cannot be sustained, having regard to federal power to create new provinces out of federal territories, which was exercised in the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan) or of a modified compact theory, as urged by some of the provinces, operate in the political realm, in political science studies. They do not engage the law."

See also Re Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753 at 803, where this notion of a pact or "compact" is rejected: "Theories, whether of a full compact theory (which, even factually, cannot be sustained, having regard to federal power to create new provinces out of federal territories, which was exercised in the creation of Alberta and Saskatchewan) or of a modified compact theory, as urged by some of the provinces, operate in the political realm, in political science studies. They do not engage the law."

{43} Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), Submission: Status and Rights of the James Bay Crees in the Context of Quebec's Secession from Canada (Submission to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, February 1992), at 60.

{44} T. Franck, R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M. Shaw, & C. Tomuschat, "L'int?grit? territoriale du Québec dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession ? la souverainet?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain, note 1662, 15, supra, vol. 1, at 442. Unofficial English translation: "One has underlined, rightly, the incoherence of attitude that recognizes the existence of Aboriginal peoples at the domestic level and refuses it in the international sphere: It has never been demonstrated by the Canadian government why indigenous peoples would not constitute peoples' under international law'." [Emphasis added.]

{45} L. Pilette, La Constitution canadienne (Montr?al: Les ?ditions du Bor?al, 1993) at 103. Unofficial English translation: "...the guarantee [in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982] makes mention of aboriginal peoples, a notion which constitutes one of the elements of the right to self-determination in international law." [Emphasis in original.]

{46} M. van Walt van Praag, "The Position of UNPO in the International Legal Order" in C. Br?lmann, R. Lefeber, M. Zieck, (eds.), Peoples and Minorities in International Law (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993) 313, at 317.

{47} An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec, S.Q. 1991, c. 34, assented to on June 20, 1991 by the National Assembly, First Session, 34th Legislature. This legislation was adopted in the Québec National Assembly when the Québec Liberal Party was in power.

{48} While Quebecers are said to be free to assume their own destiny and to determine their political status (which is tantamount to a right of self-determination), indigenous peoples are in effect denied equal recognition and relegated to an inferior and demeaning standard. Such a standard would be quickly rejected by the Quebec people if it were applied to them by the rest of Canada.

{49} Almost identical wording is included in the preamble of the legislation establishing the B?langer-Campeau Commission. See An Act to establish the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec, (Bill 90), S.Q. 1990, c.34, assented to on September 4, 1990.

The wording used in regard to Aboriginal peoples in these legislative acts is not much different from that used in relation to "ethnic minorities" in Québec's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, s. 43: "Persons belonging to ethnic minorities have a right to maintain and develop their own cultural interests with the other members of their group." In regard to ethnic minorities, see also Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, U.N.G.A. Resolution 47/135, adopted without a vote on December 18, 1992, Annex, article 1, para. 1: "States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories, and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity."

{50} F. Dumont, Raisons communes (Montr?al: Bor?al, 1995), at 63. Unofficial English translation: "If our fellow English citizens in Québec do not wish to belong to our nation, if many allophones are loathe to the idea, if Aboriginal peoples refuse, can I include them through the magic of vocabulary?" At 55, the author also states that Québec is not a nation. Rather, he indicates that there are anglophones and Aboriginal peoples in Québec and the francophone nation is not limited to Québec territory. See also S. Dion, "Les avantages du Québec f?d?r?" in Choix [:] s?rie Québec-Canada, L'?volution du f?d?ralisme canadien (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, May 1995), vol. 1, no. 7, 4 at 22.

{51} J.-P. Derriennic, Nationalisme et D?mocratie [:] R?flexion sur les illusions des ind?pendantistes qu?b?cois, note 39, 1662, supra, at 73-74. Unofficial English translation: "...it is odious to refuse to others a right that one accords to oneself. If the Qu?b?cois have the right to decide that they are a people distinct from the Canadian people, the Amerindians, the Gaspesians, the inhabitants of the west of Montreal or others have an equivalent right. They can decide that they are peoples distinct from the Québec people or that they are not peoples distinct from the Canadian people." [Emphasis added.]

{52} D. Juteau & M. McAndrew, "Projet national, immigration et int?gration dans un Québec souverain" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain (Québec: Biblioth?que nationale du Québec, 1992), Expos?s et ?tudes, vol. 1, 31 at 39. Unofficial English translation: "The adoption of measures towards institutionalizing a normative pluralism in Canada will influence the orientations given to a newly constituted Québec nation. What is more is, the transformation of the ethnic dynamic in Québec, where the replacement of the French-Canadian nation, founded on the idea of a common origin, by the Québec nation will render possible the emergence of this third model on Québec soil. In effect, contrary to the French-Canadian nation, the Québec nation, although incorporating pre-existing ethnic elements, can imagine and realize itself as a nation of a political and determined nature..."
[Emphasis added.]

{53} Id. at 59.

{54} See also G. R?millard, "Les Qu?b?cois comme les autres peuples sont aujourd'hui forc?s de se red?finir", Le Devoir, January 17, 1992, at B8.

{55} S. Langlois, "Identit? et souverainet? nationales: le cas du Québec" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain (Québec: Biblioth?que nationale du Québec, 1992), Expos?s et ?tudes, vol. 1, 15 at 26. Unofficial English translation: "The perception that we are in the process of describing is based on the idea that Québec constitutes first a nation in the organic sense, in the ethnic sense of the term. However, Québec is also in the process of changing, in following a path which characterizes the rest of America as a whole, into an elective nation..."
[Emphasis added.]

{56} L. Balthazar, "Les nombreux visages du nationalisme au Québec" in A.-G. Gagnon, Québec: ?tat et soci?t?, note 39 supra, at 38. Unofficial English translation: "One will find always some nationalists who insist on the differences between the true Quebecers' (francophones by birth) and the others. But, as a whole, Québec nationalism is evolving towards a conception of identity that integrates the diverse elements of modern Québec."

{57} See K. Yakabuski, "Québec ne subventionnera pas la diff?rence", Le Devoir, February 24, 1995, at A1, where the Vice-Premier of Québec, Bernard Landry, is quoted as confirming that a sovereign Québec will not fund ethnic groups to promote their own languages and that the PQ government is against multiculturalism. ("Notre gouvernement est contre le multiculturalisme.") See also I. Par?, "Douche froide sur les communaut?s culturelles", Le Devoir, February 25-26, 1995, at A6.

This position of the PQ government runs directly counter to federal policy as set out in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.). In addition, s. 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires the Charter to be "interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians."

{58} In the article, the author makes clear that he is referring here to those nationalists who define themselves solely in terms of their linguistic, cultural and ethnic specificity. For the complex nature of Québec nationalism, see generally D. Karmis, "Interpr?ter l'identit? qu?b?cois" in A.-G. Gagnon, Québec: ?tat et soci?t?, note 39, supra, 305.

{59} See, for example, "Intolerance has no place in parade", The Gazette (editorial), March 20, 1995, at B2, where homogeneity is demanded by Fran?ois Lemieux, head of Montreal's Soci?t? St. Jean Baptiste, which is planning the local parade for Québec's national holiday on June 24, 1995. Lemieux is quoted as follows: "There is one, sole Qu?b?cois culture, which is the culture of all Quebecers who live on Quebec territory, to which everyone brings their contribution". Lemieux is insisting that cultural minorities not wear their traditional clothing if they wish to join in the formal part of the parade.

{60} P. Gagnon, "Nationalistes ou ?galitairistes?", Le Devoir, February 21, 1995, at A8. Unofficial English translation: "The Québec nationalists' undoutedly count on making proof of their generosity towards minorities by committing themselves, among other things, to maintaining a Charter of rights of Québec, but it is the principle of homogeneity, not that of diversity, which seems to support the foundations of sovereignty." [Emphasis added.]

{61} D. Truong, "D?sillusion, quand tu nous tiens", Le Devoir, March 17, 1995, at A11. Unofficial English translation: "Remarks subtlely xenophobic, giggles in face of fears, intolerance and ethnocentrism, the youth, so-called pure-stock Quebecers, who spoke only of assimilation, negation of cultural differences and linguistic monolithism. I felt like fleeing this crowd with its ornate blinkers."

{62} It is said that, generally speaking, nationalism is like an empty shell that is capable of receiving the contents of diverse ideologies, whether they be liberalism, fascism or socialism: see L. Balthazar, "Les nombreux visages du nationalisme au Québec" in A.-G. Gagnon, Québec: ?tat et soci?t?, note 39, supra, at 24. On this point, Balthazar cites L. Dion, Nationalisme et politique au Québec (Montreal: Hurtubise HMH, 1975).

{63} A. Norris, "600,000 Quebecers have ethnic roots", The Gazette, Montreal, April 1, 1995, B1 at B2. See also M. Lagu?, "Une mesquinerie assez exceptionnelle du PQ", La Presse, August 26, 1995, at B3, where it is said that the Québec nationalism expounded by the PQ government is an ethnic nationalism.

{64} T. Franck, R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M. Shaw, & C. Tomuschat, "L'int?grit? territoriale du Québec dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession ? la souverainet?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain, note 1662, 15, supra, vol. 1, 377.

{65} See, for example, J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Québec (Montr?al: Les Presses de l'Universit? de Montr?al, 1976), at 182, where it is suggested that the best position to take is that the French-Canadian nation as a whole should exercise the right to self-determination. Brossard is cited by the five experts on this point.

{66} T. Franck, R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M. Shaw, & C. Tomuschat, "L'int?grit? territoriale du Québec dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession ? la souverainet?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain, note 1662, 15, supra, vol. 1, at 418. Unofficial English translation: "...right of the Québec people (or of French Canadians ? the distinction remains often unsettled or confusing)..." [Emphasis added.]

{67} L. Dion, Le Duel constitutionnel Québec-Canada (Montr?al: Les ?ditions du Bor?al, 1995), at 350. Unofficial English translation: "French Canadians form a nation. But Quebecers do not form a nation. They are all members of the Canadian political community, foundation of the Canadian political system."

{68} J. Brossard, Souverainet? [:] 5 r?ponses politiques aux inquiets (Ottawa: Lem?ac ?diteur, 1995), at 29.

{69} Id. at 30. Unofficial English translation: "In pure theory, this right reverts to Franco-Quebecers; in practice, it is obvious that all citizens of Québec can participate in it."

{70} Unofficial English translation: "old-stock Quebecers".

{71} P. April, "Un d?put? du Bloc veut exclure les ethnies du d?bat r?f?rendaire", La Presse, February 27, 1995, at A1; "Ethnic Quebecers shouldn't vote: MP", The Gazette, Montreal, February 27, 1995, at A4. Bloc MP Phillippe Par?, who made the suggestion during the regional commissions on the future of Québec, was forced to recant his statement the next day after being reprimanded by BQ leader Lucien Bouchard.

{72} For a reply to Raymond L?vesque, see Y. Assogba, "Une apartheid r?f?rendaire", Le Devoir, March 30, 1995, at A7.

{73} "Hate-mongering won't help Yes side", The Gazette (editorial), Montreal, March 1, 1995, at B2.

{74} J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Québec, note 65, 1662, supra, at 185, 362. The same point is retained in the latest edition of this book: see J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Québec, 2nd ed. (Montr?al: Les Presses de l'Universit? de Montr?al, 1995) (Supplement by D. Turp), at 185, 362.

{75} See "Sovereignty train runs low on steam", The Gazette (editorial), Montreal, March 7, 1995, at B2, where it is said that, in relation to the comments of BQ MP Philippe Par?, "Mr. Parizeau has been very reluctant to distance himself from such views."

{76} As recent as January 1993, PQ leader Parizeau caused significant controversy by suggesting that "Qu?b?cois" referred to francophones "de souche" (old stock). See L. Gagnon, "Gaffe ou glissement", La Presse, January 28, 1993, at B3; D. Lessard, "Le PQ se passera des allophones pour r?aliser la souverainet?", La Presse, January 24, 1993, at A1; "The PQ's new negative strategy", The Gazette (editorial), Montreal, January 19, 1993, at B2; D. Macpherson, "So, Mr. Parizeau, just who is a Qu?b?cois?", The Gazette, Montreal, January 23, 1993, at B5.

{77} L. Bouchard, (ed.), Un nouveau parti pour l'?tape d?cisive (Québec: Fides, 1993), at 55.

{78} Id. at 101. Unofficial English translation: "one people, one history, one territory."

{79} J. Parizeau, "The Case for a Sovereign Quebec", Foreign Policy, Summer 1995, No. 99, at 69.

{80} Id. at 75.

{81} In the Foreign Policy article referred to in the previous footnote, Premier Parizeau claims there are only two nations in Canada, in attempting to develop his theory that there were only two founding nations (French and English) in 1867 when Canada was created. Later, in the same article, when Parizeau seeks to assuage the international community that Aboriginal peoples will be treated well by an independent Québec, he then refers to Aboriginal peoples as the "11 native nations of Quebec", while never referring to them as "peoples"

{82} Parti Qu?b?cois, Programme du Parti Qu?b?cois [:] Des id?es pour mon pays (Montr?al: Parti Qu?b?cois, 1994), at 1. Unoffical English translation: "Canadians of the XVIIth century, French Canadians of the XIXth century and now Qu?b?cois, rarely have one seen a people search so long for its identity and, yet, assume its essence with such persistence. [new para.] This people is born in America and claims to be of America. It has always been of the French language and has constantly wished to reinforce the base of its culture and the foundation of its solidarity. Francophones of America, it is in this way that Quebecers wish today to register on the list of peoples who shape the global civilization." [Emphasis added.]

{83} Id. at 4. Unofficial English translation: "It is perhaps only the government of Québec, the only one that is legitimate in the eyes of Quebecers."

{84} Id. at 155. Unofficial English translation: "Without the French language, the Québec nation would no longer exist."

{85} First and foremost, Aboriginal peoples emphasize their own governments and languages in the ongoing development of their communities and societies. Moreover, most Aboriginal peoples view their historical relationship with the federal Crown as most important and not their relationship with provinces.

{86} M. Thibodeau, The Legality of an Independent Quebec: Canadian Constitutional Law and Self-Determination in International Law, [1979] 3 Boston Col. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 99 at 138.

{87} Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, L'accession ? la souverainet? [:] le processus (Québec: Quebec National Assembly, 1991) at 5. Unofficial English translation: "...the line of demarcation between a people, an important minority which possesses historic rights as the anglophone community of Québec, and the Aboriginal nations who claim a new broadening of the right to self-determination, is not easy to determine with precision." [Emphasis added.]

{88} Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, February 11, 1992, at CEAS-817 (G. Picard). Official English version: "It is not clear to us whom the term "Quebecers" refers...Are French Quebecers and First Nations within Quebec part of a single people? If this is your view, it is contrary to our right to self-determination and self-identification." [Emphasis added.]

Such questions caused an uproar in Québec since they were erroneously interpreted as denying that Quebecers were a people. See, for example, M. Venne, "Ovide Mercredi nie l'existence du peuple qu?b?cois", Le Devoir, February 12, 1992, at A2; D. Lessard, "Pour Ovide Mercredi, il n'y a pas de peuple qu?b?cois", La Presse, February 12, 1992, at A1. However, the Assembly of First Nations National Chief (Ovide Mercredi) and the Vice-Chief (Ghislain Picard) were not denying the existence of the Québec people, but emphasizing that Aboriginal peoples could not be included against their will in such a definition. Further, when it was said that French Canadians, centred in Québec, may have a right to self-determination, the Aboriginal leaders were only basing their comments on a major thesis on the subject prepared by J. Brossard, a Qu?b?c jurist who favours Québec sovereignty. That the National Chief did not abuse the legal position put forward by Brossard was acknowledged in M. Adam, "Quand Ovide Mercredi invoque la caution d'un juriste souverainiste", La Presse, February 22, 1992, at B2, but misinterpretations of Mercredi's comments continue to the present day.

See also the testimony of J.-J. Simard in Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, February 11, 1992, at CEAS-863, where it is said that, for Aboriginal peoples as for French Quebecers, the standard of self-determination is carried by an ethnic group. Although Simard's testimony came on the same day as the Aboriginal leaders, his references to "French Canadians of Québec (CEAS-852) and "French Quebecers" in the context of self-determination did not attract any attention.

{89} S. Scott, "Autod?termination, s?cession, division, l?galit?: observations" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Québec souverain (Québec: Biblioth?que nationale du Québec, 1992), Expos?s et ?tudes, vol. 1, 463, at 470. Unofficial English translation: "If there is a Québec people, defined by its ties of language, culture and history, there are other peoples defined in the same manner: particularly Aboriginal peoples and the anglophone community."

{90} G. Lefebvre & P. Gaboury, Pour un Québec qui se cherche (Ayer's Cliff, Québec: L'Agora, 1994), at 68. Unofficial English translation: "The Québec people of the French language have a history, a language, a culture, an economy, but it is not the only people, the only nation inhabiting the territory of Québec. The existence of the Cree, Iroquois, Attikamekw, Montagnais, Micmaq, Huron nations, to name only those, reminds us of this."

{91} See also P. Bourgault, "Canadians for an independent Quebec", Globe and Mail, December 2, 1994, at A21: "...the vast majority of Quebecers have always believed and still believe, that there is a French nation in Canada and that this nation has the right to self-determination even it chooses not to exercise it."

{92} L. Gagnon, "D?bat: les mots taboos", La Presse, September 13, 1994, at B3. Unofficial English translation: "What is at the base of the independence movement, is the existence of a French Canadian nation concentrated in Québec ? the nation being defined as a collectivity having in common a history, a territory and a will to live together."

{93} Id. Unofficial English translation: "The reasoning is politically correct', better adapted to a period where one distrusts nationalisms and ethnocentrism, but it does not correspond to the reality. Québec institutions are not at this point different from those of other provinces..." [Emphasis added.] Gagnon goes on to state that the specificity of Québec remains its French language and history and, despite the arguments of sovereignists to the contrary, "nation" continues to refer to the French-Canadian nation.

The nationalism of the the PQ and other separatists is viewed as ethnocentric by various commentators: see, for example, M. Adam, "Le PQ est pi?g? par sa vielle r?putation de parti ethnocentrique", La Presse, February 6, 1993, at B2; "Generosity isn't everything [:] PQ still does not grasp what bothers minorities", The Gazette (editorial), Montreal, February 6, 1993, at B4; W. Johnson, "A chant that chills [:] Evidence shows Quebec nationalism is ethnically based", The Gazette, Montreal, July 30, 1994, at B5; Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, The status and rights of the James Bay Crees in the context of Quebec secession from Canada, Speaking Notes, Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, September 19, 1994, (on file with the Grand Council of the Crees).

{94} Committee to Examine Matters Relating to the Accession of Québec to Sovereignty, Draft Report, note 8, 1662, supra, at 10.

{95} In the same paragraph, at 10, of the Draft Report, it is said: "Quebecers form a modern, multi-ethnic community, based on acceptance of shared values, a common language of communication and participation in the life of the community." [Emphasis added.]Such a description cannot be said to include Aboriginal peoples in Québec, who have their own distinct values and languages and who are often excluded from meaningful participation in Québec society.

{96} See also D. Lenihan, G. Robertson & R. Tass?, Canada: Reclaiming the Middle Ground (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1994), at 124, n. 14, where the authors refute the idea that to be a member of the Québec "nation", one need only reside in Québec. Rather, the authors underline that "language is central to all nationalists' vision of Quebec as a society and of Quebecers as a nation."

{97} See, for example, R. Iglar, The Constitutional Crisis in Yugoslavia and the International Law of Self-Determination: Slovenia's and Croatia's Right to Secede, (1992) 15 Boston Coll. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 213 at 214: "International law defines "peoples" subjectively, by focussing on the will of group." [Emphasis added.] At 225: "Only a group meeting certain subjective and objective criteria can invoke a legitimate claim of self-determination. The subjective standard requires individuals to manifest a desire to form a distinct political entity." See also Nguyen Quoc Dinh, P. Daillier, & A. Pellet, Droit international public, 5th ed. (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1994), at 401, where the authors describe the subjective notion of a "nation" or "people" as composed of individuals who possess the will to live together.

{98} J.-P. Derriennic, Nationalisme et D?mocratie [:] R?flexion sur les illusions des ind?pendantistes qu?b?cois, note 39, 1662, supra, at 74. Unofficial English translation: "It would be totally paradoxical that the right of one group to change its political status entails the right for them to impose on others a change that the latter do not want."

{99} A. Riga, "Groups blast PQ flier for attitude on ethnics", The Gazette, Montreal, April 13, 1995, at A9. Although the Minister responsible for distribution of the pamphlet has condemned the controversial paragraph, the ambivalent attraction within the PQ towards a narrow and defensive nationalism has been criticized in A. Gruda, "Liasons dangereuses", La Presse, April 15, 1995, at B2.

{100} See S. Dion, "L'autonomie du Québec est consid?rable", La Presse, March 3, 1995, at A9, where it is pointed out that Quebecers as a "people" is not recognized as such under Canada's Constitution. However, he adds that the French language is constitutionally recognized and so is Québec as a province, which has a considerable margin to manoeuver to express its specificity.

{101} Assembl?e Nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, 9 Oct. 1991, No. 5, at CEAS-136. Unofficial English translation: "A people would be a people if there are several common characteristics such as the same language, the same culture, the same religious and cultural traditions and the rest; an objective conception, but a conception that was retained above all to define the nation rather than the people. The notion of people is perhaps more defined in the doctrine by subjectivity. To be a people, is to have, it is true common characteristics, but it is also a willingness to live together, to have a common will to live together. And this, this could have nothing to do with the fact of speaking the same language or having the same religion." [Emphasis added.] See also J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Québec, note 65, 1662, supra, at 180, where the author states that nationals in Québec (who are not French-Canadian) could perhaps exclude themselves from being included in the notion of a "Québec people".

{102} D. Makinson, "Rights of Peoples: Point of View of a Logician" in J. Crawford, (ed.), The Rights of Peoples (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) 69 at 73.

{103} Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, February 4, 1992, No. 24, at CEAS-705 (R. Falk).

{104} Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada ("Molgat-MacGuigan Committee"), Final Report (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1972) at 13.

{105} J. Woehrling, "L'?volution et le r?am?nagement des rapports entre le Québec et le Canada anglais" in J.-Y. Morin & J. Woehrling, Demain, le Québec...[:] Choix politiques et constitutionnels d'un pays en devenir, note 19, 1662, supra, at 126.

{106} Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res. 2625 (XXV), 25 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No. 28) 121, U.N. Doc. A/8028 (1971). Reprinted in (1970) 9 I.L.M. 1292.

{107} Id. at 127. The same conclusion is reached in J. Woehrling, "Les aspects juridiques et politiques d'une ?ventuelle accession du Québec ? la souverainet?" in Choix [:] s?rie Québec-Canada, L'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?: aspects juridiques" (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, June 1995), vol. 1, no. 12, 25 at 32.

{108} Id. at 127-128.

{109} See also E.J. Arnett, "The law is on Canada's side, not the separatists'", Globe and Mail, January 3, 1995, at A17, where it is emphasized that the federal government has "a constitutional duty to defend the territorial integrity of Canada."

{110} G. Craven, Of Federalism, Secession, Canada and Quebec, (1991) 14 Dalhousie L.J. 231 at 251. For a similar view, see G. Marchildon & E. Maxwell, Quebec's Right of Secession Under Canadian and International Law, [1992] 32 Virginia J. Int'l L. 583 at 615-616.

{111} Id. See also G. Marchildon & E. Maxwell, Quebec's Right of Secession Under Canadian and International Law, note 110, 1662, supra, at 615: "...a major political restructuring of Canada would be required when one considers that after secession fully half of the Canadian population would be located in one province, Ontario. This would only serve to aggravate the western provinces' traditional suspicion of the concentration of power in central Canada"; and G. Gibson, Plan B: The Future of the Rest of Canada (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 1994) at 164.

{112} G. Marchildon & E. Maxwell, Quebec's Right of Secession Under Canadian and International Law, note 110, 1662, supra, at 616. See also J. Simpson, "It is Folly to Expect French-language Rights in a Canada without Quebec", Globe and Mail, February 1, 1991, at A12.

{113} See, for example, G. Gibson, Plan B: The Future of the Rest of Canada (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 1994) at 164, where the author suggests that British Columbia might be one of the first provinces to secede from Canada following a secession by Québec.

{114} Id. at 250. See also N. Webster, "Rest of Canada would splinter if Quebec separated", The Gazette, Montreal, January 28, 1995, at B5; and P. Monahan, Cooler Heads Shall Prevail: Assessing the Costs and Consequences of Quebec Separation (Toronto: C.D. Howe Institute, 1995), at 34, n. 52: "Unless Canada were itself to disintegrate, in which case all of the provinces would find themselves separating from Canada. Although such disintegration is a live possibility, it would occur only following Quebec's exit."

{115} G.H. Hackworth, Digest of International Law (Washington: Gov't Printing Office, 1940), vol. 1, at 424.

{116} J.-J. Rousseau, Political Writings (Vaughan ed., 1915), at 340-341, cited in E. Suzuki, Self-Determination and World Public Order: Community Response to Territorial Separation, (1976) 16 Va. J. Int'l L. 779 at 828.

{117} A. Rosas, "Internal Self-Determination" in C. Tomuschat, (ed.), Modern Law of Self-Determination, note 23, 1662, supra, at 231.

{118} J.-R. Sansfa?on, "Autochtones: Québec prend les devants", Le Devoir, November 1, 1994, at A6. Unofficial English translation: "It is important to remember, Aboriginal peoples are not Canadians or Quebecers, like others. Their status of first inhabitants of this country confers today more than ever rights which only the negotiation of a new covenant of coexistence will be able to redefine."

{119} Assembl?e Nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, 9 Oct. 1991, No. 5, at CEAS-136 ? CEAS-137. Unofficial English translation: "In the Constitution Act, 1982, one speaks of Aboriginal peoples. We must ask them how they wish to be identified. It is their business, it is their right to self-determination that comes into play here." [Emphasis added.]

{120} Testimony of D. Turp, in "Extraits de t?moinages pr?sent?s devant la Commission B?langer-Campeau et le Comit? Beaudoin-Edwards (text prepared by Yves Le Bouthillier and Richard Goulet) in Canadian Council on International Law, Bulletin, vol. 16, no. 1, August 16, 1991, at 12. Unofficial English translation: "I think that we must as a people accept that other peoples, even if they are on a territory that is the same as the one Québec and its goverment exercises effective jurisdiction, that other peoples express their right to self-determination and determine which are the jurisdictions that they wish to exercise on the territory that is theirs, well before it had been that of the Québec people, and that a negotiation in good faith take place between the Québec people and the Aboriginal peoples." [Emphasis added.]

{121} Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, I.L.O. Convention No. 169, I.L.O., 76th Sess., reprinted in (1989) 28 I.L.M. 1382.

{122} Id., art. 1, para. 2.

{123} United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in E.-I. Daes, Chairperson/Rapporteur, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIGENOUS PEOPLES [:] Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations on its eleventh session, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/29, 23 August 1993, 50 (Annex I).

{124} Id., art. 8.

{125} Report of the Meeting of Experts to Review the Experience of Countries in the Operation of Schemes of Internal Self-government for Indigenous Peoples, U.N. ESCOR, Comm'n on Hum. Rts., 48th Sess., U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1992/42 and Add.1 (1992) (Nuuk Meeting), at 11, para. 54. See also B. Kingsbury, Whose International Law? Sovereignty and Non-State Groups, [1994] Am. Soc. Int'l L. Proc. 1 at 3: "Features often associated with indigenous peoples' include self-definition, common ethnicity, non-dominance in the state, existence in the territory or region prior to more recent arrivals who have become dominant, and particularly close connections with land." [Empasis added.]

{126} Report of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: General Recommendation VIII, U.N. GAOR, 45th Sess., Supp. No. 18, at 79, U.N. Doc. A/45/18 (1990).

{127} E.-I. Daes, Explanatory note concerning the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/26/Add.1, at 2, para. 7.

{128} W. Wilson, "Message from President Wilson to Russia on the Occasion of the Visit of the American Mission (June 9, 1917)", reprinted in J.B. Scott, (ed.), Official Statements of War Aims and Peace Proposals, December 1916 to November 1918 (1921), at 105.

{129} E.J. Hobsbawn, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) at 19.