The Grand Council of the Crees

Section 7, Sovereign Injustice - Grand Council of the Crees

7. Analysis of Five-expert Study Commissioned by Qu?bec National Assembly

Posted: 0000-00-00

As already indicated in various parts of the present Study, a study {809} was commissioned from five internationally renowned experts by the Québec National Assembly's Committee on Sovereignty in 1992. It is important to begin a review of this study by examining the two questions that were posed by the National Assembly {810} to the five experts concerned. The two questions read as follows:

"1. Dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, les fronti?res du Québec souverains seraient-elles les fronti?res actuelles, qui comprendraient les territoires attribu?s au Québec par les lois f?d?rales de 1898 et de 1912, ou celles de la province de Québec au moment de la formation de la f?d?ration canadienne en 1867?

2. Dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, le droit international ferait-il pr?valoir le principe de l'int?grit? territoriale (ou uti possidetis) sur les revendications visant ? d?membrer le territoire du Québec, plus particuli?rement

a) les revendications des autochtones du Québec qui invoquent le droit ? l'autod?termination des peuples au sens du droit international;

b) les revendications de la minorit? anglophone, notamment en ce qui concerne les r?gions du Québec o? cette minorit? est concentr?e;

c) les revendications des personnes r?sidant dans certaines r?gions frontali?res du Québec, quelle que soit l'origine de ces personnes." {811} [Emphasis added.]

To these questions, the group of experts submitted the following answers:

Question no. 1

"Dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?, les fronti?res du Québec souverain seraient les fronti?res actuelles et comprendraient les territoires attribu?s au Québec par les lois f?d?rales de 1898 et 1912, sauf accord en sens contraire de la province avant l'ind?pendance ou entre les deux ?tats apr?s celle-ci."
[Emphasis added.]

Question no. 2

"Dans la m?me hypoth?se, le principe de la continuit? juridique (absence de vacuum juris) conduit ? faire pr?valoir l'int?grit? territoriale du Québec, garantie tant par le droit constitutionnel canadien que par le droit international public, sur les revendications visant ? d?membrer le territoire du Québec que celles-ci ?manent

- des autochtones du Québec, qui ont tous les droits appartenant aux minorit?s auxquels s'ajoutent ceux reconnus aux peuples autochtones par le droit international contemporain, sans qu'il en r?sulte un quelconque droit de s?cession,

- de la minorit? anglophone pour laquelle la protection offerte par le droit international n'a aucun effet territorial, ou

- des personnes r?sidant dans certaines r?gions frontali?res du Québec, qui, en tant que telles, ne b?n?ficient d'aucune protection particuli?re au regard du droit international.

Ces conclusions sont renforc?es par l'applicabilit? du principe de la succesion aux limites territoriales existantes au moment d'accession ? l'ind?pendance." {812}
[Emphasis added.]

What is most significant and relevant in each of the two questions, as well as in each of the answers, by the five experts is the qualifying nature of the opening phrase "Dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession du Québec ? la souverainet?". This raises the critical question as to what is the moment to which the experts are referring: i) the moment when Québec makes a unilateral declaration of independence; or ii) the moment when a new Québec state achieves effective control of its claimed territory and gains international recognition from other states.

In regard to the key phrase "accession du Québec ? la souverainet?", there is no doubt that the five experts are referring to the moment that a new Québec state achieves effective control. As they declare in the study:

"On ne pourrait admettre que le Québec a acced? ? l'ind?pendance qu'en cas d'exclusion du contr?le des autorit?s canadiennes sur le territoire qu?b?cois; un simple renforcement des comp?tences provinciales n'aurait pas cet effet."{813}

Also, in the conclusions of the 5-expert study, it is clear that the five experts consider that in a non- colonial situation, such as Québec, accession to external sovereignty only occurs when the new state has achieved effective control and international recognition in this regard:

"D?s lors, dans une situation non coloniale, l'accession ? la souverainet? d'un territoire est une simple question de fait au regard du droit international: le nouvel ?tat est consid?r? comme tel si son existence est effective. La reconnaissance par les ?tats tiers (et par l'?tat dont le territoire concern? s'est d?tach?) constitue un test de cette effectivit?." {814} [Emphasis added.]

In other words, the conclusions of the study ? in regard to a sovereign Québec's borders being protected under international law ? would only become relevant from the time that Québec had successfully acceded to sovereignty (i.e. l'accession ? la souverainet?). {815} That is, international law principles concerning non-intervention by other states and intangibility of borders would only apply once a secessionist Québec state had demonstrated effective control and had gained international recognition. Prior to such time, these international law principles would not be applied simply because Québec chose to unilaterally declare its independence.

This view is confirmed in a separate international law text co-authored by A. Pellet (who is also the principal author {816} of the 5-expert study referred to above):

"La s?cession est un fait politique et le droit international se contente d'en tirer les cons?quences lorsqu'elle aboutit ? la mise en place d'autorit?s ?tatiques effectives et stables..." {817}
[Emphasis added.]

From the time of a unilateral declaration of independence by Québec until such time that Québec actually achieves effective control of its territory (if such time occurs), it cannot be said that Québec's present borders would be in any sense of the term legally intact. {818} This conclusion is reinforced by the five experts' explicit statements to the effect that Aboriginal peoples have access to the international law principles of effective control on the same terms as Québec:

"Certes, si un ou plusieurs peoples autochtones en venaient ? imposer l'existence effective d'un ?tat dans un cadre territorial d?termin? au d?triment du Canada (ou du Québec, si celui-ci acc?de ? l'ind?pendance), cet ?tat pourrait acqu?rir une existence juridique. Mais il tiendrait son existence de son effectivit?, renforc?, le cas ?ch?ant, par les reconnaissances dont il b?n?ficierait, mais non d'un droit pr?existant appartenant au(x) peuple(s) consid?r?(s). Le probl?me se poserait alors, au plan des principes, dans les m?mes termes que pour le Québec lui-m?me...mais pourrait ?tre compliqu?, concr?tement, par la difficult? de d?terminer pr?cis?ment les limites des territoires autochtones." {819} [Emphasis added.]

As J.-P. Derriennic underlines:

"Les cinq experts traitent exactement de la m?me fa?on la revendication s?paratiste qu?b?coise et les revendications du m?me type qui pourraient s'?lever contre le Québec; sym?trie que les dirigeants ind?pendantistes refusent avec acharnement." {820}

In regard to effectiveness, Aboriginal peoples in Québec are not in any way required to establish a new state. Rather, they can fully maintain their relationship and association with the existing Canadian state and, through peaceful measures, deny "effective control" to any secessionist forces. In fact, access to the revolutionary doctrine of effectiveness is available to any people or group in the province of Québec that chooses to oppose the illegal attempt by the PQ government to secede from Canada. {821}

It is this uncertain and unstable period, during which the battle for effective control is likely to occur, that is being seriously underestimated or deliberately played down by the current separatist government in Québec. For example, D. Cliche, special advisor to Premier Parizeau on Aboriginal affairs, neatly ignores the indeterminate period after a UDI ? when the PQ government would attempt to secure effective control. Instead, Cliche simply speaks of the period following international recognition and how it will enable a sovereign Québec to deny the James Bay Crees any right to choose to remain in Canada:

"Tous les avis l?gaux que nous avons..., disent que si le Québec devient souverain et qu'il est reconnu comme tel par ses pairs, le territoire du Québec souverain sera celui que nous connaissons actuellement comme ?tant celui de la province de Québec". {822} [Emphasis added.]

Yet, it is precisely this precarious strategy of effective control and the uncertainty that it entails that needs comprehensive discussion, prior to the referendum on secession in Québec. Further, it is during this critical period of unpredictable duration that Québec's current borders are likely to be vulnerable or unprotected, as a result of a unilateral declaration of independence, under both international law and Canadian constitutional law. {823}

Generally, R. Falk (Princeton University) indicates that the law is not as clear as the five-expert study would suggest:

"...if it purports, as does seem to be the case throughout its analysis of the issues, that the law is autonomous and clear ? without taking into account the alterative lines of interpretation being posited by diverse, often antagonistic, political and moral perspectives ? then it is quite misleading." {824}

More specifically, Falk also suggests that any analysis based on the presumption that accession to sovereignty by Québec is already established must be treated with caution:

"If accession to sovereignty by Quebec is taken as already established, then the assertion by Aboriginal peoples of a right to remain part of Canada would have the legal appearance of challenging the territorial unity of the new state of Quebec. Such a mode of analysis seems highly artificial, given the unresolved character of the underlying separatist claims and the claim of a right to participate in whatever process is established to resolve the future status of Quebec and its relationship to Canada. {825} [Emphasis added.]

There are other important aspects covered by the five-expert study that merit at least some brief mention. These include the following:

i) Aboriginal peoples are more than "minorities". The 5-expert study indicates that constitutional protection for linguistic minorities in Canada are devoid of any territorial implications. However, the five experts confirm that the same is not the case for the rights of Aboriginal peoples. {826} Rather, it is said that they possess aboriginal rights of a territorial nature and the importance of their relationship with their lands is emphasized, especially the spiritual dimensions. {827}

ii) Aboriginal peoples are "peoples" with the right to self-determination. {828} The same conclusion has been reached in the present Study by the James Bay Crees. This finding by the five experts serves to directly contradict the positions being taken by Parti Qu?b?cois and Bloc Qu?b?cois leaders in regard to Aboriginal peoples. These aspects are discussed in detail elsewhere in the present Study, {829} so they will not be repeated here.

iii) Aboriginal peoples are not colonized {830} and have no right to independence. {831} As elaborated below, this conclusion by the five experts is unsubstantiated and cannot be accepted as valid. In any event, as the present Study by the James Bay Crees underlines, Aboriginal peoples in Québec are not looking to secede from Canada. {832}

The basis for the five experts reaching the conclusion that Aboriginal peoples have no right to independence is that Aboriginal peoples are not colonized peoples (at least in the manner recognized by the United Nations General Assembly). With respect, such a determination cannot be so easily made without a closer examination of the historic and current circumstances of Aboriginal peoples. {833} As described in another portion of the present Study, {834} Aboriginal peoples have experienced both internal and external forms of colonialism. Also R. Falk confirms, Aboriginal peoples may well have external rights to self- determination based on the "extreme forms of colonization" that have been inflicted on them:

"...the report assumes, without demonstrating, that Aboriginal peoples are not appropriately entitled to claim rights as a species of colonial'. The legal literature on the subject suggests a growing disposition to view Aboriginal peoples as victimized by extreme forms of colonization and thus entitled, even at this late stage, to act upon such identity and whatever legal rights it implies." {835} [Emphasis added.]

Since the establishment of an independent state is not the objective of Aboriginal peoples in Québec, this aspect will not be further discussed here. However, the James Bay Crees and most probably other Aboriginal peoples would reserve their respective right to secede, should they be denied their own right to self-determination and forcibly included in an independent Québec state.

iv) Secession v. right to choose other options. The five-expert study focusses too much on whether Aboriginal peoples in Québec have a right to secede and not on whether they have a right to choose to remain in Canada. As R. Falk concludes, "[t]his puts the whole matter of self-determination as it relates to Quebec in a quite misleading light." {836} Falk adds:

"The central claim of Aboriginal peoples is not secession, however, but their right to avoid any change of circumstances that is perceived to be harmful to their existing arrangements and future prospects; if any change is contemplated, the further related right claimed is the right to full consultation and participation, on the basis of parity with representatives of Quebec, not just as a formality or an afterthought designed merely to work out an arrangement that approaches Quebec's separation as a fait accompli." {837} [Emphasis added.]

In other words, a more pressing question to address in the context of Québec secession concerns whether Aboriginal peoples have the right to self-determination, including the right to their own identity as distinct peoples, the right to hold their own referendums, and the right to choose to remain in Canada. {838} The present Study concludes that Aboriginal peoples have these rights.

v) Territorial rights of Aboriginal peoples are not "sovereign". With respect, this conclusion in the five-expert study cannot be viewed as determinative. The five experts refer in their study to sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Royal Proclamation of 1763, in determining that the territorial rights of Aboriginal peoples are not "sovereign" in nature under Canada's Constitution. {839} At the same time, the experts explicitly highlight the fact that they have neither the mandate nor the competence to analyse in detail the exact meaning of constitutional provisions pertaining to Aboriginal peoples. {840}

As the present Study indicates, {841} an increasing number of jurists, as well as the Canadian government and studies of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, are of the opinion that Aboriginal peoples in Canada have the inherent right to self-government. In this regard, it is said that this right has not been extinguished and is constitutionally protected under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. {842} In such case, aboriginal and treaty rights to self- government constitute a sphere of "sovereign" rights under Canada's Constitution. Not only did all federal and provincial governments agree, in the now-defunct Charlottetown Accord, {843} to constitutionally and explicitly recognize the inherent right of self-government of Aboriginal peoples, but also some recognition of the constitutional nature of Aboriginal governmental powers under JBNQA is beginning to emanate from the courts. {844} In regard to Eastmain Band v. Gilpin, {845} H. Brun & G. Tremblay comment as follows:

"Dans cette affaire, il fut jug? que les pouvoirs reconnus au gouvernement local cri sont prot?g?s par l'article 35 de la Loi de 1982 et qu'ils donnent aux autochtones un statut particulier', une esp?ce de souverainet? r?siduaire'..." {846} [Emphasis added.]

As P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel indicate in regard to Aboriginal peoples, "a denial of de facto sovereignty is not automatically a loss of de jure sovereignty." {847} Further, they state that repudiated or condemned practices, such as assimilation {848} or colonialism, {849}"cannot be viewed as eliminating in a legal sense the sovereign status of Aboriginal peoples." {850}

The five experts' view of the Royal Proclamation as not indicative of any "sovereign" rights of Aboriginal peoples is also countered to some extent by the legal opinions of other commentators. The Proclamation is regarded by numerous jurists as a constitutional instrument. {851} Moreover, the Proclamation recognizes and safeguards the liberty and autonomy of Aboriginal peoples within their territories. This means that any rights of Aboriginal peoples to autonomy or self-government in the Proclamation would entail a "sovereign" sphere of influence within Canada's constitutional framework. As concluded in a discussion paper by Canada's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples:

"In summary, the Proclamation portrays Aboriginal nations as autonomous political units living under the Crown's protection, holding inherent authority over their internal affairs and the power to deal with the Crown by way of treaty and agreement. It views the links between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown as broadly confederal'." {852} [Emphasis added.]

vi) It is far from certain that failure to respect the condition in the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912 to recognize the rights of Aboriginal peoples would entail invalidity of the cession of those rights. {853} It is important to note here that, in analysing the 1912 Act, the five experts did not first consider the Imperial Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order, 1870. {854} Careful consideration of this Order is essential in assessing the existing constitutional obligations of Canada to Aboriginal peoples in northern Québec. With respect, an analysis that fails to take into account the 1870 Order, in regard to the vast regions of northern Québec, would be most incomplete and inconclusive. Most surprisingly, the list of constitutional documents furnished to the five experts by the Québec National Assembly (i.e. Secretariat of the Committees on Québec's constitutional and political future) failed to include the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order, 1870. {855}

In addition, the five-expert study does not mention that the constitutionality of the statutory delegation to Québec, in the Québec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, {856} to obtain surrenders of rights from Aboriginal peoples has been seriously questioned. {857} In particular, the constitutional responsibility of the Canadian government (not provincial governments) is explicitly stipulated, in regard to Aboriginal peoples, under the Rupert's Land and North- Western Territory Order. {858}

Although the five experts refer to the "cession" of rights by Crees and Inuit under the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement (JBNQA), {859} the authors make no mention that the James Bay Crees maintain that the "surrender and extinguishment" clauses were imposed on them, {860} in violation of the fiduciary and other duties of the governments of Québec and Canada. {861} That such unacceptable duress existed at the time of the JBNQA negotiations is confirmed by others who have assessed the issue in detail. {862} Nor is any mention made by the five experts of the unilateral extinguishment of the rights of Aborginal third parties {863} that were purportedly carried out in connection with the JBNQA. {864} Such extinguishments constitute a most serious violation of Aborginal peoples' collective and individual human rights. {865}

vii) Quebecers are not colonized {866} and cannot invoke the right to self-determination as a basis to secede from Canada. {867} In the view of the present Study, these conclusions by the five experts are fully accurate. Since it is discussed elsewhere in this Study {868} that Quebecers cannot rely on a right to self-determination to claim any right to secession, this aspect will not be reiterated here.

viii) After attaining independence through effective control, Québec could invoke the doctrine of uti possidetis to safeguard its borders as they exist at the moment of independence. {869} The five experts also conclude that the borders would be the same as those existing at the present time, since prior to independence they are protected by Canada's Constitution.{870}

However, after detailed analysis, the present Study respectfully reaches an opposite conclusion. {871} First, the notion of uti possidetis has important limitations, especially in a non- colonial context, and would not be readily applicable to the current Canada/Québec/Aboriginal situation. Second, as the experts acknowledge themselves, Aboriginal peoples have access to the doctrine of effective control on the same terms as Québec, {872} so the outcome of such a struggle and its consequences on Québec's boundaries cannot be pre-determined.

Third, the five experts never considered the possibility that, by proclaiming a UDI, Québec could be effectively renouncing to existing constitutional guarantees for its current borders as a province within Canada. {873} As this Study emphasizes, the borders of a secessionist Québec would not only be put at risk, but circumstances could necessitate their modification by the federal Parliament. {874}

ix) Few principles are as firmly established in international law as that of the territorial integrity of existing states. {875} In addition, there is some reference in the 5-expert study to the fact that, under international law, the principle of territorial integrity applies to prohibit other states from intervening and disrupting the territorial integrity of an existing state. In other words, it is suggested that the principle is not directed at peoples from within the existing state. {876} While it is true that existing international instruments expressly direct this prohibition towards other states, international "practice" has not permitted "internal" secessionist attempts save for exceptional circumstances. As M. Weller provides:

"...the reference to territorial integrity confirms an obligation directed at states, but not at peoples. It is an obligation of nonintervention, reinforced in Principle VI of the Final Act.

Nevertheless, in past practice, it had been felt convenient to claim that the principle of territorial integrity also precluded internal attempts at secession." {877}
[Emphasis added.]

x) Third party states reserve for themselves a right of control over secession, by means of the device of recognition. {878} In addition, the experts state that such international recognition will be refused to a new state whose existence is doubtful, or where its new status has been accompanied by the use of armed force. {879} Consistent with such statements, it would appear that any armed force against Aborginal peoples by a secessionist Québec would seriously detract from any possibility of obtaining recognition from the international community.

Based on the above, it would appear that overall the 5-expert study provides very little support to the PQ government's efforts to accede to an independent Québec state. In particular, the study confirms that Quebecers have no solid basis to secede under international law. While they do have access to the revolutionary notion of establishing "effective control" over the whole of the present territory of Québec,it is confirmed that the same access is available on the same terms to Aboriginal peoples in Québec.

Moreover, contrary to the separatist position, the study recognizes that Aboriginal peoples are "peoples" with the right to self-determination under international law. Although the authors feel that this does not confer a right of independence to Aboriginal peoples, {880} it must be reiterated here that secession from Canada is not what these peoples are seeking in the province of Québec.

Within the domestic context, the study appears to minimize if not misconstrue certain constitutional rights and obligations in favour of Aboriginal peoples. However, as the authors themselves readily concede, they do not have the mandate nor the competence to delve into such questions in any detail:

"Il n'entre ni dans notre mandat, ni dans notre comp?tence, d'analyser dans le d?tail la signification exacte de ces dispositions constitutionnelles, qui ont suscit? des controverses doctrinales abondantes et souvent fort subtiles." {881}

Further, as described above, the Secretariat of the two relevant committees in the Québec National Assembly failed to furnish the experts with all relevant constitutional instruments pertaining to northern Québec. Consequently, conclusions reached by the study in terms of the rights and obligations in favour of Aboriginal peoples under Canada's Constitution should be regarded as inconclusive. Moreover, to the extent that constitutional issues enter into the analysis of the international law position of a secessionist Québec or of Aboriginal peoples, the conclusions of the five-expert study are again inconclusive. This would appear to be the case, since there are competing rights of Aboriginal peoples that affect the analysis of Québec's position.

In addition, the five-expert study does not examine in any detail the critical period where a secessionist government in Québec would proclaim a UDI and seek to establish effective control over the claimed territory. By unilaterally declaring that all Canadian laws no longer apply, a secessionist Québec would in effect be renouncing to the protection of its provincial boundaries in the Constitution Act, 1871. This could have far-reaching consequences for all parties concerned.

Footnotes

{809} 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.

{810} Identical letters, dated March 4, 1992, were sent to the five experts by F. Geoffrion, Secr?taire des Commissions sur le processus de d?termination de l'avenir politique et constitutionnel du Québec, Assembl?e nationale du Québec. A copy of such letter is included in 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, Annexe I, at 447.

{811} Id. at 379. Unofficial English translation:

"1. Assuming the accession of Québec to sovereignty, would the borders of a sovereign Québec be the existing borders, which include the territories attributed to Québec by the 1898 and 1912 federal statutes, or those of the province of Québec at the time the Canadian federation was formed in 1867?
"2. Assuming the accession of Québec to sovereignty, would the principle of territorial integrity (or uti possidetis) prevail under international law over claims for the dismemberment of Québec territory, more specifically:
a) the claims of the Aboriginal peoples in Québec who invoke the right of self-determination of peoples as understood in international law;
b) the claims of the English-speaking minority, particularly concerning the areas in Québec where it is concentrated;
c) the claims of persons, regardless of their ethnic origins, living in certain border regions of Québec?" [Emphasis added.]

{812} Id. at 444-445. Unofficial English translation:

Question no. 1

"Assuming the accession of Québec to sovereignty, the borders of a sovereign Québec would be the current borders and would include the territories attributed to Québec by the 1898 and 1912 federal statutes, save for an agreement to the contrary by the province before independence, or between the two States after independence." [Emphasis added.]

Question no. 2

"Under the same assumption, the principle of legal continuity (absence of vacuum juris) supports the territorial integrity of Québec, which is guaranteed both by Canadian constitutional law and international public law, over claims for the dismemberment of Québec, whether emanating

- from the Aboriginal peoples of Québec, who have all the rights of minorities as well as those recognized by contemporary international law, without resulting in any right of secession,

- from the anglophone minority whose protection under international law has no territorial effect, or

- from persons living in certain border regions of Québec who, as such, enjoy no particular protection in regard to international law.

These conclusions are reinforced by the applicability of the principle of succession to existing territorial limits at the time of accession of independence." [Emphasis added.]

{813} Id., at 411. Unofficial English translation: "One could only admit that Québec acceded to independence in the case of exclusion of control of Canadian authorities on Québec territory; a simple reinforcement of provincial jurisdiction would not have this effect."

{814} Id., at 444. Unofficial English translation: "Therefore, in a non-colonial situation, the accession of sovereignty of a territory is a simple question of fact in regard to international law: the new State is considered as such if its existence is effective. The recognition by third party States (and by the State from which the territory concerned has been detached) constitutes a test of this effectivity." [Emphasis added.]

{815} In the initial plan of the study (para. 1.22), the 5 experts also make clear that the questions posed to them in the study are relevant only "after" accession to independence and that it is a matter of determining the role of international law "after" the event arises. See 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 385.

In regard to the question(s) posed to the five experts, by the National Assembly Committee on Sovereignty, see also M. Coon Come, Speaking Notes for Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, Canadian Bar Association, Toronto, Ontario, June 7, 1995 (on file with the Grand Council of the Crees), at 13: "This was actually a trick question. This question skips over a period of undetermined length between the time of a decision to separate and the point Quebec is recognized by the international community and actually becomes independent."

{816} 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 380, where it is said that A. Pellet drafted the study, in close cooperation with the four other signatories.

{817} Nguyen Quoc Dinh, P. Daillier, & A. Pellet, Droit international public, 5th ed. (Paris: L.G.D.J., 1994), at 501. Unofficial English translation: "Secession is a political fact and international law contents itself to draw consequences from it when it succeeds to put into place effective and stable state authorities..." [Emphasis added.]

{818} See also the detailed analysis of this question under heading 5 supra.

{819} 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 443. Unofficial English translation: "Certainly, if one or several Aboriginal peoples were to impose the effective existence of a State within a determined territorial framework to the detriment of Canada (or of Québec, if the latter acceded to independence), this State could acquire a legal existence. But it would hold its existence from its effectiveness, strengthened, as the case may be, by the recognitions from which it would benefit, but not from a pre- existing right belonging to the people(s) concerned. The problem thus would pose itself, at the level of principles, in the same terms as for Québec itself...but could be complicated, concretely, by the difficulty of determining precisely the limits of Aboriginal territories."

{820} J.-P. Derriennic, "Le droit international admet la s?cession, il ne la facilite pas" in Le Devoir, September 5, 1995, at A11. Unofficial English translation: "The five experts treat exactly in the same way the separatist qu?b?cois claim and the claims of the same type which could be raised against Québec; a symmetry which the independence leaders fiercely reject."

{821} See R. Macdonell, "Separation will lead to partition of Quebec, group warns", The Gazette, Montreal, February 24, 1995, at A5, where it is reported that persons and organizations testifying before the PQ government's regional commissions on Québec's future have indicated that "if Québec separates from Canada, large English-speaking areas of Montreal and Western Quebec will separate from Quebec."

{822} "Les autochtones feront partie d'un Québec souverain, quoi qu'il advienne", Le Devoir, September 22, 1995, at A4. Unofficial English translation: "All the legal opinions we have..., say that if Québec becomes sovereign and is recognized as such by its peers, the territory of a sovereign Québec will be the one that we know presently in the province of Québec."
[Emphasis added.] See also J. Gray, "Crees call PQ plan a fraud' on Canada's aboriginal people", Globe and Mail, September 22, 1995, at A4.

{823} This point has already been discussed in detail under sub-heading 5.1 supra and the reasons will not be repeated here.

{824} R. Falk, "The Relevance of the Right of Self-Determination of Peoples under International Law to Canada's Fiduciary Obligations to the Aboriginal Peoples of Quebec in the Context of Quebec's Possible Accession to Sovereignty", in Canada's Fiduciary Obligation to Aboriginal Peoples in the Context of Accession to Sovereignty by Quebec, note 216, supra, vol. 1, at 67.

{825} R. Falk, "The Relevance of the Right of Self-Determination of Peoples under International Law to Canada's Fiduciary Obligations to the Aboriginal Peoples of Quebec in the Context of Quebec's Possible Accession to Sovereignty", in Canada's Fiduciary Obligation to Aboriginal Peoples in the Context of Accession to Sovereignty by Quebec, note 216, supra, vol. 1, at 67-68.

{826} 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 389.

{827} Id. at 438.

{828} Id. at 441-442.

{829} See, in particular, the discussion under headings 1 and 2 supra.

{830} 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 422.

{831} Id. at 440, 443.

{832} See, for example, 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) at 13: "[The Crees] are not contemplating secession or insurrection. We have never and will never use violence. We ask ourselves however, in the face of the potential breakup of Canada: Who is it that is really threatening these things?" [Emphasis added.]

{833} For a discussion of Aboriginal peoples and colonialism, see for example P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel, Extinguishment of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples: Problems and Alternatives, note 190, 1662, supra, vol. 2, sub-heading 8.1.

{834} See discussion in text accompanying note 1312 infra.

{835} R. Falk, "The Relevance of the Right of Self-Determination of Peoples under International Law to Canada's Fiduciary Obligations to the Aboriginal Peoples of Quebec in the Context of Quebec's Possible Accession to Sovereignty", in Canada's Fiduciary Obligation to Aboriginal Peoples in the Context of Accession to Sovereignty by Quebec, note 216, supra, vol. 1, at 70.

{836} R. Falk, "The Relevance of the Right of Self-Determination of Peoples under International Law to Canada's Fiduciary Obligations to the Aboriginal Peoples of Quebec in the Context of Quebec's Possible Accession to Sovereignty", in Canada's Fiduciary Obligation to Aboriginal Peoples in the Context of Accession to Sovereignty by Quebec, note 216, supra, vol. 1, at 71.

{837} Id.

{838} The five experts confirm that the right to self-determination includes the right to one's own identity, the right to choose one's own future, and the right to participate in matters of governance within the state. See 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 424.

{839} 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 390-391.

{840} Id. at 390: "Il n'entre ni dans notre mandat, ni dans notre comp?tence, d'analyser dans le d?tail la signification exacte de ces dispositions constitutionnelles, qui ont suscit? des controverses doctrinales abondantes et souvent fort subtiles."

{841} See note 1112, infra.

{842} For a useful article on the implemention of Aboriginal self-government without any amendment of the Constitution of Canada, see P. Hogg & M.E. Turpel, Implementing Aboriginal Self-Government: Constitutional and Jurisdictional Issues, (1995) 74 Can. Bar Rev. 187.

{843} See Draft Legal Text, October 9, 1992, s. 35.1 (recognition of inherent right of self-government). For analyses of the Accord, see K. McRoberts & P. Monahan, (eds.), The Charlottetown Accord, the Referendum and the Future of Canada (Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1993); and A. Bissonnette, Analyse posthume d'un accord mis ? mort, (1993) 23 Recherches am?rindiennes au Québec 80.

{844} See A.-G. Canada v. Coon Come, [1991] R.J.Q. 922 (Que. C.A.) at 937: "Dans la conception qui para?t ressortir de l'arr?t Sparrow, la constitutionnalisation des droits autochtones dans l'article 35 introduirait une troisi?me composante dans le fonctionnement du f?d?ralisme canadien, qui devrait ?tre prise en compte dans la r?partition des pouvoirs entre les l?gislatures provinciales et le Parlement du Canada." [Emphasis added.] Unofficial English translation: "In the conception that seems to emanate from the Sparrow decision, the constitutionalization of aboriginal rights in section 35 introduced a third component in the functioning of Canadian federalism, which should be taken into account in the distribution of powers between provincial legislatures and the Parliament of Canada."

In addition, see Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1993] 5 W.W.R. 97 (B.C.C.A.), at 319, per Lambert J. (dissenting): "Existing aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title and aboriginal rights of self-government and self-regulation, are those that were not extinguished before 1982. Rights that were dormant, suspended, or regulated, but still in existence in 1982, together with those rights which were in full force and vigour in 1982, received the constitutional protection given by s. 35." [Emphasis added.]

{845} Eastmain Band v. Gilpin, [1987] R.J.Q. 1637 (C.S.P.).

{846} H. Brun & G. Tremblay, Droit constitutionnel, 2e ?d. (Cowansville, Québec: Les ?ditions Yvon Blais, 1990), at 147-148. Unofficial English translation: "In this case, it was judged that the recognized powers of the local Cree government are protected by section 35 of the 1982 Act and which gives to the Aboriginal peoples a particular status', a type of residual sovereignty'..." [Emphasis added.]

{847} P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel, Extinguishment of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples: Problems and Alternatives, note 190, 1662, supra, vol. 1, at 178.

{848} See, generally, A. Armitage, Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1995).

{849} In regard to the colonialism imposed on Aboriginal peoples in Canada, see generally R. Savard & J.-R. Proulx, Canada [:] derri?re l'?pop?e, les autochtones (Montr?al: L'hexagone, 1982). See also B. Petawabano et al., Mental Health and Aboriginal People of Quebec/La sant? mentale et les autochtones du Québec (Boucherville, Québec: Gaetan Morin ?diteur, 1994) (publication of le Comit? de la sant? mentale du Québec), at 107, where the impacts of colonization are described: "The mental health of aboriginals in Quebec and the well-being of their environment present a specific problem... [new para.] The central aspect of this problem is the state of religious, economic, social, cultural, and psychological colonization that aboriginals were locked into for more than a century, the impact of which is still being felt."

{850} P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel, Extinguishment of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples: Problems and Alternatives, note 190, 1662, supra, vol. 1, at 179.

{851} Id. at 74 et seq., where the authors provide an in-depth analysis of the constitutional status of the Proclamation and refer to a number of different jurists who view the Proclamation as a constitutional instrument.

{852} Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Partners in Confederation[:] Aboriginal Peoples, Self-Government, and the Constitution (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1993), at 17.

{853} 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 391.

{854} Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 9, confirmed as part of the Constitution of Canada in Item 3 of the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982.

{855} The official list of documents furnished by the National Assembly to the five experts is set out in 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 453 et seq., Annex III.

{856} Québec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, S.C. 1912, c. 45, ss. 2(c) & (d). These sections provide: "(c) That the province of Quebec will recognize the rights of the Indian inhabitants in the territory...to the same extent, and will obtain surrenders of such rights in the same manner, as the Government of Canada has heretofore recognized such rights and has obtained surrender thereof, and the province shall bear and satisfy all charges and expenditures in connection with or arising out of such surrenders"; and "(d) That no such surrender shall be made or obtained except with the approval of the Governor in Council". [Emphasis added.]

{857} The unconstitutionality of s. 2(c) of the boundaries legislation is discussed in detail in P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel, Extinguishment of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples: Problems and Alternatives, note 190, 1662, supra, vol. 1, at 257 et seq. See also H. Brun, "L'int?grit? territoriale d'un Québec souverain" in A.-G. Gagnon et F. Rocher, (ed.), R?pliques aux d?tracteurs de la souverainet? du Québec, note 210, supra, at 78; H. Brun, Le Territoire du Québec (Québec: Les Presses de l'universit? Laval, 1974), at 83 and 86, n. 197; W. Pentney, The Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada in the Constitution Act, 1982 Part II [-] Section 35: The Substantive Guarantee, (1988) 22 U.B.C. Law Rev. 207 at 242; and R. Pugh, Are Northern Lands Reserved for the Indians?, (1982) 62 Can. Bar Rev. 36 at 57-59. See also B. Slattery, Understanding Aboriginal Rights, (1987), 66 Can. Bar Rev. 727 at 763: "The Federal Crown has the exclusive power to negotiate land cession agreements with Indians under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867".

{858} See art. 14: "Any claims of Indians to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement shall be disposed of by the Canadian Government in communication with the Imperial Government; and the Company shall be relieved of any responsibility in respect of them." [Emphasis added.] Also, in art. 15 of the Order, it is specifically provided: "The Governor in Council is authorized and empowered to arrange any details that may be necessary to carry out the above terms and conditions."

{859} 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 392-393, 405.

{860} 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 96 et seq.; and Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), Presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Montreal, November 18, 1993, at 10.

{861} Grand Council of the Crees, Presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Montreal, May 28, 1993, at 41.

{862} See discussion in P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel, Extinguishment of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples: Problems and Alternatives, note 190, 1662, supra, vol. 3, at 612 et seq.

{863} See Assembl?e nationale, Journal des D?bats, Commissions parlementaires, Commission permanente des richesses naturelles et des terres et for?ts, Entente concernant les Cris et les Inuit de la Baie James, 3rd Sess., 30th Legisl., November 6, 1975, No. 176, at B-6069 (J.-Y. Morin, Leader of the Opposition) and Assembl?e nationale, Journal des D?bats, Commissions parlementaires, Commission permanente des richesses naturelles et des terres et for?ts, Entente concernant les Cris et les Inuit de la Baie James, 3rd Sess., 30th Legisl., November 7, 1975, No. 177, at B-6071 (J.-Y. Morin), where it is acknowledged that the Atikamekw, Montagnais and Algonquins are Aboriginal third parties (among others) with claims in the territory.

Similarly, in regard to the Naskapis in Québec, Innu (Labrador), and Inuit (Belcher Islands, N.W.T.), see Assembl?e nationale, Journal des D?bats, Commissions parlementaires, Commission permanente des richesses naturelles et des terres et for?ts, Entente concernant les Cris et les Inuit de la Baie James, 3rd Sess., 30th Legisl., November 11, 1975, No. 178, at B-6089 (J. Ciaccia). In order to mitigate the effects of having their rights unilaterally extinguished by government, the Naskapi negotiated the Northeastern Quebec Agreement in 1978.

{864} P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel, Extinguishment of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples: Problems and Alternatives, note 190, 1662, supra, at 305 et seq. & 594 et seq.

{865} Id. at 639. See also Commission des droits de la personne du Québec, The Rights of Aboriginal Peoples [:] Native rights in Québec: the need to raise the level of discussion (Québec: September 1980) (Document 5), at 21-22

{866} 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 422.

{867} Id. at 425, 430.

{868} See, in particular, discussion under headings 2 & 3 supra.

{869} 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 417.

{870} Id.

{871} See discussion under heading 5 supra.

{872} 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 443.

{873} See, also, Committee to Examine Matters Relating to the Accession of Québec to Sovereignty, Draft Report, note 8, 1662, supra, where the Committee also fails to consider the possibility of a secessionist Québec effectively renouncing to the protections for its current borders under Canada's Constitution. At 35, the Draft Report relies on the five-expert study and indicates: "Québec's territorial integrity is therefore guaranteed under the Canadian federation."

{874} See discussion under sub-heading 5.1 supra.

{875} 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, d. at 394.

{876} Id. at 429-430, where the authors describe territorial integrity as an inter-state norm that is not an obstacle to accession to independence by non-colonial peoples.

{877} M. Weller, The International Response to the Dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, note 378, 1662, supra, at 572.

{878} 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 430.

{879} Id.

{880} As suggeted above, this conclusion by the five-experts is strongly challenged since they never demonstrated why Aboriginal peoples could not claim a right to secede based on their status as colonized peoples.

{881} 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 390. Unofficial English translation: "It is not in our mandate, nor within our competence, to analyse in detail the exact meaning of these constitutional provisions, which have given rise to abundant and often highly subtle doctrinal controversies."