The Grand Council of the Crees

Section 13, Sovereign Injustice - Grand Council of the Crees

13 Academic Literature on Secession: Serious Shortcomings Affecting Aboriginal Peoples

Posted: 0000-00-00

Serious problems can develop in regard to issues pertaining to Aboriginal peoples should the academic legal literature that is being generated virtually ignore, without explanation, certain essential aspects. These aspects include: i) the relevant writings of Aboriginal peoples; ii) the relevant writings of non-Aboriginal peoples that reinforce the validity or legitimacy of Aboriginal positions and perspectives; or iii) an author's own previous relevant analyses that had reached conclusions favourable to Aboriginal peoples. In regard to the Qu?bec secession issue, these types of problems, should they occur, may cast serious doubt on the analyses and findings of academic publications on the subject. As briefly described below, in promoting the position of Qu?bec, there appear to be some academic works that ignore or unjustly devalue the status and rights of Aboriginal peoples. In the view of this Study, the described books fall short of existing academic research norms. Aboriginal peoples have competing rights and interests with those of Quebecers in the context of secession. Therefore, it would be difficult to reach valid conclusions on the rights or legitimacy of the actions of Quebecers without fair and balanced consideration of the relevant Aboriginal dimensions. In order to provide a frame of reference, it is instructive to identify the various research standards that are often applied and used. {1467} For example, in regard to intellectual integrity in academic research, the Universit? de Montr?al provides: "...toute conduite visant d?lib?r?ment ? induire en erreur les membres de la communaut? scientifique ou tout tierce personne, ou encore ? tirer un avantage indu d'une situation li?e ? des activit?s de recherche, doit ?tre consid?ree comme une faute grave." {1468} Also, in its Ethical Guidelines, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples explains that research that excludes Aboriginal perspectives and values may in some instances be "open to reassessment": "In the past, research concerning Aboriginal peoples has usually been initiated outside the Aboriginal community and carried out by non-Aboriginal personnel. Aboriginal people have had almost no opportunity to correct misinformation or to challenge ethnocentric and racist interpretations. Consequently, the existing body of research, which normally provides a reference point for new research, must be open to reassessment." {1469} [Emphasis added.] As this Study demonstrates, there is an abundance of published works in Qu?bec and elsewhere as to the status and rights of Aboriginal peoples in the context of Qu?bec secession. {1470} Yet, certain major publications in the sovereignty debate purport to analyze relevant legal and political questions without genuinely including Aboriginal dimensions, if at all. {1471} Even the positions and commentaries of human rights organizations in Qu?bec, in regard to the right of self-determination of Aboriginal peoples, appear to be ignored. {1472} Two recent works that raise serious concerns of this nature are briefly described below. J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (1995 Supplement by D. Turp) {1473} In the 1995 Supplement that he has written in relation to J. Brossard's book, L' accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, D. Turp makes a single factual reference to the parallel claims to self-determination being asserted by Aboriginal peoples. {1474} However, the status and rights of Aboriginal peoples do not seem to be a factor in his legal and political analyses of the accession of Qu?bec to independence. In particular, Aboriginal dimensions do not appear to be considered in analysing the question of preservation of Qu?bec's current borders in a secessionist scenario. In introducing his Supplement to Brossard's book, Turp indicates that he will retain the original plan of work and will devote his remarks to the (I) politico-juridical conditions of the accession of Qu?bec to sovereignty; and (II) the politico-juridical modalities of such accession. {1475} While Brossard included discussion of the status and rights of Aboriginal peoples in his original book {1476} under both of these headings referred to by Turp, the latter author fails to do so in his Supplement. This is especially troubling, since Brossard has stated in his original text that Aboriginal peoples have no right to self-determination {1477} and Turp had repeatedly maintained the opposite. {1478} A further problem arises when Turp discusses boundary questions relating to an independent Qu?bec. He correctly indicates that, if the right to self-determination is not a certain basis for Qu?bec to form a sovereign state, then the international rule of effectiveness could mean that a successful secession by Qu?bec might lead to the emergence of an independent state. {1479} Turp's Supplement suggests that, according to the Badinter Arbitration Commission in regard to former Yugoslavia, {1480} the right to self-determination cannot entail a modification of borders that exist at the moment of independence. {1481} However, Turp fails to refer to his own published views that the right to self-determination of Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec could lead to the modification of the borders of any future Qu?bec state. For example, as recently as 1992, Turp indicated: "For the right to self-determination, it is up to the majority population of a given territory to determine its political status. This argument has been upheld by the International Court of Justice...[W]here members of native nations are in the majority, the status of these territories would be freely determined by the majority of the individuals living there." {1482} [Emphasis added.] Instead, Turp now simply states that the principle of uti possidetis would prevail. {1483} In addition, in relation to the doctrine of effective control, Turp does not mention that Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec have access to this rule on the same terms as Qu?bec. {1484} Nor does he cite the numerous commentators who harshly criticize the Badinter Arbitration Commission's decisions as not being an accurate reflection of international law. {1485} Also, Turp states in the Supplement that an affirmative simple majority vote in the upcoming Qu?bec referendum would be adequate for a UDI and would render academic any arguments of illegality. This opinion not only appears at odds with Turp's previously stated positions, {1486} but also contradicts the opinion expressed by J. Brossard in this same book. {1487} In the past, D. Turp has made an important contribution towards increased understanding of the status and rights of Aboriginal peoples in the context of Qu?bec secession. {1488} In particular, Turp has underlined that the rights of Aboriginal peoples to self-determination are, in terms of legitimacy, quite ahead of those of francophone Quebecers and others and cannot be ignored. {1489} It is therefore curious to find no trace of these strongly asserted views in the present Supplement. In L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, {1490} J. Brossard generally has reprinted his highly detailed and useful analysis published in 1976, with its wide range of supporting references, of the many aspects pertaining to the accession to independence by Qu?bec. Yet, in relation to Aboriginal peoples, the findings in the same book amount to little more than unsubstantiated and misguided speculation. For example, in his original text, Brossard views Indians and "Eskimos" as "ethnic minorities", {1491} who are said to be found (especially in the case of Indians), "dispersed" throughout Canada. Such a finding of dispersal could only be reached, if one falsely treats all "Indians" in Canada as a single group across Canada, rather than constituting separate and distinct "peoples" and "nations". In addition, the author does not believe Aboriginal peoples constitute "peoples" under the Charter of the United Nations, since they are too few and dispersed. {1492} Also, he views the territorial rights of Aboriginal peoples as being basically limited to hunting and fishing in areas they actually use. {1493} Such erroneous and unsubstantiated opinions apparently assist Brossard to conclude that Aboriginal peoples have limited status and rights in the Qu?bec secession debate. In his 1995 preface, J. Brossard declares that "changes" since the book was originally published in 1976 indicate that Inuit and Indians most probably enjoy a right to self-determination. {1494} Again, Brossard gives no indication to what "changes" he is referring. Instead, he states, self-determination could give Indians and Inuit a right to a certain degree of autonomy within Canada or Qu?bec, within the territorial limits agreed to in the course of the last century. However, Brossard emphasizes that such "changes" alter almost nothing in legal terms. {1495} In the absence of serious analysis to substantiate them, these findings by Professor Brossard cannot have credibility. The right to self-determination of Aboriginal peoples is a fundamental and ongoing issue in the context of Qu?bec secession. The position of Aboriginal peoples should not be casually commented on and dismissed without documentation in a preface. Brossard has failed to analyse or even refer to the increasingly abundant literature that is supportive of Aboriginal peoples' status and rights. {1496} Nor does Brossard respond to recent studies by international experts that challenge his own legal analysis in favour of a legal right to secession by Quebecers. {1497} Also, in relation to Aboriginal peoples, Brossard does not appear to take into account the legal writings or expert testimony of D. Turp during the past few years. This would be important, since the views of Turp appear to contradict those of Brossard. Without addressing the basic differences of opinion between the two authors, Brossard and Turp seem to have decided that the latter should write the 1995 Supplement as an update to Brossard's 1976 book. Such collaboration may serve to gloss over key discrepancies. From the viewpoint of academic research, the rights and interests of Aboriginal peoples appear to be treated in a substandard and questionable manner. This could serve to unjustly compromise the status and rights of Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec. D. Turp, L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot? (1995) {1498} In another 1995 publication entitled L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot? (referred to below as "L'Avant-projet"), D. Turp again demonstrates fundamental changes in position without acknowledging and explaining them in view of his previously expressed scholarly opinions. For example, as recently as 1991, Turp explicitly stated as an expert witness that Aboriginal peoples are "peoples" with a right to self-determination. As a result, he stated that there would have to be negotiations in good faith between the Qu?bec people and Aboriginal peoples. {1499} In addition, Turp indicated that the relatively small numbers among Aboriginal nations did not affect their right, as majority populations, to determine the future of their respective territories: "In the northern part of Quebec, where the Inuit, Cree, and Naskapi peoples, despite their small numbers, are in the majority on the lands they identify as theirs, the choice of the native majority as to the future of the territory could be decisive." {1500} [Emphasis added.] Therefore, it is curious to discover in L'Avant-projet that Turp does not raise the right to self-determination of Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec, including their right to choose to remain with their traditional territories in Canada. Instead, Turp now highlights the relatively small numbers and percentage of Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec {1501} (even though the size of Aboriginal nations cannot negate the existence of their right to self-determination {1502}, as Turp himself has indicated in the past). In regard to non-Aboriginal aspects of the secession debate, Turp appears to engage in a much more balanced discussion in his L'Avant-projet book. For example, he includes references to arguments that may detract from, or run counter to, the accession to independence by Qu?bec. However, when issues pertain to the rights and status of Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec, the author appears to shift to a different standard. First, he refrains from referring to his own published articles and testimony in favour of Aboriginal peoples' right to determine their own future in the context of Qu?bec secession. {1503} Second, he also fails to make reference to the growing literature in Canada and internationally that express a similar viewpoint. {1504} Instead, in regard to the rights of Aboriginal "nations", Turp includes a most one-sided and paltry list of references. {1505} Another matter of concern relates to the book's one-sided discussion of the Motion for the recognition of aboriginal rights in Qu?bec, {1506} adopted by the Qu?bec National Assembly on March 20, 1985. As indicated in L'Avant-projet, {1507} the principles in the Motion are essentially the 15 principles adopted by the Qu?bec government in February 1983 in regard to its relations with Aboriginal peoples. Turp discusses briefly the Motion and its contents (and reproduces them in an Annex). Yet, he fails to mention the critical fact that the PQ government in 1985 tabled the Motion in the National Assembly against the express wishes of the Aboriginal nations in Qu?bec. {1508} Although Turp views the lack of consent of the Qu?bec National Assembly to the adoption of the Constitution Act, 1982 as a reason for Quebecers to seek separation from Canada, {1509} Turp invokes the unilaterally imposed National Assembly Motion as a basis for Aboriginal relations and policy in an independent Qu?bec. {1510} This is clearly a double standard. Moreover, it runs counter to the right to self-determination of Aboriginal peoples that Turp has in the past underlined as fundamentally important. Further, in contrast to his earlier positions, Turp now appears to advocate the unilateral {1511} inclusion of the rights and status of Aboriginal peoples in the Constitution of a sovereign Qu?bec. This is evident in the draft Constitution that he and A. Vahlas are now proposing. {1512} Moreover, in the draft Qu?bec Constitution proposed by D. Turp & A. Vahlas, Aboriginal peoples are never referred to as "peoples", {1513} have no inherent right to self-government explicitly recognized {1514} and have no veto over future constitutional amendments directly pertaining to them. {1515} In addition, Turp & Vahlas propose that a constitutional responsibility be imposed on Aboriginal nations to exercise their rights and freedoms in a manner that respects the Constitution, laws and territory of a sovereign Qu?bec. {1516} This latter provision appears to have the effect of severely subordinating the rights and powers of Aboriginal peoples to those of a sovereign Qu?bec. One possible interpretation may be that, in the event of a conflict, even ordinary Qu?bec laws would prevail over the constitutional rights and powers of Aboriginal peoples. Nor is it indicated that the aboriginal, treaty and other rights of Aboriginal peoples would be safeguarded by a non-derogation clause in an manner at least equivalent to the Constitution Act, 1982. {1517} As already indicated, these dramatic changes in the views of Turp appear to be in direct contradiction with his previously expounded academic views. It is important to note that the preface to L'Avant-projet indicates that Turp did not write this book in his capacity as head of the Bloc Qu?b?cois' policy commission. {1518} The book is said to be authored by Turp in his role as Professor in the Faculty of Law at the Universit? de Montr?al. {1519} Therefore, the requirements for consistent, high quality academic research, as set out in existing norms for ethical research, should be fully applicable to the recent literary works of this accomplished scholar. In regard to the two books {1520} referred to above, it is the view of this Study that there exist serious and fundamental omissions and contradictions. Consequently, at least in regard to the status, rights and territories of Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec, the analyses and findings in these works must be regarded as deficient and inconclusive. Footnotes {1467} See, for example, McGill University's Policy on Research Ethics: "Researchers are expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Any form of academic dishonesty...is a serious offence." See McGill University, Policy on Research Ethics, Approved by Senate, March 22, 1995; approved by Board of Governors, May 29, 1995, at 2. See also the norms in Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Ethical Guidelines for Research (Ottawa: n.d.), at 3: "In all research sponsored by the Commission, researchers shall conscientiously address themselves to the following questions: ? Are there perspectives on the subject of inquiry that are distinctively Aboriginal? ? What Aboriginal sources are appropriate to shed light on those perspectives? ....... ? How will Aboriginal knowledge or perspectives portrayed in research products be validated?" [Emphasis added.] {1468} Universit? de Montr?al, Politique de l'universit? de Montr?al sur la probit? intellectuelle en recherche, February 16, 1995, No. 60.11, adopted December 1994, at 3. Unofficial English translation: "...all conduct deliberately contemplating to induce into error the members of the scientific community ou any third party, or also to derive an undue advantage from a situation linked to research activities, must be considered as a serious offence." {1469} Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Ethical Guidelines for Research (Ottawa: n.d.), at 2. At 3, the Royal Commission underlines: "Researchers have an obligation to observe ethical and professional practices relevant to their respective disciplines." {1470} See, for example, S.J. Anaya, A Contemporary Definition of the International Norm on Self-Determination, (1993) 3 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 131; R. Barsh, Indigenous Peoples in the 1990s: From Object to Subject of International Law?, (1994) 7 Harvard Human Rts. J. 33; A. Buchanan, "Quebec, Secession and Aboriginal Territorial Rights" in The Network, No. 3 (March 1992) (Newsletter of the Network on the Constitution), 2; A. Buchanan, "A Reply to Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come and Mr. David Cliche", The Network, No. 5 (May 1992) (Newsletter of the Network on the Constitution), 13; A. Buchanan, The Role of Collective Rights in the Theory of Indigenous Peoples' Rights, (1993) 3 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 89; Comit? d'appui aux premi?res nations, Le Qu?bec peut-il se d?finir sans les premi?res nations?, (M?moire present? ? la Commission sur l'avenir politique et constitutionnel du Qu?bec), November 2, 1990; M. Coon Come, "The Crees, self-determination, secession and the territorial integrity of Quebec" in The Network, No. 5 (May 1992) (Newsletter of the Network on the Constitution), 11; E.-I. Daes, Some Considerations on the Right of Indigenous Peoples to Self-Determination, note 22, 1662, supra, 1; P. de Bellefeuille, "If Quebec rates sovereignty, why not Indians?" in The Gazette, Montreal, September 7, 1978, at 9; A. Dubuc, "Le triangle infernal", La Presse (editorial), October 12, 1994, at B2; 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); Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), Presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Montreal, November 18, 1993; 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); Groupe de r?flexion sur les institutions et la citoyennet? (GRIC), "Qu?b?cois-Autochtones: il faut relever le d?fi de la reconnaissance mutuelle", La Presse, April 2, 1994, at B3; C. Hilling, "Autod?termination et s?cession confondues", Le Devoir, January 13, 1995, at A9; C. Iorns, Indigenous Peoples and Self-Determination: Challenging State Sovereignty, note 194, 1662, supra; P. Joffe & M.E. Turpel, Extinguishment of the Rights of Aboriginal Peoples: Problems and Alternatives, note 190, 1662, supra, 3 vols.; K. McNeil, "Aboriginal Nations and Quebec's Boundaries: Canada Couldn't Give What It Didn't Have" in D. Drache & R. Perrin, (eds.), Negotiating With a Sovereign Qu?bec (Toronto: James Lorimer & Co., 1992) 107; P. Russell, Constitutional Odyssey [:] Can Canadians Be a Sovereign People? (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992); S. Scott, "Autod?termination, s?cession, division, l?galit?: observations" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Qu?bec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Qu?bec souverain (Qu?bec: Biblioth?que nationale du Qu?bec, 1992), Expos?s et ?tudes, vol. 1, 463; M. Sincennes, "Le PQ doit reconna?tre aux Indiens et aux Inuit le droit ? l'autod?termination", Le Devoir, August 6, 1979; M.E. Turpel, "Does the Road to Qu?bec Sovereignty Run Through Aboriginal Territory?" in D. Drache & R. Perrin, (ed.), Negotiating With a Sovereign Qu?bec (Toronto: James Lorimer & Co., 1992) 93; K. Valaskakis & A. Fournier, Le pi?ge de l'ind?pendance [:] Le Qu?bec sera-t-il affaibli par la souverainet??, note 299, 1662, supra; U.N. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7 & Adds. 1-4 (1986) (J. Cobo, Special Rapporteur). {1471} In regard to the abundant literature on indigenous peoples and their fundamental rights, see K. Roy & G. Alfredsson, Indigenous Rights: The Literature Explosion, (1987) 19 Transnational Perspectives 13; C. Tennant, Indigenous Peoples, International Institutions, and the International Legal Literature, 1945-1993, (1994) 16 Human Rights Q. 1. {1472} See, for example, Commission des droits de la personne du Qu?bec, M?moire de la Commission des droits de la personne pr?sent? ? la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones (Montreal: November 1993); Ligue des droits et libert?s, "Dossier sp?cial autochtone", Bulletin, octobre, 1994, vol. xiii, no. 3, 17; Ligue des droits et libert?s, La Ligue des droits et libert?s et le dossier autochtone: une histoire de pers?v?rence, (M?moire pr?sent? devant la Commission royale sur les peuples autochtones), November 17, 1993; S. Paquerot, "Les droits fondamentaux sont universels et indivisibles: ils doivent tous ?tre respect?s" in La Presse, May 6, 1994, at B3. {1473} J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (Supplement by D. Turp), note 170, 1662, supra. The only apparent difference between the original 1976 edition and the 1995 edition is that Brossard adds a second preface at the beginning and Turp appends a 54-page Supplement at the end of the book. {1474} Id. at 804. {1475} Id. at 798. In regard to the matter of the accession of Qu?bec to sovereignty, Turp also refers to an abundant bibliography of books, articles and official documents that has developed since the publication of Brossard's book in 1976. {1476} It is important to note, however, that Brossard's understanding and analysis (often without substantiation) of legal and political issues pertaining to Aboriginal peoples are both erroneous and woefully inadequate. See discussion accompanying notes 1491 et seq., infra. {1477} J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, note 65, 1662, supra, at 544. Ironically, in the 1995 second edition of this book, Brossard now recognizes to some degree in his preface the right to self-determination of Aboriginal peoples (see below), while Turp no longer offers an opinion on this issue in the Supplement to the same book. {1478} Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Qu?bec ? la souverainet?, 9 Oct. 1991, No. 5, CEAS-136 ? CEAS-137 (testimony of D. Turp); D. Turp, "Quebec's Democratic Right to Self-Determination" in S. Hartt et al., (ed.), Tangled Web: Legal Aspects of Deconfederation (Toronto: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd./C.D. Howe Institute, 1992) 99, at 120; D. Turp, "L'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? la souverainet?", Le Devoir, August 29, 1991, at 15; Y. Le Bouthillier et R. Goulet, "Extraits de t?moignages pr?sent?s devant la Commission B?langer-Campeau et le Comit? Beaudoin-Edwards" in Canadian Council on International Law, Bulletin, vol. 8, no.1, August 1991, at 12 (testimony of D. Turp). {1479} J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (Supplement by D. Turp), note 170, 1662, supra, at 801. {1480} Conference on Yugoslavia Arbitration Commission: Opinions on Questions Arising from the Dissolution of Yugoslavia, Opinion No. 2, (1992) 92 Revue g?n?rale de droit international public 266, (1992) 31 I.L.M. 1497. {1481} Id. at 800. Turp does not make clear whether, in his view, the "moment of independence" is at the time of a UDI or only when effective control of a seceding territory has been demonstrated over a sufficiently long period (a test of which is recognition by third party states). See discussion under heading 7 supra. {1482} D. Turp, "Quebec's Democratic Right to Self-Determination" in S. Hartt et al., (ed.), Tangled Web: Legal Aspects of Deconfederation (Toronto: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd./C.D. Howe Institute, 1992) 99 at 120. {1483} J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (Supplement by D. Turp), note 170, 1662, supra, at 800, 812. For a discussion of the various commentators who have directly challenged the Badinter Commission's interpretation of and application of the uti possidetis principle to the situation in former Yugoslavia, see sub-headings 5.2 & 5.3 supra. {1484} T. Franck, R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M. Shaw, & C. Tomuschat, "L'int?grit? territoriale du Qu?bec dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession ? la souverainet?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Qu?bec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Qu?bec souverain, note 1662, 15, supra, vol. 1, at 443. See also discussion under heading 7 supra. {1485} See discussion under sub-headings 5.2 & 5.3 supra. {1486} See, for example, D. Turp, Le droit de s?cession en droit international public, [1982] C.Y.I.L. 24 at 77, where the author indicates that the authenticity of a genuine nationalist claim should be verified by way of referendum, in a way that the international community could not doubt the affirmative will of the people. Such a statement suggests that more is required than a simple majority vote. Generally, in regard to the inadequacies of a simple majority vote in Qu?bec's referendum, see discussion under sub-heading 9.3 supra. {1487} J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (Supplement by D. Turp), note 170, 1662, supra, at 353, where Brossard states that an absolute (not simple) majority of all registered voters is generally required. On the same page, the author states that a too limited majority could appear insufficient and inconclusive. At 363, Brossard reiterates the criterion of an absolute majority and adds that an even higher level of approval may be required based on political factors. {1488} See, for example, D. Turp, "Quebec's Democratic Right to Self-Determination" in S. Hartt et al., (ed.), Tangled Web: Legal Aspects of Deconfederation (Toronto: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd./C.D. Howe Institute, 1992) 99 at 118-120; Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Qu?bec ? la souverainet?, 9 Oct. 1991, No. 5, CEAS-136 ? CEAS-137 (D. Turp); D. Turp, "L'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? la souverainet?" in Le Devoir, August 29, 1991, at 15; Y. Le Bouthillier & R. Goulet, "Extraits de t?moinages pr?sent?s devant la Commission B?langer-Campeau et le Comit? Beaudoin-Edwards" in Canadian Council on International Law, Bulletin, vol. 16, no. 1, August 1991, at 8-12 (testimony of D. Turp). {1489} Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Qu?bec ? la souverainet?, 9 Oct. 1991, No. 5, at CEAS-137 (D. Turp). {1490} L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (Supplement by D. Turp), note 170, 1662, supra. {1491} Id. at 174-175, 507-508, 554. {1492} Id. at 187. {1493} Id. at 494, 507. {1494} Id. at 6. {1495} Id. It is also curious that Aboriginal peoples' status and rights are summarily addressed by Brossard in strictly legal terms, but the assessment in Brossard's book of Qu?bec's accession to independence is explicitly said to be in "politico-juridical" terms. Such disparities in analysis lead to the application of a double standard that is clearly prejudicial to the Aboriginal peoples concerned {1496} See, for example, the literature listed in note 1470, supra. {1497} See, for example, T. Franck, R. Higgins, A. Pellet, M. Shaw, & C. Tomuschat, "L'int?grit? territoriale du Qu?bec dans l'hypoth?se de l'accession ? la souverainet?" in Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Qu?bec ? la souverainet?, Les Attributs d'un Qu?bec souverain, note 1662, 15, supra, vol. 1, at 425, where the validity of Brossard's criteria for a right to secede is challenged, as well as Brossard's finding that Quebecers can rely on their right to self-determination in order to secede from Canada. {1498} D. Turp, L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot?, note 1409, 1662, supra. {1499} Y. Le Bouthillier et R. Goulet, "Extraits de t?moignages pr?sent?s devant la Commission B?langer-Campeau et le Comit? Beaudoin-Edwards" in Canadian Council on International Law, Bulletin, vol. 8, no.1, August 1991, at 12 (testimony of D. Turp). {1500} D. Turp, "Quebec's Democratic Right to Self-Determination" in S. Hartt et al., (ed.), Tangled Web: Legal Aspects of Deconfederation (Toronto: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd./C.D. Howe Institute, 1992) 99, at 120. {1501} D. Turp, L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot?, note 1409, 1662, supra, at 42. {1502} Even in cases where a people seeks to secede and establish its own state (which is not the objective of Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec), there exists under international law no minimum population size for creating a new state. See, for example, I. Fsadni, "Criteria for Statehood" in Canadian Council on International Law, Bulletin, 1989, vol.16, no. 3, at 8: "State practice seems to indicate that no such minimum limit exists. Examples of States with very small populations include Tuvalu (pop. 8,229), Nauru (pop. 8,042), San Marino (pop. 22,206), Liechtenstein (pop. 26,680), Andorra (pop. 42,000)." [Emphasis added.] {1503} See references in note 1488, supra. {1504} See literature cited in note 1470, supra. {1505} D. Turp, L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot?, note 1409, 1662, supra, at 50-51. The "bibliographical sources" are comprised of: J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, note 65, 1662, supra, (which denies Aboriginal peoples are "peoples" with rights to self-determination); two publications of the Qu?bec National Assembly's Committee on Sovereignty; two publications of ?. Gourdeau (former Director of the Aboriginal affairs Secretariat, established by a former PQ government); a study by B. Morse (which concludes that Aboriginal peoples in Qu?bec are treated relatively well by the Qu?bec government, but the study fails to mention the oppressive history of the government actions lauded by the study: see text accompanying note 564, supra); and a paper presented to the Committee on Sovereignty by J.-J. Simard. At the time, Simard made it clear to the Committee that he is not an expert on Aboriginal peoples nor on such questions as "the right to self-determination" and the "inherent right to governmental autonomy": see Assembl?e nationale, Journal des d?bats, Commission d'?tude des questions aff?rentes ? l'accession du Qu?bec ? la souverainet?, February 11, 1992, at CEAS-862. The only other bibliographical source cited by Turp is a reference to a paper presented to a Canadian Bar Association seminar (re Qu?bec's draft bill on the sovereignty of Qu?bec, esp. s. 3) by P. Hutchins, a lawyer practising in the field of Aboriginal peoples' rights. {1506} This Motion is also referred to as the National Assembly Resolution on aboriginal rights. {1507} D. Turp, L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot?, note 1409, 1662, supra, at 43. {1508} See Assembl? nationale, Journal des d?bats, Mar. 19, 1985, vol. 28, No. 38, at 2504, where MNA J. Ciaccia communicates to the National Assembly the objections of the Crees, Inuit, Mikmaq and Naskapis. Also, at 2527-2528, MNA M. Polak indicates the objections of the Mohawks and the Crees. This issue and the unilateral actions of the PQ government are discussed in 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 165-168. See also brief discussion in the text accompanying note 336, 1454, supra. {1509} D. Turp, "Le droit de s?cession: l'expression du principe d?mocratique" in A.-G. Gagnon et F. Rocher, (ed.), R?pliques aux d?tracteurs de la souverainet? du Qu?bec, note 210, supra, at 58. {1510} D. Turp, L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot?, note 1409, 1662, supra, at 43. {1511} See also id. at 46-47, where Turp concedes that Aboriginal peoples were generally absent from the deliberations of the regional commissions on the future of Qu?bec. However, Turp feels that an in-depth debate on the place of Aboriginal peoples in an independent Qu?bec still occurred (including the recognition of their rights in a future Qu?bec Constitution). This would suggest that the author supports the implementation of certain recommendations in regard to Aboriginal peoples in their absence, based on the testimony of some of the non-Aboriginal intervenors who appeared before the regional commissions. {1512} Id. at 183 (Annex 16 ? D. Turp & A. Vahlas, Projet de Constitution du Qu?bec). {1513} Unlike the present Constitution Act, 1982, s. 23, para. 1, of the draft Constitution proposed by Turp & Vahlas refers to Aboriginal peoples as distinct nations whose identity is important to preserve as well as their participation in the development of Qu?bec. {1514} S. 23, para. 4, of the proposed draft Constitution only recognizes a right to governmental autonomy, to the extent that such right has been recognized in agreements with the government of Qu?bec. Moreover, para. 4 inadequately describes this right as the right of Aboriginal nations to have and control their institutions that correspond to their needs in the areas of culture, education, language, social services and economic development. {1515} S. 55, para. 3, provides solely for representatives of Aboriginal nations to be "invited" to participate in processes that may lead to amendment of certain constitutional provisions pertaining to them. {1516} S. 27 of the draft Constitution proposed by Turp & Vahlas. {1517} See Constitution Act, 1982, s. 25. {1518} See p. XI of the preface. Based on his regular appearances on television, it would appear that Turp is also a legal advisor and spokesperson for the Bloc Qu?b?cois. {1519} Similarly, it is in his capacity as Professor of Law that Turp presents himself as author in J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (Supplement by D. Turp), note 170, 1662, supra. {1520} J. Brossard, L'accession ? la souverainet? et le cas du Qu?bec, 2nd ed. (Supplement by D. Turp), note 170, 1662, supra; and D. Turp, L'Avant-projet de loi sur la souverainet? du Qu?bec [:] Texte annot?, note 1409, 1662, supra.