Oui, mais...

On Monday, October 30th, 1995 nearly 4.8 million people voted to decided the future of the Canadian province of Québec. A diverse array of voters included French, English, First Nation, Inuit and those from more recent waves of immigration to Québec, each with their own interests, goals and ideas. But, to most, the matter seemed simple; should Québec succeed from Canada and form its own independent nation? But that was not the question, and the outcome was anything but simple. The actual question, in English, read:

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12th, 1995?

In the days, weeks and months following the 1995 Québec referendum, interested parties in both the Oui and Non camps would interpret the answer to this question in many different ways. Its affects would be felt from sea to sea to sea and would echo across the globe. But that night, the people of Québec and the rest of Canada went to bed knowing that the Oui side had triumphed, with 50.32% of valid votes, and no one knew what to expect when they woke up the next morning.
 
Monday, October 30, 1995

Responses from Oui, Non and the people of Montréal


At 10:34 pm on the night of October 30, CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge called the referendum for the Oui side. It had been a hectic and unpredictable night of reporting. Oui had jumped to an early lead over the Non side. Non gradually closed the gap as results came in from the west island of Montréal and other Anglophone communities. It quickly became apparent that voting was breaking heavily along linguistic lines. By 9:45 many believed that the Non side would prevail, but the surge simply ran out of votes. Final results were the closest the Non side would come to victory.

Mansbridge called for calm on both sides and encouraged all involved to take a cautious and patient approach. He could not say exactly what would come next, but neither could any of the leading players in the Oui and Non camps. Mansbridge remained on the air for the next four hours, providing updates and keeping English Canadians and Québécois informed of every development.

The first politician to speak to the results was from the Oui camp: Mario Dumont, the 25-year-old leader of the Action démocratique du Québec. Young, energetic and charismatic, many expected to Dumont to deliver a firebrand speech in favour of Québec independence. He did not. Dumont urged moderation and clear thinking from Oui supporters. He called the victory not the end of the road for Québec independence, but the beginning of a journey for a renewed and strong Québec. He also asked Oui supporters not to isolate or drive away Québecois who support the Non side or Québec’s partners and cousins in Canada. Even the most causal observer could see that Dumont’s speech drained the life out of the room; from energetic and victorious to stunned and silenced. This was not what they had expected.

Lucien Bouchard, leader of the Bloc Québécois and appointed Chief Negotiation for the Oui Camp, took the stage 15 minutes after Dumont. Bouchard’s speech was an attempt to fire up the crowd. He stated he was both thankful and thrilled to see the results and spoke of a bright future for Québec. He also to a gracious and magnanimous approach to Canadians, thanking them for the understanding and acceptance of Québec’s decision. Bouchard ended his speech saying that he was looking forward to his role as Chief Negotiator and vowed to get the best deal for Québécois, for Canadians and for the future of Québec-Canada relations. The speech was much less pro independence than ardent Oui supporters were expecting, but it did string a better chord with the audience than Dumont’s cautious speech.

The exact response to the speech was not broadcast as the CBC, and other broadcasters, cut away immediately after Bouchard finished his speech, leaving no broadcast record of the aftermath. The reason for the cut was that violent clashes had broken out between Oui and Non supporters on rue Ste-Catherine in Montréal. A group of about a dozen Oui supporters were marching along Ste-Catherine waving the flag of Québec and chanting “vive le Québec libre”, in reference to the night’s victory and a speech by French President Charles de Gaulle on July 24, 1967. After one marcher climbed a drain pipe to rip a Canada flag down from a storefront, a group of Non supporters decided they had gone too far. They charged and attacked the marchers.

By the end of the night, the ensuing riot had caused $2.75 million in damages, resulted in 126 arrests and injured 185, including 53 police officers. The political effects of the riot would be felt for far longer than the physical damages, which were similar to those of the 1993 Montréal Canadiens Stanley Cup riots.

During the riot, federal Progressive Conservative leader Jean Charest addressed the nation. Charest departed from his prepared remarks to call for order and understanding from Québécois on both sides. He called this a time for negotiation, and not violence or rash action. In light of the situation in Montréal, Charest did not comment directly on the results of the referendum. He would later say he regretted not taking a more proactive stance that night, ultimately tracing the end of his political career to that speech.

It was near midnight before Québec Premier Jacques Parizeau took the stage to delivery his speech; a speech that would be in sharp contrast to those of Dumont and Bouchard. Parizeau spoke in triumphant tones of how the people of Québec had sent a clear and decisive message to Ottawa. The results were clear and the message was clear. The Québécois people had voted in favour of sovereignty and independence and he, Jacques Parizeau, would be the one to lead them to the promised land. The Oui supporters at Parizeau’s rally were ecstatic. After two cautious and contained speeches, Parizeau was finally telling them what they wanted to hear.

Parizeau’s speech pulled few punches and barred few holds, only stopping short of a unilateral declaration of independence. He would take his victory to Ottawa and negotiate with the Canadian government to secure a good deal for Québec. He also fired a broadside at Mario Dumont and Lucien Bouchard for their surprising defeatist attitude and small thinking. Tonight of all nights was not a night for restraint or limited vision, he boasted. It was night to celebrate the birth of a new republic.

After the speech ended a visibly exhausted Peter Mansbridge told Canadians that the CBC would continue broadcasting until the prime minister addressed the nation. The CBC had learned that Québec Opposition Leader, Daniel Johnson, would be speaking first and would then be followed by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Analysts and panelists would spend the next two hours debating the results, coming to no solid conclusions about the future of Canada and Québec. At 2:03 am on the morning of October 31st, Peter Mansbridge announced they would be cutting to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Daniel Johnson was not mentioned.

The Prime Minister of Canada addressed the nation with passion bordering on ferocity and directly repudiated Premier Parizeau. Chrétien claimed the results clearly spoke against the desire for an independent Québec. With an unclear question, reflected in over 2% over the ballots being deemed spoiled, support for the Oui side was well below 50%. Further, he argued, 50%+1 was hardly the grounds to tear apart a nation as great as Canada. The vote, Chrétien said, was not a Yes. Québec would remain a province within a united Canada, but Chrétien was willing to open negotiations will the province of Québec to address outstanding concerns with the current state of federal-provincial relations. Chrétien ended his speech by encouraging anyone still awake and listening to go to sleep, get some rest and wake up tomorrow as if the referendum had not happened, as it would not result in any changes to their daily lives.
 
Top