In the 1995 referendum on the independence question, voters against independence narrowly defeated those in favor. Beginning with the comments of pro-independence Québec PM Jacques Parizeau, who apparently didn't even write a concession speech in case the referendum failed, Quebecers and supporters of other independence movements have suggested that the referendum failed because of interference by the Federal government or other interest groups. Anecdotally, I would even suggest that questioning the validity of this referendum has become an important part of Québécois identity for certain people.
Is there any merit to these accusations?
More specifically, were people bussed across provincial borders in order to vote against independence? Was the campaign to reject independence involved in some questionable practices? Most importantly, how has this claim been received academically and internationally?
(Anecdotally again, I saw Quebec flags flown next to the ikurrina all over the Basque country)
For those who are interested, here is the text of the referendum question:
-Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?
-Do you agree that Quebec 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 Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
I can't really answer for the international reception of these claims. While it's easy to dismiss these claims as coming from sore losers, I think it's reasonable to assert that the NO campaign did engage in some questionable practices. And given the slim margin of victory, and the fact the polls in the week preceding the referendum consistently predicted a YES victory, it was bound to create controversy.
First, money. Quebec referendum law limited spending for both campaigns to 5 million dollars, managed by each respective electoral committee. While both sides tried to sidestep the law, the NO side did it more widely and more successfully, all orchestrated by the federal government. A federal non-profit organization set up to promote Canada in Quebec, the Canadian Unity Council (CUC), funneled funds from the Canadian Heritage ministry to newly formed organizations in the province. One of those, Option Canada, received 4.8 M$ right before the start of the campaign. Most of these funds were not accounted for by the NO electoral committee. The federal government also funded the NO campaign in indirect ways, like when thousands of participants to the Unity Rally held in Montreal were offered discounted travel rates by Via Rail and Air Canada, both state companies. The comm director for the Federal Liberals was charged with an electoral infraction for bussing people to the rally, though it was thrown out for taking place outside the province. After the referendum, the Quebec office responsible for running elections launched a number of investigations into illegal spending, but these were forced to close 2 years later when the Canadian Supreme Court, in Libman vs Quebec (AG), ruled that such monetary restrictions in Quebec electoral law were inconstitutional. This ethically dubious management of pro-Canada efforts in Quebec would go on after the referendum, leading to the Sponsorships scandal and the Gomery commission a decade later.
Besides the money, other legal but ethically questionable efforts were made to bolster the NO vote. Many commentators noted that in Quebec, almost twice as many citizenships were given out in 1995 compared to 1993. 25% of these new citizenships were handed out in October, during the referendum campaign. In 1996, that number sharply dropped. Immigration Canada had set up an operation to greatly accelerate the granting of citizenship in Quebec, for obvious reasons (new Canadian immigrants understandably voted NO by a very wide margin). Many allegations were made that standards for citizenship were relaxed, or that applicants were directly given answers to the tests, though I don't think this was ever clearly proven.
Another such effort was the Committee To Register Voters Outside Quebec. Quebec election law allowed ex-residents of Quebec to vote if they committed to returning to the province in the near future. The Committee, funded by the CUC, widely advertised this fact in English Canada along with distributing registration forms. Eventually the Quebec government obtained an injunction to stop this operation, which was encouraging people to commit electoral fraud. More than 14 000 ex-residents voted in the referendum, and while it's impossible to know how many did come back to live in Quebec, it's reasonable to suggest that most likely did not (for reference, only 3000 ex-residents had participated in the previous Quebec provincial election).
Another thing worth mentioning is the use of state media to promote the NO camp. The coverage of the referendum by Radio-Canada (the French arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) was noticeably slanted toward the NO option. Not terribly surprising given that it is federally funded, but having a publically-funded media organization clearly favor one side of an election in such a way was ethically questionable.
All in all, it's unclear of these actions were enough to swing the result of the referendum, which was won by just over 50 000 votes. It's also worth noting that the NO camp also claimed that their opponents illegally influenced the election, notably with the claim that more ballots were thrown out in federalist-leaning districts. But in answer to the OP's question, "was the campaign to reject independence involved in some questionable practices?", I'd say yes. And many of those involved in this effort were pretty unrepentant about it. When questioned about these practices, Sheila Copps, minister of Canadian Heritage, said "If I'm accused of spending money to save my country, I plead guilty".