Bill 101 was clearly intended to make Quebec unpleasant for anglophones, and the fact that within several years something like 1/3 of all anglophones living in Quebec had left Quebec is strong evidence that it succeeded in that goal. These were not people who particularly wanted to leave. These were people who lived in Quebec, had jobs, had houses. Yet they abandoned those, and the ones that I knew were very clear that it was entirely because of Bill 101. You can believe what you like about the bill - the level of "voluntary self-deportation" demonstrates a racist effect. And without it there would have been demographically no possibility of a close separation vote in the mid-90s.

To give a random story, I had a friend in high school whose mother was hired as an English teacher at a private school to replace the one who had left the year earlier due to bill 101. The family had just emigrated from Australia for this job. They were shocked upon arriving to find out that their son was not allowed to be a student in the school that his mother taught at, even though they were willing to pay, but would have to take French instruction due to his parents not being able to demonstrate that they had been instructed in English in Quebec. Of course, having grown up in Australia, he did not know any French. As soon as the family figured out a way to afford leaving Quebec, they moved to British Columbia.

On my scholarship, I was living on an NSERC out of country to the USA. In 1991 a Canadian dollar was worth 0.87281 US. As secession stirred in Quebec, the Canadian currency dropped like a rock, reaching 0.72863 in 1995. As a starving grad student, you can be certain that I counted every dollar and noticed every drop. And every time the news stories were full of Quebec separatism being the cause of the continuing decline. (As soon as the vote failed, the currency stabilized then began to creep up. But not fast enough to for me to benefit.)

About the natives, the tribes involved were the Cree and the Innuit. Google immediately turned up http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/oct/22/tribes-want-no-... which verifies that the vote happened, but does not give results. (However it does state the results to be a foregone conclusion.) As for the treaty, you misunderstand. I am not talking about a treaty. I am referring to the terms of the Quebec Boundaries Extensions Acts of 1898 and 1912 where large amounts of land obtained from Hudson's Bay in 1871 became part of Quebec. The grant of land was far from unconditional, and constitutes about 2/3 of the present borders of Quebec.

The specific term that I am thinking of is: (e) That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the
management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall
remain in the Government of Canada subject to the control of Parliament. Which indicates to me that if Quebec were to leave Canada, it would not have a strong claim to the land that the Cree and Inuit lived on. (Particularly since the people living there virtually unanimously did not want to be part of an independent Quebec.) Of course that land is about half the province, and is the location of hydroelectric power plants that are very important for the province's finances.