The point of the merger was to try to eat the PQ's lunch. Tactically it may be working - Jean-Talon by-election today saw QS at 21% (third place) and PQ down to just 9% of the vote.
That Fidler piece is very useful. Another point to pull out:
The framework law will provide for negotiations with the First Nations and Inuit people, guaranteeing “their right to self-determination during the process of accession to independence.” Pending the results of these negotiations, Quebec will claim the continuity of its existing territory.
Worth pointing out that Quebec's "existing territory" is mostly stolen - same as with Canada. The QS stance here is colonialist.
I'm uncomfortable with some of the directions QS is taking in recent months. But your comment is thought-provoking. QS is saying (as far as I can see) that while Québec can accede to independence based on a decision of Quebecers alone (irrespective of what Ottawa etc. want) - a position I support (because that's what self-determination means) - there will be no fragmentation of Québec except as a result of negotiations with Indigenous peoples. It does sound hypocritical - maybe your descriptor "colonialist" is the right one.
Unless I'm misreading their statement. Are they saying that unless both sides agree to some final contract/treaty/settlement, then Indigenous people will not be "allowed" to exercise their right to self-determination? For example, if negotiations break down with no finality?
Another question: What concrete stance do you think QS should take on this matter (beyond words of recognition, etc.)?