Sigh.
Newman:
This is not intended to be a flame. This is my honest opinion. I just get a bit frustated by this issue-that-will-not-go-away.
You mentioned 140 years as the length of time that Quebec was not controlled by France. However, effective control was lost in 1759 on the Plains of Abraham, and formal transfer of power was in done in 1763, in the Treaty of Paris. That's 244 years! Quebec stopped being 'New France' in the time of your Great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather (+- 2 generations). GET OVER IT!
Since that time, virtually every government on Earth has been overthrown, usually violently. Meanwhile, the area that became Canada's history is notable chiefly becasue it is so boring and uneventful.
Count your blessings that you live in such a peaceful country.
Whenever Quebec needs something from Canada, there's never any talk about withholding it. Whenever a natural disaster occurs, Federal funds are available. Whenever Quebec needs co-funding for a highway or bridge, Federal funds are available. Whenever Quebec needs protection from Terrorists (FLQ, Oka), federal funds (and troops) are available.
In every year since 1980, Quebec has received more $ from Ottawa in spending and programs then they have paid in taxes (not coincidentally, that was the year of the first failed referendum, which signalled big business that it was time to evacuate la belle province, just in case. They took many of their jobs with them, which is a good part of the reason Quebec needs federal support).
...We have to go with the laws voted by the majority of Canadians, which are often not what we want in Quebec. There is two ways we can get to have our own laws:
-We can get a veto for our province, which means that we would have the right to have a law in our province that would go against a law in Canada. As an exemple, it could be legal to smoke drugs in Quebec while forbidden in Canada.
-We separate and do as we please, being entirely free to make our own laws.
Most Canadians are against the fact that we could split from them. As for the veto, many Canadians are for it, some even wanted to have a veto to, but many are strongly against it saying that we have to go by their laws....
There's a name for a system where people are bound by laws approved by a majority even if they do not personally support them: DEMOCRACY.
Assume Quebec were to get a Veto. Would it then be reasonable for Montreal (a City in Quebec) to have the right to veto a decision of Quebec that THEY do not like? Could Dorval (a borough of Montreal) veto the decision of Montreal? Should Blvd de Sources (a street in Dorval) be allowed to veto the decision of Dorval?
My point is that you need to have a system of government that can enact and enforce a consistant set of laws, or you have chaos and anarchy. If a group of people want to really change something, try joining or forming a political party with a real platform of change. If politicians discover a million Quebecois who (a) propose real, meaningful, and desireable changes and (b) actually might vote for someone who listens, they will quickly jump on the appropriate bandwagon.
Whining that you didn't get to design the present system, so you don't want to play, is a good way to be ignored.