Is Quebec a nation?

There's been a considerable reporting and discussion on CBC.ca as to if Prime Minister Harper, the Liberals and other interests should define Quebec as a nation. I submitted an abridged version of the following to the open discussion topic on the issue:

I've long wondered where these ideas of Québécois separatism stem from, because there doesn't appear to be anything consistent since the movement started. At first it was cultural issues issued out of the Quiet Revolution, then it was the fact that Quebec rejected the Constitution, next we heard about Quebec losing grasp on its linguistic heritage, and recently, the story we're hearing is that this is because of a "fiscal imbalance" are legitimate reasons for Québécois separatism. Are these the issues that are supposed to define Quebec as a "nation"?

My substantive opinion on this issue is the following; we'll follow through with the logic behind it in a "I say/the separatists say" dialogue. Basically, I'm cool with Quebec being a nation, if the separatists promise they won't complain when I name the Acadians a nation in their own right, along with Natives and other groups displaying qualities meritorious of a "nation" title. Problem is, anytime the issue of the term "nation" comes up, the separatists talk about "Quebec's distinct character" that makes their nation a different one from these other nations (wouldn't the term "nation", by definition, normally imply a "distinct character" anyway?). The part where the separatists lose me is that I don't get why all of a sudden this "nation" status coupled with this "distinct character" catchphrase means that Quebec merits exceptions to the rules that govern the Canadian confederation. This is traditionally where the separatists pull out the argument that says "those rules don't necessarily apply, we never signed the Constitution!"; at which point I'm usually found saying "I don't care, we drafted it requiring nine out of ten signatories". The separatists then come back, arms flailing, arguing that "maybe we didn't want what that Constitution stands for, hence we're justified in our separatist position". At which point I say "sure, but you've never once mentioned what things Quebec would have done differently on a non-administrative scale. Seemingly the only thing Quebec keeps wanting out of constitutional revisions are more seats in the House of Commons, on one hand, and more provincial autonomy, on the other. There's a conflict in asking for more influence federally but also wanting to administer more of its own 'domestic' affairs, in that Quebec gains a disproportionate power over all other provinces, both nationally and provincially; by having a disproportionate amount of seats in the House, Quebec is in a better position to influence policy on the pancanadian scale, whilst it holds escape clauses for when national policy doesn't hold the favour of the government of the time. Therefore, if you reject the Constitution, Quebec must do so on substantive grounds in which it rejects some principle like minority language education rights or other non-standard rights, or seeks additional rights that the rest of Canada does not want. Unfortunately, we've never heard what either might be, or how the current absence or presence of such rights has caused considerable harm to Québécois society."

In conclusion, what separatist Quebec has to prove to me is that an autonomous Québécois state would somehow operate differently than the current Québécois society. What principles or rights would be enshrined by Quebec that Canada rejects? Alternatively, what does Canada accept that Quebec summarily rejects? These are the questions that should define nationhood, as these legal levels are where concepts of identity and self-determination in relation to that identity are defined. Yet all we ever hear about are other tangential issues as to why Quebec wants to separate. I'll consider the separatists' cries when a principled, reasoned argument starts being made consistently, not a flavour-of-the-month approach designed to gain more political power for the sake of holding political power.