In the 1976 Quebec election, Quebec elected for the first time a provincial government that was explicitly in favor of sovereignty for Quebec, the Parti Québécois, under the leadership of René Lévesque?.
In 1979, the PQ then began an aggressive effort to promote sovereignty-association by providing details of how the economic relations with the rest of Canada would include free trade between Canada and Quebec, common tariffs against imports, and a common currency. In addition, joint political institutions would be established to administer these economic arrangements.

Sovereignty-Association was proposed to the population of Quebec in the 1980 Quebec referendum?. The proposal was rejected by 60 per cent of the Quebec electorate, but the PQ was returned to power with a larger majority than before. The PQ did not hold another referendum in their second term and put sovereignty on the back burner, but declined to sign the repatriated Canadian Constitution in 1981. Interest in sovereignty declined until the failures of the Meech Lake Accord? (1989) and Charlottetown Accord? (1991), both were efforts by the Mulrooney Conservatives to entice Quebec into becoming a signatory to the constitution. These failed efforts reopened old antagonisms, and led to the destruction of the Conservatives as a political force in Quebec, being replaced by the pro-Sovereigntist Bloc Québécois (BQ) as federal MP's.

The PQ returned to power provincially in the 1994 Quebec election under Jacques Parizeau, this time with 44.75% of the popular vote. Parizeau promptly called a new referendum. The 1995 referendum question differed from the 1980 question in that the negotiation of an association with Canada was now optional.

This time, the Yes camp lost in a very close vote, by less than one percent. As in the previous referendum, the English-speaking (anglophone) minority in Quebec overwhelmingly (about 90%) rejected sovereignty, and support for sovereignty was also weak among allophones in immigrant communities and first-generation descendants, while by contrast almost 60 per cent of francophones of all origins voted Yes (82 per cent of Quebecers are francophone).

In 1999, the government of Canada, under Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, passed Bill C-26 (also known as the Clarity Act), a law that, amongst other things, set out the conditions under which the federal government would recognize a vote by any province to leave Canada.

The Act gave the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear and allowed it to decide whether a clear majority had expressed itself in any referendum. It is widely considered by sovereigntists as indefensible and thus inapplicable. A contradictory Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State was introduced in the National Assembly of Quebec only two days after the Clarity Act had been introduced in the House of Commons.

Question: Should the governemnt of Quebec (or any other province) have the right to unilaterally succed from Canada?

• Pro: The issue of sovereignty would be eliminated and governments could concentrate on other issues such as the economy and social concerns.
• Con: Canada would not be the country we now know.
• Pro:The majority of Quebec citizens could finally realize their objective of controlling their own destiny.
• Con: Other provinces decide that they want sovereignty.
• Pro:The federal government would no longer have to deliver transfer payments to Quebec, thereby increasing the amount available for provinces such as the Maritimes who desperately need it.
• Con: Canada's economy and international reputation would suffers.
• Pro:Canada would have to adapt to this new situation and a new, potentially more equitable and functional political organization could be established.
• Con: The minority populations in Quebec would lose some rights and decide to leave their homes and friends.
• Con: Civil disobedience/violence.
• Con: Economic and political uncertainty.

• Pro:Canada would continue to exist and evolve as a country.
• Con: The issue of sovereignty would continue to dominate the political scene at the expense of issues such as the economy and social programs.
• Pro: The minority populations in Quebec would remain protected under the federal system.
• Con: A significant portion of the Quebec population would continue to feel unfulfilled.

• Pro:The issue would be regarded as fair and democratic.
• Con: Canadians outside of Quebec would feel that they had little say in the future of their country.
• Con: Both sides of the issue would eliminate feelings of mistrust and suspicion.

• Pro: All Canadian citizens (legal voters) would have a say in the future of their country.
• Con: The majority of Quebec citizens would see a national referendum as an attack on their right to self-determination.
• Pro: The majority of Canadians would view the process as more democratic, fair, and legitimate.

• Pro:The referendum would be considered democratic.
• Con: Many Canadians (including those in Quebec) would feel that their country was divided by a small percentage of its total population.

• Pro: The majority of Quebec citizens would feel that the referendum was democratic.
• Con: An increase in the potential for violence as one side lost by a narrow margin.

• Pro: The results would be a clear expression and, therefore, open to less criticism.
• Con: The rights of the minorities in Quebec would be in greater danger.

• Pro:The post-referendum negotiations between the Quebec government and the federal government would be easier.
• Con: For Canadian citizens in Quebec who oppose sovereignty, the bargaining power of the federal government would be decreased.

• Pro:The rights of Quebec's minorities would be guaranteed.
• Con: Some Quebec citizens would view this recognition as contrary to the objective of the referendum.

• Pro:Less minorities would leave the province after the referendum.

See the negative consequences listed in #1.

The desire to partition Quebec would be decreased.

• Pro:Quebec's international reputation would be enhanced.

• Pro:The right to self-determination would apply equally to all communities.
• Con: The government of Quebec, and a majority of its citizens, would not like the loss of the tax base, federal payments, and territory.

• Pro:Less people would leave the territory after the referendum.
• Con: An increased risk of violence due to uncertainty over jurisdiction.

The rights of these minorities would be respected.

• Pro: The issue of sovereignty would be off the agenda and governments could begin to concentrate on the economy and social issues.
• Con: Canadian citizens who favour sovereignty would feel an assault on their right to self-determination.

• Con: Some Canadians would feel that the Quebec government would lose significant bargaining power, thus making the Canadian federation more equitable.
• Con: This would be viewed as an artificial way to handle Quebec's desire to have more control over its territory.

• Pro: Canada would remain united and identifiable as a country.
• Con: Some Canadian citizens in Quebec would see this as a severe reduction in their bargaining power and thus feel threatened with the chance of losing their culture and language.

• 50% + 1 will mean that Quebec declares sovereignty then and there. Afterwards will begin the discussions.