It's not even about the Quebec Act or even the Intolerable Acts, it simply boils down to religious persecution. Quebec was and still is rather Catholic and the British/Thirteen Colonies were highly Protestant. Quebec saw no use in joining a Revolution where the people they were joining with actively targeted Catholics and had no love for them. You see, this is how it was for Quebec; you can either keep the current Anglophone ruler which is loosely tolerant of your religion, language, laws and culture or you could go with a new Anglophone ruler that was not tolerant of your religion, language, laws and culture.
Sigh. Upteenth time I have to counter the foolish clichè in this board that there were anti-Catholic or anti-French pogroms in the 13 colonies.

There was no "intolerance" whatsoever of French language and culture in 18th and 19th century America. Back then, French was the highly valued and respected second language of educated elites and the international language of culture throughout Europe and America alike, just like English after 1945. Intolerance against Catholics was much less strong and widespread than you think. Catholics were elected to the Continental Congress and to the Constitutional Convention, you may see their signatures in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Both the US Constitution and the state constitutions gave full equality and civil rights to Catholics and French-speakers, and those measures were passed with little controversy. There is no historic record of significant anti-Catholic grassroots harassment or mob violence in 1770s-1780s America.
The 1787 Constitution would have given Quebec complete freedom to legislate to establish the Catholic Church (the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states till the 14th Amendment, and there were established chirches in the 13 states till the 1830s), protect French language, and establish the civil code. Respect for state rights was so deep in American public opinion that unless Quebec had actively discriminated against Protestants and English-speakers, nobody in the other states would have questioned the right of Quebeckers to manage their own state as they seemed best.
The Founding Fathers were highly interested in Canada joing their ranks: during the Revolution they wrote open invitations to do so, and after it, Canada was pre-approved for membership in the AoC.
The American system would have granted Quebec more equality and autonomy for their religion, language, law system, and culture, not to mention more political freedom and self-rule, than British colonial administration. That's an unquestionable fact.
Well it's not really plausible any time before 1939 unless you have some serious nearly ASB shifts in British policy and terrible terrible luck.
Well, Britain did lose the ARW, and if Quebec had joined the revolution, it would have lost just the same, in all likelihood quicker and more decisively.
The only way your POD would work is if Quebec's language, religion, laws and culture are enshrined in the US Constitution. Otherwise, Quebec might rebel alongside the Thirteen Colonies but would more than likely refrain from joining them.
Well, since Quebec representatives shall be among the Framers, it is indeed likely that a couple clausles shall be added to the Constitution to state that the Federal Government shall not interfere with the "domestic institutions" of the states (the Tenth Amendment actually shall make it unnecessary anyway), nor establish a national official language (the 1st Amendment already forbids to create a national church). The other states shall have little trouble with them, they fit well with the spirit and framework of the constitution. Nothing more is necessary, the states were already free to legislate to create an established church, an official language, and adopt the French civil law system.