Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Professor Taillon, for being here today.
In your opening remarks, you spoke a lot about the reference to Parliament's decision to recognize Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. It got me thinking back to the days of Confederation and political science 101, when we learned about Cartier and Macdonald and the creation of Canada as we know it today.
In western Canada, we were taught that Cartier and Macdonald, under the BNA Act, had some economic interests in mind, and those economic interests were largely focused in two provinces, Quebec and Ontario. It was also interesting that when I remember looking back at the BNA Act, there was no reference to region, as well as in the original Constitution of Canada, which is obviously still in effect.
In British Columbia...I appreciated your comments about possibly electing a senator, but frankly speaking, if western Canada doesn't get some type of recognition moving forward, there are going to be major constitutional battles. In one respect, I agree with you that we need to have those tough conversations.
One of the things referenced in the Constitution of 1982 are the rights of individuals. I represent individuals who pay just as much tax as individuals in the province of Quebec to the federal government. I have a hard time coming here and saying that our vote is worth less than a Quebecker's.
It's not just me saying this. Donald Savoie, the Canada research chair, has spoken at length about the attempts of the Laurentian elite in Quebec and Ontario—this is Canada; this is serious stuff—and about the concentration of power that was designed in our Constitution of 1867, which still largely exists today in the formation of our public service.
What do you say to a western Canadian who simply wants an equal say in this federation? Secondly, if Quebec had under-representation like British Columbia has, I think Quebeckers would be up in arms. B.C. and Alberta have been up in arms in the past. It happened in 1993, and it's not a far cry, even based on your analysis today, to see that happening again.
Perhaps if we adopt this threshold that we're discussing today, recognizing the 43rd Parliament as the new standard-bearer for representation in the House of Commons, but also did something afterwards to improve the allocation of seats in western Canada, do you think that's something many people in Quebec would accept?