Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. He reminded the House of an interesting phase in the Bloc's evolution, when it first came here in 1993 as the official opposition with over 50 members.
We brought Quebec's experience to this public forum, as well as the conditions under which there could have been an interesting result in terms of Quebec's sovereignty.
Indeed, parties may be able to emerge as ours did, and the legislation before us will ensure the emergence of ideas, if not parties. But there are limitations. This is a British parliamentary system, which tends to restrict the number of parties.
In fact, traditionally, parties in such a system tend to be moderate. As a result, the kind of representation found in a proportional system does not exist here.
I would like to ask my colleague if he believes that, despite its faults, the bill before us will ultimately stand up to the Supreme Court test.
In any event, can we expect ideas and new parties to emerge, parties that may ultimately be represented in the House? Will there not be a second phase to this legislation, which should be developed as soon as possible to allow these parties to be recognized and have sufficient means of expression in order to contribute to the democratic debate?
It is important in a parliament for all voices to be heard. That fundamental principle explains the Bloc's presence here. Sovereignists represent about 45% of all Quebeckers, and we have always claimed that they had the right and the desire to be represented in this House, and that for a tool such as the Bloc Quebecois to exist was a democratic advantage.
Does the member believe that there should be a second phase, with rapid implementation, to ensure that this legislation not only allows for the emergence of new parties but also gives these parties the means to make their ideas heard?