Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very happy to be part of this debate. The reason of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois is that Quebec be guaranteed by Canada a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of members in the future. I think that many arguments have been put forward and I think it is very important to be aware that we are going through a significant moment of our lives.
We have asked on several issues in the past for a sign that would allow Quebec to try and understand or see if Canada truly wants a Quebec that stands up within Canada. It is not in the interest of Canada to have a weak Quebec but rather a strong Quebec which will be able to keep its representativeness, because Quebec is a nation. It is a people, a founding people.
In 1982, Canada undertook a societal project that denied Quebec its distinctiveness and said that henceforth there was only one national identity in this country. This society project treats all ten provinces on an equal footing. As a founding people, as my colleague just said so eloquently a moment ago, francophones were present on the whole territory and even further down to the south since they were even to be found in Louisiana, and when each of the provinces joined the Confederation, francophones formed a majority almost everywhere.
The population in Quebec also experienced significant growth, but if we analyze the immigration policy of Canada we will see that Canada has deliberately increased Ontario's population by immigration and it has anglicized this country. This was a deliberate decision on the part of the government. We are asking for a concession from this country that wants to keep us all together. Everyone says that Canada is much better off with Quebec. If that is true, make some concessions. Give us the minimum we are asking for, which is 25 per cent of the representativeness. That is all we are asking.
I wonder why the government would be stubborn about that. Earlier, when I was behind the curtains, I heard the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands say that he had doubts about the legality of the amendment. I think that is not a very strong argument because at this point in time, I do not see how we could question the decision made by the Speaker to the effect that this amendment was admissible. Therefore, if the Speaker said that the amendment was in order, I wonder how we could challenge that. Other arguments must be found to justify a vote against this amendment.
It seems extremely important to me that we recognize that Quebec does bring an essential contribution to Canada. Confidentially speaking, between you and I, if English speaking Canada is not already an American state, it is because we are here. We make the difference. Without French speaking people, what makes us different from the Americans? We eat like them, we drink like them, we do the same things, we watch the same TV. Everything will reach us much more easily. As you know, American imperialism is expanding all around the world. It will cross our borders much more easily.
What makes a Canadian a Canadian is the fact that he can say he lives in a bilingual country. Canadians are in a country where a large percentage of the population, 25 per cent, is francophone. It is a country with a dual culture. It has the underlying wealth of two cultures, the English and the French cultures.
What other country in the world can claim such a cultural wealth? We are really, I believe, vital to Canada. We have said that, so long as we are not sovereign, we will defend the interests of Quebecers.
It must look rather odd for a sovereignist to rise in this House and say: "Hang on to the furniture, give us at least 25 per cent representation". We have not left the country yet. We are still here, and our duty, what we see as our basic responsibility, is to say to the all of the hon. members in this House that it is their duty to give us 25 per cent representation. We were here first; you conquered us. We formed a union in 1840. We decided to live together. We established a sort of trade agreement. We built a railroad that we are in the process of demolishing. At least give us 25 per cent representation. It will not cost you anything. On the contrary, it will mean a lot for you. You must realize this while there is still time.
After we go, if ever we leave, because we are basically hoping to, it will not have cost you a thing to give us the 25 per cent we are asking for as a gesture of openness and understanding toward a nation you claim you want to keep with you. It seems to me that, if the government really wants to prove conclusively that it cares for us, it must maintain our level of representation.