Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite, in referring to the speech by the hon. member for Mercier, indicated his interest in what she said and, in turn, I may say I was very interested in the way the hon. member opposite used examples from other countries and went back in history to support his argument.
I would be interested to know whether he was aware that, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Hungarians within the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in a situation quite similar to that of present-day Quebecers in the Canadian federation. In other words, they were an unhappy minority. They rebelled and were defeated, but subsequently, the Austrians, who were the ruling majority in the Empire, decided to negotiate and in the process recognized the so-called double monarchy, a structure in which both peoples, the minority and the majority, enjoyed a certain level of equality to defend interests they might or might not have in common.
In the same century there was another situation very similar to ours, and I am referring to the Norwegians who were not happy about being part of the kingdom of Sweden. They were an unhappy minority. Like the Hungarians, they rebelled, and were defeated. Subsequently, the Swedes agreed to negotiate and recognized a status also referred to as a double monarchy, which also included a parity structure that was different from Parliament but nevertheless a parity structure. I may recall that, in the twentieth century, both Hungary and Norway became independent. They were recognized as independent states.
I want to ask the hon. member opposite whether he feels-and he may not agree-that in this Parliament, representation should be based on population?
Does he agree there are two founding peoples here and at what level would he see a parity structure that would recognize that fact, or does he deny there are two founding peoples in this country?