Oh, I'm sorry, it's Monsieur Dion.
I was talking about Mr. Dion. In the remarks I've just quoted, it was he who proposed an amendment. He suggested an amendment rather than another bill, because he wanted to address the problem as soon as possible as a result of the byelections currently underway.
I'm just saying that Monsieur Dion, who is the leader of the opposition, was speaking for the Liberal Party, and he was basically expressing his concern with this interpretation of the law and the need for it to be addressed. There was no question about that.
Monsieur Bélanger, another well-known MP, says, “If we want to board a plane in this country, we must provide photo ID”. He's right. Everybody now knows that when you board an airplane, you provide photo ID, and it's unveiled: you can't present your photo ID and yet have a veil on. In your photo on the driver's licence, you're not veiled. So we must prove who we are as well.
He went on to say, “ I do not have difficulty with that and I do not think anyone has. It is the same thing for the citizenship card. People must have a photo on it and Muslim women must be unveiled. I do not think anyone has difficulty with that because it is a universal application.”
The point he's making is very well taken. I particularly like his point regarding the universality, because elections have a universal application to them. Of course it is our hope that all Canadians of voting age will participate in elections, so we see it as being universal across Canada.
I think Monsieur Bélanger's point is that if we must have photo ID in which we are not veiled and if there are other circumstances under which we must present ourselves unveiled--for security reasons, in this case, or just for identification reasons--then this should apply to elections as well. It's a good point.
Even Mr. Godin... I'd like to read something because Mr. Godin is with us today.
Good morning.