Camille is a fine example as well. I am not talking about the people at the clerk's table. In order to make sure there is no confusion, the voters' list must indicate the voter's gender. Similarly, and once again to avoid confusion, dates of birth must be indicated. That is obvious.
Up to now, my colleagues have been indicating the importance of including voters' date of birth on the electoral list. Some might point out that some first names might give an idea of the age of the voter.
I keep coming back to my name, Stéphane, a relatively new choice in first names for French Canadians and Quebecers. Adalbert would be an older sounding name, I might say, or a more venerable one. That said, you have to understand that, for there not to be any doubt, the date of birth should be given.
I still have four minutes left? I had already started my conclusion, so I will have to reorganize my thoughts so I can continue.
As I was saying before, while Stephen might have a more modern ring to it and Adalbert or Canute a more ancient one, it is obvious that just with the first name-although earlier on I heard
my Reform colleague suggesting that we get rid of the first name altogether. What kind of information are we going to be left with on the voters' list if we reduce it to such a minimum?
God knows that not one member in this House would dare say or do such a thing, but there is no doubt that eventually, if the voters' list was watered down to this extent, certain evil doers could take this opportunity to corrupt democracy.
If that was the case, Canadians and Quebecers as a whole would come out the losers. Therefore I strongly urge all my colleagues in this House, who support democracy and the need for transparency in a democracy, to vote for the amendments moved by my colleague from Bellechasse.