Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brampton West.
As we debate various legislative proposals in the House, we are most often dealing with what we would describe as the “what” question. What is the bill designed to do? What does it change? What does it replace in terms of current law? However, I must confess, like many of my colleagues in the House, that I am asking the “why” question when it comes to the Conservative government's Bill C-6. Why has the government brought forward this legislation and why at this time?
First, one could ask whether there is a pressing and widespread problem with respect to the integrity of the voting process in regard to women who choose, for religious reasons, to wear a veil. Quite frankly, this is simply not the case. If it were not for the fact that some politicians have raised this issue, I am not sure it would have materialized as a major concern for Canadians, their elected representatives or observers in the political arena in our country.
I read with interest a quotation from the head of the Islamic Association of Nova Scotia, who said of this issue:
There was no controversy. The Muslim community never complained. The women would gladly take off their veil for a woman official.
I will not dwell too much upon the possible reasons for the government to bring forward Bill C-6, but let us consider the normal motivation for legislative initiatives.
The primary and appropriate motivation is based upon a sound and pressing policy requirement. In other words, the introduction of a piece of law is based upon sound public policy and the greater good of our society.
The second and less acceptable motivation is for political purposes. In view of the fact that this issue is not of concern to Elections Canada and was not clearly in need of urgent remedial action, I can only leave members of the House to draw their own conclusions in regard to what has motivated the government to introduce Bill C-6.
I believe a number of my colleagues have already raised the issue of mail-in ballots in regard to Bill C-6. While the government seems preoccupied with respect to the issue of veiled women having to remove their veils in voting stations, it seems to be perfectly comfortable with the concept of mail-in ballots.
In the 2006 federal election there were approximately 80,000 mail-in ballots. Obviously it is, by very definition and practice, not possible to visually confirm the identification of a voter using a mail-in ballot.
Furthermore, Bill C-6 and current election law do not even require the presentation of photographic identification for the purpose of casting a ballot in a federal general election.
In practical terms then, Bill C-6 could create a scenario where veiled voters are required to unveil themselves after having presented several pieces of non-photographic identification. What possible benefit is derived from this unless the polling official personally knows the voter? The practical realities of Bill C-6 are simply absurd.
We should also take note of the fact that in nations like the United Kingdom there has been talk of addressing voter turnout issues by permitting voting over the Internet. Clearly, the future will likely include the use of such tools to facilitate easier voting by citizens in Canada. When and if this comes to Canada, it will only further relegate to insignificance legislation like Bill C-6.
The real motivation of the government is clear to many observers. The Global and Mail editorial page recently expressed the thoughts of many reasonable observers when it stated in regard to Bill C-6 the following:
Pandering to...prejudice is a cheap way to win votes. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pandering by introducing a bill to force veiled Muslim women to show their faces at polls.