Debates of Nov. 15th, 2007

Canada Elections Act

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the hon. member. He spoke of the need to correct the situation, but I want to know what situation he is talking about. What is the problem he is trying to resolve?

I would like him to tell us exactly how many incidents there were during the general election in Quebec in the spring and during the three byelections in Quebec in September. How many times did the legislation fail in terms of elector identification? How many people, whose faces were covered, ran into problems when they cast their vote?

Where is the sense in asking someone to uncover their face when it is not necessary and is even impossible to have a universal photo ID card across Canada? It does not exist. We cannot ask citizens to get a driver's licence just to vote. There is no mandatory photo ID for the entire voting population. What happened to common sense? What is the link between a photo ID card and the need to uncover one's face?

The hon. member spoke of principles, but what principles? Does he mean the principle of nonsense? There is no link between uncovering one's face and the need to produce photo ID, since such universal cards do not exist in this country.

Quite frankly, what is the situation he is trying to correct? Let him elaborate on specific incidents and tell us what principles and common sense he has in mind.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the point here is equality among voters and equality between men and women. There was only one incident: four women voted with their faces veiled, which they justified using the Chief Electoral Officer's directives. It is clear that this was an isolated incident. We should be grateful for the voters' sense of responsibility and wisdom in the three ridings that held byelections. If not for that, this issue could have been blown way out of proportion.

This is not about specific issues; it is a matter of principle. If we offered a group of voters the opportunity to vote with their faces covered—except for medical reasons, obviously, as set out in Bill C-6—we would be violating the principle of gender equality. Moreover, if we are talking about a specific religion, the Muslim community never asked for this.

I would like to quote part of an interview with Mrs. Ibnouzahir on Radio-Canada:

These women have been voting for years. They have never asked for special treatment, even though they know they have the right to do so under current legislation. They themselves took the initiative to show their faces, just as they do at customs or at the passport office, because they believed it made sense for security reasons.

They do not think it is unreasonable to show their faces when they vote. Why create an exception that goes against the values of Quebec society and, I think, Canadian society, to act on a request that was never articulated by any group in Quebec or Canada?

The Bloc Québécois wants to engage in a real debate between a vision of society known as multiculturalism, which seeks to bring all cultures and ethnicities into society, and Quebec's intercultural approach, which seeks to integrate all members of a society into a common culture.

I think that it is essentially the Trudeau legacy that is making the federal Liberals go back on the approach developed by their leader when these incidents happened. If I remember correctly, I think that the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada felt that common sense and the need to respect the right to equality between female and male electors dictated that it was necessary to vote with the face uncovered. Now, it seems as though some comments were made within the caucus or the core electorate of the Liberals that led the party to change its approach, reverting to the approach of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Society is made up of individuals and groups that join together rather than stand apart. So we will not wait for the incidents to happen. We are happy there have not been more.

A parliamentarian is responsible for addressing concerns as they arise, and not waiting for there to be a problem. It was the Chief Electoral Officer who asked parliamentarians to fix and clarify the situation. This is why we want to go further than Bill C-6 to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer has all the necessary parameters to enforce the law as it should be, and as the parliamentarians in this House thought it would be. I think that the Liberals should start to seriously reflect on this. Perhaps this explains their problems in Quebec. They are completely disconnected from the way Quebeckers think.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the response given by the hon. member. He talked about responsibility and wisdom. I saw no wisdom in his response. I found it a veiled attempt at discrimination.

The bottom line is that currently as the law stands there are people who can mail in ballots and who can do special ballots. They do not have to show their faces. There are 80,000 to a million people who vote that way. Where is the wisdom in trying to target one community?

I am very proud of Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the prime minister who brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It protected everyone and did not discriminate because I did not look like them. I would like to see where the wisdom is in the discriminatory practices of this member.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our party sees the fundamental principle as the equality of men and women. It is a basic principle in public life. As I mentioned before, a man who does not wish to be arrested by a female officer is denying this right. Religion is of no consequence in a public space. The police officer, whether male or female, has the same responsibilities, the same obligations and the same rights under the law. The same principle is true for elections. In addition, I repeat, this has never been an issue for the Muslim community. We had testimony in this regard from several witnesses, including members of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

In my opinion, the answer to the member's remark and question is very clear. Here we see the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a view of society that is outdated in several respects. In fact, citizenship issues have been clarified over the years. In this regard, Bill C-6, although incomplete, uses a much more modern approach to the integration of newcomers than that of multiculturalism, which has led to problems not only in Canada and Quebec, but also in Great Britain.

It may be time to wake up and realize not only that public spaces must respect rights and values in a manner that is equitable for all individuals but also that public spaces are secular spaces.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the member for the Bloc explained his principles, his good sense, his logic and his understanding of the problem. The problem is that there is no problem. He just told us that in the Quebec general election a grand total of four people showed up wearing veils and they were dealt with under the existing law. Where is the problem?

He says that we are going to correct the situation. What situation? There is no situation.

The problem is that we are being asked to pass a law that is entirely unnecessary. It makes no sense. It was not a problem during the Ontario general election, which has exactly the same rules. It was not a problem during the Quebec general election nor during the Quebec byelections. We do not have a problem.

We have a method of dealing with it. We ask for pieces of identification, which do not need to be photo ID. We ask, in case of doubt, that people take an oath that they are who they are and they will suffer the penalties if they are not who they are supposed to be. We are not here to pass unnecessary legislation where there is no problem.

Worse than that, we are not here to pass coded legislation, legislation that singles out only one group. People often use the phrase “the veiled voting bill” as opposed to the visual identification bill or whatever other Orwellian phrase we are currently using.

It is singling out a specific group of people, Muslim women, who are not part of a problem, who have not asked for this and who are now being asked to say that even though they did not ask for it, they will go along because they want to go along. Why should any group of innocent people in Canadian society who are being singled out for a non-problem be asked to swallow themselves whole simply to get along? What we want is for everyone to participate in society as full members, certainly for newcomers, including Muslim women, veiled or unveiled.

Meanwhile, there are real problems. One real problem is being addressed by Bill C-18, which is leaving a million people off the voters lists. That strikes me as a bit of a problem and yet we are investing all of this energy in a non-problem that has the sideswiping effect for a group of innocent women in this country.

This is a totally ridiculous bill and it is, of course, completely illogical. People can vote by a postal vote and there is no problem at all. People can vote stark naked. They can vote with a blanket over their heads. They can vote under water blowing bubbles as long as they do not get water on the paper. They can do all of that and there is no connection with visual identification. We cannot insist that every Canadian needs to have photo ID because there is no photo ID that all Canadians are required to have.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley East, who has much to say on this point.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Is this a veiled threat?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

This is not a veiled threat. This is a real opportunity because I am a sharing kind of guy.

Since we cannot insist that all Canadian citizens have a driver's licence or any other standard visual identification, there is no connection between showing one's face and the forms of ID that are available to people. People may as well be told to show their left foot or their belly button. None of them make any sense. We are not here to promulgate laws that are unnecessary nor are we here to deal with illogicality and a lack of principle.

Finally, if we want to get into the general oddity of this bill, there is what I call the English patient clause. For those who saw the film The English Patient, they will remember the guy lying in his little villa covered with bandages. Apparently, we are worried about him. There are four references to The English Patient in the bill. One is “bandaged people”. Bandaged people will not be treated like anybody else. There will be discrimination between people who are bandaged and those who are not.

The bandaged people will need to produce a piece of ID saying that they really need the bandage. One has a sort of strange image of people getting off their deathbeds, crawling out from their Italian villas, like in The English Patient, and casting their vote. However, it does not treat all voters the same, so why do we have The English Patient exception and yet we go on about this other non-problem?

All in all, this is a silly bill. It is silly and dangerous because it promulgates a false idea that there is somehow a problem and that problem is somehow associated with Muslim women, the very people we are trying to get to be citizens, along with everyone else in this country.

We should not be passing the bill. It is unnecessary, silly and illogical.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I rather enjoyed my hon. colleague's silly diatribe, or entertaining diatribe I should say. He talked about blowing bubbles. Frankly, I think he was blowing smoke because all parties in the House agreed that something needed to be done quickly. This government has shown leadership by tabling this bill.

We would love to move on to Bill C-18, which is a significant problem that the government has already dealt with expeditiously. We would ask for the opposition's help in doing this. Let us get Bill C-6 behind us. All four parties agreed that this needs to be done, so why are they stalling? Why are they not showing leadership on this issue? They talk about leadership. Let us show some leadership in the House together with the government and get it behind us so we can move on. We need to quit stalling and get on with it.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, part of our duty as parliamentarians is to reflect on things, to take in additional information and to ask ourselves, with a little time, whether this makes any sense, and that is what we are doing. We are looking at it. We have the bill before us and now that we have looked at it we see that it is not logical. No problem is being solved by this and it has this dark side of discrimination about it, which is why we are opposed to it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my Conservative colleague, I heard some things that made my hair stand on end. I got to know the Liberal member when I sat on a committee with him, and I had a great deal of respect for him. But now I am asking myself serious questions about his behaviour and what could possibly be behind his comments.

When we can identify someone, then we must do so. People have the right to vote, and no one must ever take on another person's identity. I am wondering about this because of the history of the party the member represents. I nearly lost the election in 1998 because some voters impersonated other people. Does the member see this as a way of increasing the Liberal Party's share of the vote in the next election?

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, three things are behind my comments. First, as Paul Valéry said, “Stupidity is not my strong suit”. When I see a silly bill, I have to speak out against it.

Second, I do not like the myth that there is a problem caused by Muslim women.

Third, I represent my constituents, and my riding has the highest proportion of Muslims in Canada. I can say that there is no problem during byelections, provincial elections or federal elections in my riding. I know this community well, and I am here to defend them against myths.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help myself but to weigh in. Here are the simple facts. At the procedure and House affairs committee, all four parties said that we needed to do something, including the hon. member's party. They said that we needed to bring a bill forward. They asked for it in the committee.

All of a sudden the Liberals have changed their mind. I am not sure if it is because they know the other three parties are all in favour and now they have an opportunity to stand up and vote instead of sitting down and abstaining.

I am not sure where they are standing but the record will show that in the procedure and House affairs they asked the government for this legislation and said that they would support it. It was unanimously passed at committee and now they are not sure where they stand. It is consistent with what we have seen from the Liberals in the last few weeks. They are not sure when they should vote and what they should vote for.

I guess it is not surprising that we are now seeing that they are somehow opposed to this when they were calling for it at committee and the government has given them the exact bill they asked for.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, we did not ask for this bill, with its illogicality. Second, what we said in the procedure and House affairs committee was that we should consider the matter. That is what we are doing. We are considering it.

Having considered it, we will reject it, because we actually take on board new information. That is our job as parliamentarians. We have thought about it, reflected and consulted, and now we realize this is not the way to go.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this important issue of democratic freedom in our country.

As my esteemed colleague from Don Valley West has said, this is a flawed bill. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the rights of an individual to freely practise his or her religion without interference from the state. Regretfully, the Conservatives are proposing legislation that not only will divide Canadians, but also targets a religious minority for no other reason but to pander to the politics of fear and ignorance.

The Conservatives are showing their disdain for rights and freedoms, and Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, is a flawed piece of legislation. It represents a knee-jerk reaction that would require Muslim women to unveil their niqab or burka for the purpose of visual identification at the ballot box.

Canadians could be forgiven for thinking veiled Muslim women pose an urgent threat to the integrity of our electoral system, and therefore it appears that the Prime Minister has made it one of his priorities to force voters to show their faces at the polls. But is there any shred of evidence that such a problem existed in the first place? The Conservative government has admitted there was no apparent case of fraud in three federal byelections that were held in September in Quebec when unjustified hysteria over veiled Muslim women first boiled over.

So what is it that the Conservatives are trying to fix? If a problem does not exist, what are they trying to fix? I think what they are trying to fix is that “if you do not look like me or act like me, then you are a problem”. I think that is really unfair to a large population of over a million people who have been law-abiding citizens, who have voted and who have never faced discrimination of the nature that they are seeing at the moment.

The legislation was not crafted in response to any incident involving fraud. Rather, it is irrational and hysterical. If a problem did exist, why did the Prime Minister not include these provisions in the electoral bill that was passed by the House less than six months ago?

The Conservatives have tried to dress up this bill as a means to enhancing public confidence in the democratic process. But it has nothing to do with electoral integrity and everything to do with pandering to the narrow-minded fears about minorities, particularly in Quebec, where this troubling debate over reasonable accommodation is now raging.

What if there is a requirement for visual identification? At the moment visual identification is not required by law in a federal election. In fact, Canadians have the option in this country to vote by postal ballot, where no identification is required, yet the Conservative government firmly believes that veiled Muslim women are a threat. I challenge any member of the House to document one single incident of electoral fraud in Canada that was committed by a veiled Muslim woman.

As Canada's Chief Electoral Officer has pointed out, over 80,000 Canadians voted in the last federal election through the postal system and none of them were required to provide photo identification. Why? Because the law does not require it. These people are snowbirds and other Canadians who are out of the country during a federal election. Should we therefore disenfranchise 80,000 Canadians based on irrational fear?

It may interest members to know that Muslim women currently serving in the Canadian Forces are permitted to wear a hijab on duty. Is the government therefore trying to say to Muslim women that it is okay to serve on the front lines of the Canadian military, but it is not okay for them to wear a veil when they vote?

The Canadian Forces wants to recruit more Muslim women because we desperately need them. We are in Afghanistan, and really, the Conservatives have no idea of what they are doing there. They do not even know what pluralism or diversity means, so what is the message the Conservatives are trying to convey? Is the government trying to uphold the rights of only certain citizens and succumbing to fear and sudden whims that pose no threats? As parliamentarians, we are elected to represent our constituency, and I feel obligated to resist policies that are made on irrational impulses.

We are elected to look at and consider legislation. If it is based on reasoning and rational thought, then we approve it. On this occasion, the bill as it currently reads unfairly targets a religious minority. Also, not only is it contrary to my beliefs, but more important, it is contrary to the law as it currently exists.

I would strongly urge the government to reconsider this legislation and reflect on its responsibility to uphold democratic rights in the country. Considering how flawed the bill is and considering that it is targeting only one community, it is important that it be tightened up, the flaws reviewed and the bill not passed, because it will never pass the charter challenge.

It is another example of the Conservatives' agenda of divisiveness and discrimination against one group. There are glaring inconsistencies and this is shamefully playing cheap politics at the expense of Canadian Muslims. It will not achieve anything. It will not achieve its stated goal of improving visual identification except in wanting one group to lift its veil. Really, it is a veiled attempt at discrimination against one group.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not even sure I should make a comment because I would not want to imply any impartiality. I am the chairman of the committee that studied the bill and I am absolutely appalled at the member's comments. The member is making this into a race issue.

On that committee, we heard from a number of representatives from the Muslim community, and every single one of those who represented numerous communities across this country were absolutely ashamed of this becoming a race issue. The revealing of faces is not a religious issue; it is a custom. They were appalled at any insinuation that this had anything to do with race.

To have the member stand in this House and suggest that anyone else's comments besides her own are dividing this nation is absolutely rejected. It is shameful. The Muslim community wants this legislation. This legislation was debated. Witnesses were heard. The members opposite were completely in favour of this legislation at the time.

I wish I had counted the words in that speech in order to mention the number of times the member is wrong and how she should be ashamed of making this into a race issue. It is not a race issue. I wish she would apologize to the Muslim communities in this country.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the member. This shows the arrogance of the Conservatives. They think they represent the Muslim community. They think they have talked to the Muslim community. They have no clue.

I, as a Muslim woman, take pride in whatever garb I wear. I do not wear the hijab or the niqab. That is not the issue. The issue is that the government has decided to make the veil an issue. It has decided to target a community. It has decided to discriminate against one million Muslims.

The Conservatives should apologize. They should be ashamed of this. There was no issue. Why did they make it an issue? The current law does not require visual identification. There is no photo identification required. People could use a debit card or a bank statement. What sort of nonsense are the Conservatives spouting? It shows they have no idea when they bring in bills. They bring in haphazard legislation and expect people to pass legislation that is so haphazard, so ludicrous and so stupid.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleague across the way. I have a question for her: where does the Liberal Party stand?

She has been quite articulate in her positions, but the Liberal Party was very clear at committee, or at least the leader was very clear, that the Liberals wanted this. They asked for this. As we have heard, there was unanimous support for this at committee. However, we have heard from the members for Don Valley East and Don Valley West about their positions.

Therefore, I have a question for the member. Is this her position on the matter or is it her leader's position? If it is her leader's position, then I have a follow-up question: why has he changed his position on this? We have seen consistent flip-flops on this. Is this a stalling tactic? Canadians want this matter dealt with. Not very long ago, the committee was unanimous in asking that this be dealt with, and so the government is providing good legislation.

Is the member's position changing? Or is her leader's position changing? I hope she can answer those questions.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Liberal Party believes in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it will uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms whether one is a veiled woman or not a veiled woman or whether one is white, purple, pink or black, because that is what the charter states. We do not distinguish. We do not discriminate against gays or sexual orientation, et cetera.

Therefore, by singling out veiled women, the government has seized an opportunity to look at visible signs of differences, so next it will go after beards, turbans or whatever. That is what it will do. The rights of every citizen have to be protected. As Canadian citizens in this pluralistic society, a society where immigrants are one in five, we need to behave like Canadians, but we do not have to be a monolith.

In light of this and in the absence of any security concerns, I do not know why this is such a prejudicial bill.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I participate today in this debate on Bill C-6, which here and now, in this House, renews the debate on veiled voting.

In these early hours of this debate here in the House of Commons, the whole issue surrounding this bill is a very emotional one. I see that my colleague who spoke this morning and gave a speech filled with emotion is now leaving the House. I can see this is a very emotional issue.

I want to begin by saying that I have a great deal of difficulty, after hearing the first comments by the Liberals, in understanding the Liberal Party's position today in this House. As recently as September 7 of this year, the Liberal Party of Canada was calling for amendments to the act. It called on the Chief Electoral Officer to take action and to reverse the decision he made concerning voting in the byelections that were to take place on September 17 in Quebec. Indeed, it is hard to understand today's statements by the Liberals on this matter, when we heard the leader of the Liberal Party stating the opposite on September 7.

However, the debate here is not new. We must remember that it is part of the debate that has been taking place in Quebec in the context of two recent votes. I think first of the byelection that confirmed the election of Pauline Marois. As it happens, while the issue of veiled women voting was not at the heart of the campaign it certainly was raised during that byelection.

We must also recall that this debate was also raised during the September 17 byelections in Quebec. As a matter of fact, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada announced that women wearing veils could vote in the next federal election and in the Quebec byelections on September 17 without being required to uncover their faces. The following day, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party—I emphasize that—and the Bloc Québécois intervened, calling on the Chief Electoral Officer to reverse that decision. Later, naturally after some pussyfooting and hesitation, the leader of the NDP thought better of it and also demanded that the Chief Electoral Officer's opinion be reviewed.

The result is that we are now considering Bill C-6 which seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act to require male and female voters to have uncovered faces when voting or registering to vote.

Of course, the bill before us today includes some exceptions, one of which involves allowing voters to keep their faces covered for health reasons, but only on the condition, of course, that two pieces of identification be presented.

Furthermore, under Bill C-6, certain exceptions would determine under what circumstances—and these are the cases for which the law provides flexibility—a voter must uncover his or her face.

I would remind the House that this kind of debate has already been raised this year, when we amended the Canada Elections Act in order to be able to confirm the identity of voters. As I recall, we thought that the problems raised in the context of the two byelections—especially the one on September 17—had been resolved by that amendment. However, Bill C-31, which we examined clause-by-clause in February 2007, made it mandatory for voters to produce photo identification in order to vote.

Thus, it seemed sufficiently clear that voters were obliged to prove their identity. Fundamentally, that is the spirit of this bill. It is not a racial question, as some members have said here today. Rather, it is a question of verifying the identity of voters. At the time, we thought that amending the Canada Elections Act through Bill C-31 was enough to clarify the situation regarding voter identification.

I would remind the House, however, that the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada refused to use his special authority to require all voters to uncover their faces in order to vote. The Bloc Québécois would like to see that legislation amended as quickly as possible. This is why my hon. colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord introduced Bill C-465, to amend the Canada Elections Act: in order to ensure that voters vote with their faces uncovered.

I would remind the House that this accommodation, which would allow certain voters to keep their face covered while voting, is not the sort of reasonable accommodation called for by the Muslim community.

I remember that, during an interview on Radio-Canada on September 10, 2007, Ms. Asmaa Ibnouzahir said that Muslim women had decided themselves to take the initiative and unveil their faces because they thought it was a normal thing to do so as a security matter, just as they do at the customs or the passport office. The Muslim community itself, therefore, as represented by Présence musulmane Montréal—an organization that is quite representative of the community—said that these women had been voting for years and had never asked for special treatment, although they knew they had the right to do so.

There is no demand or request for this kind of accommodation, which would mean that women would not need to uncover their face. That is why we need to act as quickly as possible. Is Bill C-6 perfect? No, it is not, but it has the advantage of dealing with the situation in principle, in view of the fact that the Chief Electoral Officer refuses to use his powers under the Elections Act.

What are the imperfections in Bill C-6? We think that it does not abide by the principle of equality between men and women. Under the first five clauses in Bill C-6, deputy returning officers and poll clerks can delegate their powers to another person. Under this provision, a male deputy returning officer could therefore accommodate a female elector by designating a woman before whom the elector could uncover her face to confirm her identity. This is totally unacceptable.

It is as if citizens of Arab or Muslim origin came into my riding office but refused to be served by my assistant because she is a woman. I would tell these people that my assistant is perfectly competent and is there to serve the citizens. There is no possible doubt in this case that the equality of men and women is a basic right. I fail to see why this principle of the basic equality of men and women cannot be upheld in the bill.

I will finish by saying this is clearly an emotional debate. It is a debate that we need, though, because of our responsibility for democracy. We need to find the right balance in our ability to accommodate people. It is important to be able to identify people when they exercise their voting rights. Of course there can be some exceptions for medical reasons, but in general, we should ensure that when a citizen comes to a polling station, he or she must address the deputy returning officers or poll clerks who are there, regardless of whether they are men or women, and identify himself or herself, in accordance with the legislation that we are trying to amend today.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks. I understand that he was on the procedure and House affairs committee, or had listened to the witnesses. If I understood him correctly, there is no issue with the Muslim women; this is not what it is about. I would like him to reiterate that and tell me then why the Liberals would try to make it into such an issue, if they had agreed at committee that it was not an issue once they heard that the Muslim women themselves are not offended. Could the member assure us that this definitely does not have anything to do with their being Muslim and that it is about voter identification at the polls?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I listened to the first speeches by the Liberal Party of Canada this morning and I was a little surprised at what my colleagues in the official opposition were saying, because they were quite simply not on the same page as the leader of the Liberal Party, who asked the Chief Electoral Officer on September 6 to revisit his decision.

It seems to me that we might have expected some minimum of consistency this morning here in the House. I say this very humbly and without wishing to play political games. We can support this bill in principle. As I said, the bill is not perfect. It is certainly subject to being amended in committee. However, on the principle of the bill, we must be in favour, because there is a virtual consensus, apart from the NDP flip-flopping, having changed its mind on its position. It seems to me that we had a degree of consensus among the opposition parties, and that the Liberal Party was in agreement at that point. Now I am finding it difficult to explain the first speeches by the Liberal Party.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions to ask my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

First, he insists that there is no racial element in this entire matter. And yet the next minute he is talking about this bill concerning voting with one’s face covered. That is not the title of the bill, but that is what he is talking about. What is being referred to when he says voting with one’s face covered? Is it women who belong to religious orders? I do not think so. It is in fact a group: Muslim women.

I would also ask him to make a logical connection for me between visual identification and the fact that in Canada we cannot insist that everyone have a piece of photo ID. Given that fact, why insist on people uncovering their faces? If it is not mandatory to have a piece of visual identification with a photograph, why compare that to a face? There is no logical connection, and so that is the question I am asking him.

Second, I would ask that he think a little about the distinction between passports, which people must have in order to cross borders, and the right to vote. It is a choice to get a passport and leave the country, but we have the right to vote as Canadian citizens and there is still no mandatory piece of photo ID.

And to conclude, I would ask him what the problem is, and how many incidents this bill will resolve? Instead of answering, we get told about principles. What are these principles? There is no problem, and so there is no need to have this bill.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the proof that the hon. member is wrong lies in the fact that this is not an issue of race. If a Canadian citizen, a citizen from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for example, wears a veil and decides to go to the polling station, that person must identify themselves regardless of where they are from. We cannot have people going to polling stations wearing veils, whether they are Muslim or not. Showing one's face is the simplest way of identifying one's self.

My colleague is in fact proving that it might be time for us to have elector ID cards. That might be the way to resolve much of this problem. As far as passports and crossing borders are concerned, I did not give that example; Présence Musulmane Montréal did during an interview on September 10. Let me say again to the hon. member: Muslims have never asked for special treatment even though they know they have the right to do so. They have taken the initiative to uncover their faces because they thought it was perfectly normal to do so as a matter of security. They do so at the border and at the passport office. It was not a member of Parliament who said that; it was Présence Musulmane Montréal.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing comments on the subject of veiled voting. Some people are even trying to give it a racial slant. During the last election, I was in Saint-Hyacinthe, where several people were wearing veils and others were wearing grocery bags on their head. It was absolutely despicable because people were abusing the situation and even sharing bags. I think this goes against the purpose of one person one vote. I have also done my research and there is not a single country in the world that allows women to vote with their faces covered, except for this one maybe.

Since we are talking about double-checking a person's identity by comparing their face to their identification card, I would like to know what the Liberal Party stands to gain by maintaining voter anonymity. The question is for my friend from the Bloc.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I partially answered that question earlier. It is very dangerous, on the basis of Bill C-6, to say that this is a strictly racial issue. The Liberals are playing a dangerous game this morning.

The member's example was the same as one I mentioned before. A voter who arrives more or less disguised at the polling station must identify themselves, as must any Muslim woman who wears a veil. It is purely a matter of identifying the voter. My colleague is right; there are even precedents in Morocco where some accommodations can be made. However, when a citizen appears before a deputy returning officer, he or she must be able to identify the voter. This is the purpose of the act, a principle which the Liberal Party should support this morning.