John Turley-Ewart (who?) on Bill C-6 and Dion's response to it:
"Indeed, one has to prove one's identity to buy an airplane ticket, alcohol or cigarettes. Proving one's identity to vote — the most important exercise within a democracy — should not be treated with such disregard. Mr. Dion could have advocated legislation that would improve the integrity of our democracy, by opposing voting by mail and proxy and while wearing a veil.
Such a move would have presented the Liberals as agents for positive change, a party that respected the sanctity of the democratic process. Instead, Mr. Dion turned his back on principle. "
Well, of course, while Dion can "advocate" anything he wants, it is currently Conservative Legislation under consideration, and this legislation does nothing to establish a voter's identity because, as apparently needs to be repeated over and over again, it does not require the newly unveiled face to be matched against any form of photo ID.
Now, perhaps Dion should put forward legislation that 1) requires veiled women to unveil somewhere in the vicinity of the polling booth, 2) fixes the issue of mail-in voting and voting by proxy, where again it is impossible to determine whether the person casting the ballot is who they claim to be. If there is a problem (of voter fraud?) to be solved here, then this kind of legislation would do a better job of it than C-6. But that would certainly not preclude being against C-6.
But is there a problem to be solved? The Bloc Quebecois opposition to C-6 is instructive:
The Bloc Quebecois also opposes the bill but for entirely different reasons. Bloc MPs object to the fact that veiled women will be allowed to uncover their faces privately before female polling officials.
Female polling officers may be hard to find in some of Quebec's small towns, and bringing them in might cost $$$. The Bloc supports the idea of Muslim bashing, in other words, but if its going to cost them to do it, no thanks.