Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party showcase the flexibility for which they have become famous.

The question is whether voters need to show their faces when they vote.

The Liberals were for the idea to require the visual identification of voters, until now.

Liberals have lost their enthusiasm for forcing veiled Muslim women to show their faces if they want to vote in federal elections.

Some Grit MPs now admit the party was wrong to jump on the bandwagon two months ago, joining the three other federal parties in demanding that Elections Canada insist all voters uncover their faces.

At the time, the Quebec by-elections were being held. Not making accommodations like this is a popular position among many Quebecers, so the Liberals were eager to support the notion.

Here is a statement from Stephane Dion himself on the issue of visual identification of voters:

We welcome Elections Canada's efforts to strengthen the enforcement and identification measures for voters in the upcoming by-elections. We also appreciate the considered effort that Elections Canada has made to facilitate all Canadians' - regardless of ethnic, religious, social or economic background - voting in elections for Federal Parliament. Indeed, an electoral system that encourages the broadest possible participation of our citizens is one that finds the right balance between enforcing its integrity, and assuming the good faith of our voters.

However, we do believe that when they are casting a vote in elections, Canadian citizens have a responsibility to fully reveal their identities. For this reason, we would ask Elections Canada to reconsider its decision, and to require veiled women to unveil their faces to confirm their identities.

We would also propose that female Elections Canada officials be available to confirm the identities of veiled women, thus ensuring their values and privacy are respected.

That was on September 7.

On September 17, the Liberals were humilated in three Quebec by-elections.

Now that those by-elections are over, the perceived need to be seen coming down hard against accommodation has gone away:

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion was among those who initially urged Elections Canada to revisit its decision not to compel byelection voters to show their faces.

"It's important to identify the person. It may be done in a very respectful way but it must be done," he said at the time.

But now that the Tory government has introduced legislation to require precisely that, Dion is hinting that Liberals won't support it.

In a brief interview Thursday, Dion said cryptically that his party "thinks that the bill misses its target."

"We now know that the bill, which is supposed to allow visual identification of voters, doesn't do it. It's contradictory," he said.

Contradictory? How? Does the bill require visual identification of voters or not?

The new legislation also gives some flexibility to Elections Canada officials in administering the law so that it is respectful of religious beliefs.

[Conservative House leader Peter Van Loan] said Elections Canada may want to make it feasible for veiled Muslim women to uncover their faces behind a screen and in front of a female elections official.

So what is contradictory about that? What exactly does the bill require in terms of identification?

Description of the Bill

• The bill expressly mandates that voters be required to have their faces uncovered when being identified to vote. This would apply to both the registration and voting stages, to both advance and regular polls, to voting in person at the office of the Returning Officer, and during all federal elections and by-elections. Those vouching for voters without identification will also need to show their faces when vouching.
• The bill provides a limited exception for someone seeking to vote whose face is covered for medical reasons (e.g. someone whose face is bandaged after surgery) to ensure the vote continues to be accessible. However, such an elector would need to present more proof of their identity than a single piece of photo identification in order to be entitled to vote (i.e. he or she would need to present two pieces of authorized identification or take an oath and be vouched for by a qualified elector). In addition, he or she would need to take an oath or affirmation attesting to the fact that uncovering his or her face would be harmful to the voter's health.
• To ensure sufficient administrative flexibility, the bill provides technical amendments to ensure that there are sufficient election personnel at the polls to enforce the identification provisions effectively, including, if necessary, to administer the provisions in a manner that is respectful of the religious beliefs of voters.

In true Dion style, no one really knows what he means:

Insiders say the party has not yet taken an official position on the bill.

It must hard to guess at a person's position on an issue when it doesn't appear that this person even understand the issue, at least not in the same way everyone else does.

What's funny is that the Liberals are setting themselves to be against another Conservative bill. Will this mean another mass abstention? Of course, it would mean voting against their own position of only a couple of months ago. What would it mean if the abstained against themselves?