I have said explicitly from day one when I announced this policy in, I believe, November of 2011, that I and our government oppose the idea of banning the wearing of the niqab in public.

There's not a word in the Quran or the Hadith that requires that women cover their faces. To the contrary, the only requirement is that they uncover their faces when they're doing the haj.

My response to my friend Naheed Nenshi was simply to say that some of the hyperbolic language that's being used to critique this sensible reinforcement of the public nature of the citizenship oath is, I think, unhelpful, and is actually inflaming the situation.

You ought not to accept the claim that this is a religious practice. I think that's, frankly, problematic for Islam, for well-intentioned Liberals like you to say that this is a religious practice when the overwhelming consensus of Islamic scholars around the world, and the overwhelming majority of Canadian Muslims, believe this has absolutely - that the niqab as face covering, that this symbol of misogyny has nothing to do with Islam.

Naheed Nenshi is a friend of mine. We - he - knows how close I am to all of the cultural, ethnic, and religious communities in Canada, particularly his own Ismaili community. By the way, the vast majority of Canadian Muslims, particularly Ismaili Muslims that I know, strongly support our government's reinforcement of the public nature of the public citizenship oath.

Each year, members of Canada’s Ukrainian community, Parliamentarians and others commemorate the Holodomor at gatherings across the country. In doing so, we honour the memory of those who perished and the legacy of those who survived, including many who found refuge in Canada. It is by remembering the tragedies and atrocities of the past that we can equip ourselves to prevent them from happening again. That is why this national tour, which will reach Canadians of all ages and backgrounds, is an important initiative

The federal court has not commented on niqab as being a violation of any putative Charter right, but rather has said that the court believes that the policy ought to be anchored in legislation or regulation as opposed to an administrative order from the Minister. We disagree with that. But this is not a Charter ruling.