Right, those who are continuing in the job and the new ones.
On the same page, you say that since the last election, returning officers have completed twenty or so pre-election tasks. For example, they have found suitable offices. In my view, the idea of suitable is subjective by definition. Something suitable for you may perhaps not be for me. You may find that a $300,000 house is suitable, but if you are a hockey or baseball player, you could feel that a $300,000 house is not suitable. So would you agree with me that the meaning of the word is subjective?
This has been a great source of discontent in the past. I even invited Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Davidson to come to Saint-Laurent on the Île d'Orléans to see a hockey changing room where six voting booths had been made with screens. As the MP, I walked around the room, and I could see the people who were voting for me and those who were voting for someone else. On election day, the act allows candidates to come into polling stations. You do not get in the way of the voting procedure, but you shake hands with the election workers and the people standing in line. I saw people voting for me and against me in a hockey changing room where there were six booths.
Mr. Kingsley and Ms. Davidson came to see that polling station and found it to be totally unacceptable. So much for the definition of the word “suitable”. As an official candidate in the next election—and all my colleagues will agree with me on this—I expect that our returning officer will bring party representatives together to tell them where voting will take place. But he should be ready to be told about things that don't make any sense—