I appreciate Mr. Proulx's intervention.Through you to him, Mr. Chairman, I simply observe that I'm partly responding to some comments that had been made following my previous comments that bring up some new points. But also, part of the reason for concentrating these comments at this end is that while this is not the only proposed amendment that deals with the actual day before polling day, there are some others that come up later on.
If this adjustment were made, as proposed in Bloc amendment 2, it would effectively reduce the efficacy. The voters list would not be as good for that final day of voting. So that means that even if we were to come back and continue on with allowing the voting on the final Sunday at all polling locations, we would not have voting that is as effective. So it seems a reasonable place to present the argument so that others can come to the conclusion that there is merit to Sunday voting on the day before, at universal polling stations.
Of course, I make all my comments--and I hope all members do the same thing--very much in the awareness that our purpose here is to try to convince each other, in the spirit of collegiality, of the reasonableness of our arguments, so that we may actually sway the point of view of members of this committee as they exercise their legal right and obligation to vote in good conscience for the best possible laws and amendments thereto.
All of this being said, I now return to the point regarding groups that would be unable to engage in voting if there were not universal polls. I mentioned people with limited mobility, the handicapped people who are shut in, the very elderly, obviously, in some cases, and those who rely upon a family member who might have to get to them to assist them in casting a vote. I stress, in particular, people in rural locations.
Not every member here represents a rural riding. Having represented one that is partly rural and partly urban, I do notice a significant difference with the urban area, where you would typically have six or seven polls at a single polling station, typically in a high school gymnasium, say, or a fire hall. If you have an advance poll, what happens is that you have often one poll at that polling station but it's in the same location.
In a rural area, it's very different. In a rural area, you can be in a situation in which you have an advance poll that covers a very wide area and can only be reached by car. Anybody who doesn't have a car, or access to a family member with a car, effectively can't vote at the advance poll. That's just the way it works.
One of the observations made by one of the witnesses was that those who are better able to take care of themselves, those who are of a wealthier socio-economic status, are most likely to take advantage of advance polls. I submit to members of the committee--and all of us at least purport to have a great concern for those who are less advantaged financially in our society--that based on that argument that we all present about trying to take special care of the less advantaged in society, we ought to be trying to ensure that they have the same kinds of opportunities to engage in voting at advance polls as people who are more advantaged would have, based on those mobility concerns.
That was a point that I thought needed to be fully expounded on.
The second thing I want to address is the issue of the number of voters we're talking about. Madam Robillard raised the issue of the cost. She said $37 million, and I heard somebody else—