Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayrand, you said—and it's written in your document—that you went to a number of meetings across Canada that were attended by returning officers. They no doubt mentioned to you that it was hard to find election workers. I'm talking about officials appointed by the returning officers on recommendation by the parties—and even their own staff.
There are two problems, including remuneration, which is distinctly inadequate. In view of the fact that hours have been extended to encourage people to exercise their right to vote, the person who was earning $5 an hour now earns $3. This has become a problem. In the second paragraph on page 7 of your remarks, you say you intended to review that, but had decided to defer that review in view of the current economic situation.
That's understandable, but I'd like to know how long it will be deferred. The recession will apparently be lasting a year or two more; I don't really know. In short, are you going to consider this question again in the shorter term?
In addition, since you have to find people who aren't working, some of those people receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Do you think people who work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in a plant or office will use their leave days to go and work there? If you go into polling stations on election day, you'll no doubt see that these are retirees, students or employment insurance claimants.
Could we consider the possibility that their earnings, as a result of a legislative amendment, I agree, might not be considered as income within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and the act concerning the Guaranteed Income Supplement? There are people who are still very alert, who are 68 years old, for example, and who receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement. But what would be the appeal for them? Their supplement would be cut off. For other people, it would be the employment insurance benefits. Would there be some way of considering that aspect?
I have other questions.
You'll probably have 40 seconds to answer, which is very impolite on the part of the Chair, who is depriving witnesses of the opportunity to respond, but that's another matter.
In the first paragraph on page 9, you say the following: Our evaluations, while generally positive, point to a number of areas in need of either legislative or administrative improvements. In some cases, we are in the process of developing recommendations to address issues raised by the evaluations. In other cases, we are exploring what can be accomplished administratively.
I understand that the last part of the paragraph concerns the administrative aspect. However, I would like to know whether, when you talk about recommendations for solving the problems raised, that means you are currently considering draft amendments to improve the act.
Furthermore, you are concerned by the decline in voter turnout. I'm convinced that it troubles you, as much as it troubles us by the way, to see that fewer and fewer of our fellow citizens are interested in politics. I'm going to ask you the question once again: have you considered holding advance polling days on Sunday?