Number one, with respect to scrutineers, I'm glad you raise the point. In effect, the comment you're making leads me to believe that perhaps the Chief Electoral Officer should take special means over and above the provision of a deputy returning officer and a clerk where scrutineers are not available from parties. It must be remembered that part of the strength of the system was supposed to be candidates providing scrutineers so that they are present where things occur.
With respect to 100% or more of electors voting, I want to remind people that because of the polling day registration that is permissible under our law, it's only an appearance that 100% or more of the people voted. It's an appearance, because a lot of the people who were on the list did not vote. In effect, if your comment were true, there's a lot more that would have occurred that would not have been correct. It's possible under our system for more than 100% of the people who are on the list at a particular poll in numbers to have voted because of the polling day registration. I'll remind members that we did provide the listing by poll of the people who registered on polling day, subject to review.
With respect to your suggestion of holding ballots for those who registered on polling day—I think this is what you were recommending—that is something that could be done. Where we would go and check, I don't know, but these are things we could be pursuing. I've attempted in the past to get lists of Canadian citizens from the citizenship department, but I'm not entitled to them as Chief Electoral Officer. I've attempted to get lists of non-Canadians, because they have lists of non-Canadians, but I cannot get them either.
Perhaps we should be looking at that as an additional means, and perhaps we could also be reconsidering polling day registration, if it is a deep concern to members.