Again, common sense would say, too, that day 24 would give 11 days' notice, in theory. Outbreaks happen, and they very often happen in long-term care. It is reasonable that four days out, if an outbreak is declared in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry at Woodland Villa in Long Sault—I won't say Dundas Manor again—then yes, you might need to delay it later on or come up with subsequent matters. It's helpful to know that right now it's on day 24.
Another thing to flag is scrutineers. I will acknowledge that later clauses deal with assisting the elector. The reason I'm passionate in asking some questions or for clarification in making sure we dot the i’s and cross the t’s here has to do with later changes that are proposed, which we may be discussing with some debate when that time comes, on the assisting of electors. That is a major change to how individuals may vote, particularly those in long-term care. Scrutineers in that process will be important, I think, to the integrity of that change.
It was already confirmed that scrutineers have the same rules to participate and observe as they would at a regular polling station, but then the question that comes about is whether that is in long-term care or just in the vicinity of polling. Part of where I'm going with this is not wanting the ability to wrongfully or inappropriately influence an elector while assisting them. There is some capping here a little bit of a scrutineer's role, and yet in terms of the importance of a scrutineer here, if it's a staff member who's assisting multiple people, they may be going room to room. They may be bringing certain electors there who....
What's the oversight? Is there anything different for scrutineers that's been thought of in maintaining the integrity of that process to ensure that any elector, while they may receive assistance from...? One person may assist more than one person. That's the big change. Scrutineers have the right and the ability to oversee this in the unique setting of long-term care.