Well, as I said in my presentation, I can live with this bill as it is presently worded. I suppose minor changes could always be made. Personally, if there is one thing, it would be that this be enshrined in our Constitution. I think it's a little strange, from a pedagogical standpoint, for Section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to state that no Parliament shall continue for longer than five years, when the Elections Act says that it's going to be a maximum of four years. I find that rather strange from a pedagogical standpoint.
By the way, the situation is the same for the National Assembly. In the Constitution, it talks about four years but in the Act of the Legislature, it's five years, and it's the most recent legislation that takes precedence. From an educational standpoint, I would have preferred and expected something else. When I saw this bill, I thought to myself that it must be legislation amending the Constitution Act, 1867. And yet this legislation actually amends the Canada Elections Act.
I realize that, legally speaking, it makes no difference. Parliament clearly has the right to amend Section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reduce its own term. That, at least, is my reading of the federal Parliament's amending powers as regards the Constitution, but in my opinion, it should have exercised that power at the drafting stage. Pardon the expression, but as a country, I think we have become rather constipated, constitutionally speaking, because we don't dare touch the wording. We find all kinds of reasons to avoid it because those who dared to do it, as you well know, had plenty of opportunity to regret it.
I'll be perfectly frank with you about this legislation. What I see is that it introduces new constraints for prime ministers, and I see that as an interesting feature. I would have liked those constraints to be confirmed in the Constitution, not because it formally has more authority, but simply because the new rules would perhaps be clearer for the public.