Mr. Chair, this is going into new territory. I don't think it's duplicated or even close to any other party's amendment. It is based on the testimony before this committee of Professor Emeritus Paul Thomas. It's based on a U.K. precedent as well.
Given the fundamental importance of the Canada Elections Act, before any minister attempts to amend it, this is...and we can see the problems. I don't know that all of us around the table will agree that Bill C-23's course might have been easier had the minister consulted in advance with the Chief Electoral Officer, but in any event, I think that the general opinion of many Canadians is that Bill C-23 would have been much improved had the minister of the day consulted in advance with the Chief Electoral Officer. This would create a mandatory obligation on the minister, obviously for all time, that extensive consultations with the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to any proposed amendments to this act and its regulations would have to be conducted before amending the act.
I think it speaks for itself. I'll just add that it would avoid a lot of difficulty in the future. I think it's the kind of thing Canadians would have expected, in that no one would amend the Canada Elections Act without extensive consultations with the officer of Parliament who is the most knowledgeable on the subject. This would create an affirmative obligation, and there's no harm done by requiring those consultations. It doesn't bind the hands of a future minister to disagree with the Chief Electoral Officer, to even disagree in the most vociferous manner and to put forward amendments that are contrary to the advice, but one would want to see any minister consult with the Chief Electoral Officer before putting forward amendments.