I think it's a matter of statutory interpretation. I'd agree with Mr. Reid that it's possible to interpret it both ways. I am concerned, though, that under proposed subsection 3 that it's the collection of advice from members of the advisory committee of political parties, but the language “shall” being mandatory language: the Chief Elector Officer under Bill C-23 shall take into account information that is received and advice and comments from the advisory panel of political parties.
It is true that it is not exclusive to only that advice, but it is open to interpretation if that was the intent. I think it's very important and that it be preferable to accept this amendment so it's very clear. If that's what you believe to be status quo, then there's no harm and greater certainty in passing this amendment. If not, it would be helpful to have on the record from Conservative Party members of this committee for any future court interpretation that the statutory intent of this is not to so shackle the Chief Electoral Officer that he can only take into account that advice referenced in proposed subsection (3).