In line with that thinking, I want to be absolutely clear—and my colleagues are free to disagree with me, but I don't think they will—that what is emphatically not being said here is that the Chief Elector Officer is effectively like an arbitrator in final binding arbitration, who has to choose between the Green Party interpretation, the Conservative Party interpretation, and the New Democratic Party interpretation. That would be the very narrow and completely incorrect reading of this section.
To me the correct reading would be that he or she has to look at those things but may also engage in any wider consultation that's appropriate, similar, as Professor Scott said, to taking judicial notice of external information.