If they are on notice, Mr. Chairman—and I think Mr. Gaudet will appreciate this—the substance of all these amendments goes to the heart and principle of the bill. As I indicated in my question to Mr. Uppal, the amendments go to the issue of whether the government is prepared to establish a site for the monument and to initiate the development of a monument.
My colleagues, Madame Mendes and Ms. Crombie, have indicated that the government can do that without the benefit of a piece of legislation from one of their members, legislation that they're now proposing to amend completely, clause by clause. They could do that administratively. They could put the funds forward. They don't need anybody's support. The principle has already been established. It was established in the previous Parliament--and, I might say, by one of my colleagues in the Liberal Party.
We support this bill. We support the principle of the bill. The amendments tear that principle apart. When I asked Mr. Uppal whether in fact the government had sought his okay to present amendments, it wasn't because I was being devious but because he, as the mover of the bill, would have to accept an amendment that's friendly.
I don't think there's anything friendly about these amendments. These amendments can only be ruled out of order. They go against the very principle of the bill. They tear apart the business of what Mr. Uppal gave in response to my question—that is, fundamentally the government must provide the territory and it is not doing it.