Mr. Chair, the first act is to challenge your ruling. I'd like to speak about that challenge.
I've had an opportunity to meet the people who gave you the advice in relation to that particular bit of inadmissibility, which is that these amendments were out of the scope of the bill. I'd like to talk about the scope a little bit. The scope of the bill, as it currently sits, refers to bylaws. Bylaws have to be received through an incorporation of some kind, either through a federally incorporated situation or through a provincial incorporation.
The first thing is that if we take a look at proposed clause 5 of amendment G-4, the thing that was found out of scope or inadmissible was that the government wants to have the individuals in proposed paragraph 4(1)(c) made accountable through the Canada Corporations Act and the Revised Statutes of Canada.
What this government is trying to do is make sure that we're perfecting a piece of legislation that's less than perfect, and quite frankly, if these amendments of the government's are not put forward, I would suggest that this bill will not pass, which would be, in my mind, a tragedy. What the government is trying to do is take an imperfect bill and make it as perfect as possible. That is our role here in committee.
Although it may have been ruled out of order and inadmissible because it's not within scope, I would challenge that ruling on the basis that I do believe it is in scope. I think other lawyers around the table can tell you that if you refer to bylaws, there are no other places that bylaws are found except in some form of incorporation document and as something given to you by statute.
I heard the argument that incorporation wasn't referred to in the first place in the first bill, so it's out of scope because it's not referred to. I think that is not at all clear, and I would suggest that a corporation would, first of all, give limited liability for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada and would give directors the ability to have limited liability instead of personal liability.
Second, it would allow funds to be placed in some sort of bank account. Where are the funds going to be placed? Are they going to be put in somebody's pocket? Under this bill, there is no place for the funds to be put. We want to protect the directors and we want to protect the people of Canada, but we also want some mechanism in place through which the funds can be collected, put into a bank account, and spent appropriately, and through which the people who are in control of those funds can be held accountable. We need a mechanism for that.
Also, these sections bring in consistency with other monuments that are currently within the NCC in other acts. I would challenge the ruling. I don't believe it's out of scope. I would certainly argue that. I think that any of the lawyers within the room and any lawyers within Canada could argue the same case very adamantly, because as it currently is, it refers strictly to bylaws.
Let's take a look what else the bill says. Proposed subclause 5(1), as I mentioned, is in accordance with section 155 of the Canada Corporations Act. Proposed subclause 5(2) says that the proposed name of the corporation in the application is the “National Holocaust Monument Development Council”. I don't see very much contention in that.
How about proposed subclause 5(3), which says, “The applicants are to be listed in the application as the first directors of the Council”? What's the problem with the scope within that?
How about “The Council is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada”? We're protecting the people of Canada. How about “The applicants are not entitled to be paid any remuneration for incorporating the Council”? It makes sense to me. How about proposed subclause 5(6), which says, “The directors of the Council are not entitled to be paid any remuneration for acting as directors”? That makes sense to me.
How about proposed subclause 5(7), which says, “The members of the Council are not entitled to be paid any remuneration for acting as members”? That makes sense, so what's wrong with clause 5 as proposed in these amendments? Does anybody see a problem with proposed clause 5? Is that not contained within the purpose and the intent of all the members of this committee and of all the House that voted for this? What in this section is outside the scope of our understanding of the original intention of the bill?
Let's look at proposed clause 4. It says, “Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister shall”. This is a direction to the minister.
Mr. Volpe, I listened attentively to you; I would hope that you'd listen, because my argument is very persuasive, so I'm hoping that you're listening.