I am curious. If we look at amendments G-3 and G-4, there was apparently new scope, and that was challenged, obviously, and we failed on that challenge. However, I was told that it brought in a new concept, which was that the minister was delegating authority.
If we look at the original clause 6, it says:
The Minister, in cooperation with the Council, shall oversee the planning and design of the Monument and shall choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region for the Monument to be located.
And subclause 7(1) says
The Minister shall be responsible for allocating the public land for the Monument and for maintenance of the Monument. `
Yet here apparently—I don't know why, and maybe it's because it's a Liberal amendment—it seems to be in order and within scope, because here they're allocating that the council shall--and it's a mandate that the council shall:
(a) oversee the planning and design of the Monument;
(b) choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region
--which is directly contrary to clause 7, which would have been in contrast to amendments G-3 and G-4, and the council would also hold public consultations, which is a brand new concept.
So how do we reconcile all of that? I just don't understand it. I would like some clarification.