We're back onto clause 6. Being ever mindful of the procedural advice that you have received, we do not take any authority or power away from the minister. What we are attempting to do with this is to reinstate part of the initial genesis of this bill, which essentially wanted the minister, in cooperation with the council, to oversee the planning and design of the monument. In other words, there would also be the constant executive oversight to reflect the will of the Canadian collective, as expressed through acceptance of this bill at second reading, that the monument be located on an area of public land chosen in the national capital region.
It's important, from our perspective, that we reinforce the principle of the minister being involved in selecting and allocating land--in other words, on behalf of the government, making land available for this monument--and then holding public consultations together, to take into account the recommendations of the public when making any decisions under paragraph 6(a) or 6(b). So from our perspective, this amendment is very consistent with the other two bills that have been presented in this regard.
Some members might object to the fact that it was Liberal members who proposed it in the past. From our perspective, that's no longer material. What is material is the fact that the House of Commons has essentially directed this committee, following a unanimous decision by the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada, to have the minister implicit and implicated in all of the decisions, in cooperation with the council, to ensure that the decision of the Canadian public and collective, together with its values and its wills, be reflected in the act. We think our amendment doesn't take anything away. What it does is explain it in even greater detail.