I sent the letter to the minister, and I think the parliamentary secretary is in possession of a copy. Bill C-442 is merely calling on the government to do what it could easily do administratively. The NCC already possesses the authority to establish a monument without parliamentary approval. Indeed, the NCC is currently responsible for 16 monuments, including the Hungarian monument, the Canadian tribute to human rights, the monument to Canadian aid workers, the national naval monument currently under construction, and the national monument to the victims of Communism for which the NCC is in the planning phase.
None of these monuments required legislation to move forward. In fact, all that is required is that the minister, with the stroke of a pen, say he is going to finance something--and we've dealt with some of those strokes of the pen in supplementary estimates for the NCC--and it's done. All this amendment does is ask the minister to use the stroke of a pen, as he has been wont to do in the past. I don't think it's ultra vires, and I don't think there is a conflict of laws. It is simply, as my honourable colleagues from the Bloc have indicated, that there is an intention, which is respected in our amendment, that is consistent with everything that's passed before him. We might even talk about whether or not amendment G-8 is in order, but we will deal with that differently.
I don't think any of the arguments about whether or not the amendment is acceptable carry much weight. It's clearly consistent with everything we've done to this point, such that the minister is responsible for this initiative, and that responsibility is consistent historically with other things that have happened, and the NCC is--