Yes, I'm having trouble with Mr. Jean's logic here because it states quite clearly in clause 6, “The Minister, in cooperation...shall oversee the planning and design of the Monument”. So the minister would oversee the planning, he would come up with a plan and a design for a monument. Then “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” So the minister determines what the design is going to be of the monument, then the council will spearhead the fundraising to construct the monument, and after that the monument will then become part of the National Capital Commission, and they would handle the ongoing maintenance and....
So the motion entered into by the government is quite different from what was in the bill here, because the bill quite clearly puts the minister responsible for overseeing the design. When you oversee the design, you establish what the construction is going to be; then you go out and fundraise for the construction, which is a specific amount of money that has been determined by the minister through the design process. What we've done here is turn this all into one clump.
And if anybody has ever been involved in this kind of process, they would realize that this is quite a different approach. You have this council that's going to go out and cover the cost for the design and the development; they're going to do this whole thing themselves. So where's the government in this? Where is the public oversight into what this monument would be? I think that's the critical element of why this amendment is different from what the bill says.