[Inaudible--Editor]...I appreciate the support of all my colleagues. We're going to try to get through this in a rational fashion.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, one of the principles in the House and in committee is that we cannot do by the back door what will not be permitted through the front door. We've seen Speakers' decisions in the House repeat that basic principle over and over again.
What the committee has done with the amendments that it has presented over the course of the debate on this bill has established the principle that the government shall provide the land, i.e. the location in the national capital region, and the funds for the erection of a monument on that terrain and for the maintenance, as is consistent with everything else the National Capital Commission has done.
I had occasion to present to the minister an indication of various monuments that had already been erected and had already been covered by that basic principle. That was the intent of the legislation before the government tried to change it. We've re-established that principle. The government amendment—this one, G-6.1—and any others you mention are not receivable. They are not receivable because the government is now going into what one can identify as a user fee approach to erecting a monument. It says the council must go out there and raise the funds, not just in Canada but everywhere else. What that means is the Government of Canada doesn't have the money to do this, but anybody who's interested in this can go out and raise the money. Imagine that, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.