Bill C-442 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
National Holocaust Monument Act
An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument
Private member’s bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleMarch 3, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 8, 2010
- Passed the second chamberMarch 24, 2011
- Became lawMarch 24, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Yonah MartinSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Tim Uppal4 interventions in debateMoved third reading and spoke positively about the bill's purpose and cross-party support.
- Hon. Joseph Volpe2 interventions in debateHe states he voted in favour of the bill and expresses delight in speaking to it.
- Joan FraserSenate · SenatorStrongly endorsed the bill as overdue and necessary to honour victims and warn against future atrocities.
- Ed FastCalled the bill long overdue and strongly supported the initiative and committee amendments.
- Thomas MulcairCalled the idea timely and necessary to mark the Holocaust's significance in the capital.
- Jim MalowayExpressed pleasure with the bill's progress and thanked the sponsor for advancing it.
- Dennis BevingtonCalled the bill important and noted all parties wanted it to move forward after committee work.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
66% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (800 words introduced, 908 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The core purpose of creating a national Holocaust monument remained intact, but Parliament added public consultations, shifted construction duties to the Minister, and replaced the fixed three-year deadline with a funding-based timeline. New provisions for annual reporting, ministerial funding contributions, and transfer of the monument to the National Capital Commission were also inserted.
- Added requirement for public consultations before decisions on design or location.
After: “(c) hold public consultations and take into account the recommendations of the public when making any decision under paragraph (a) or (b).”
- Changed the Minister's role from overseeing planning and design to responsibility for construction and maintenance.
Before: “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.”
After: “(1) The Minister shall be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the Monu”
- Replaced fixed three-year completion deadline with a deadline tied to sufficient funds being raised.
Before: “The Monument shall be completed not later than three years after this Act comes into force.”
After: “The Monument shall be completed not later than three years after the day on which sufficient funds, as determined by the Minister, have been raised under subsection 7(2).”
- Added annual reporting requirement and transfer of the completed monument and remaining funds to the National Capital Commission.
After: “The Council shall submit an annual report to the Minister and the appropriate Committee of the House on its activities.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Hard
The Act sets fixed timelines, caps on council size, and clear duties for the Minister and Council. It leaves several choices about location, design, and funding sufficiency to ministerial judgment.
Open to argument
“possess a strong interest in, connection to, or familiarity with the Holocaust”
Uses subjective criteria without objective tests or definitions.“choose a suitable area of public land”
Relies on an undefined standard of suitability.“sufficient funds, as determined by the Minister”
Grants open-ended discretion without measurable criteria.
Clear-cut
“composed of not more than five members”
Uses a clear numerical limit.“Within one year after the coming into force of this Act”
Provides an exact deadline.
Discretion. The Minister decides the monument's design, exact location, whether funds are sufficient, and may contribute public money, while the Council runs fundraising and adopts its own by-laws.
Challenging the law itself. The Act creates no criminal offences or direct limits on individual rights, so Charter vagueness or overbreadth claims would be difficult to mount.
Disputing a charge under it. The statute imposes duties only on government actors and contains no prohibitions that a private person could be accused of breaching.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
The evidence has not been searched yet.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.