Article content continued

Given the budget for the monument, the committee said, it did not need the entire space. Moreover, “the monument could be a temporary solution before a building is planned, even though it could pose problems for fundraisers.”

Finally, the language for the commemoration “should be more inclusive, evoking oppression instead of communism, which would be more relevant over time,” the committee said.

At its meeting in May 2014, the committee reiterated its concern that placing the monument on the chosen site “does not fulfil the plan for the parliamentary and judicial precincts. Building sites are scarce in the area, and using the site for a monument is not ideal.”

One member again raised the idea of relocating the monument “according to need, even if it might be challenging.”

The committee said donors’ names should be isolated from the monument, and should not be associated with the names of the victims.

Like most of the committee’s suggestions, that idea seems to have been largely ignored. The memorial’s design guidelines state that a “prominent area” on the memorial site will list the names of up to 20 donors who have given $100,000 or more.

As well, those who donate $1,000 or more will have their names, or the names of victims of communism they select, inscribed on the monument’s “Mosaic of Names.”

In August, 2014, the committee attended presentations by the six teams whose memorial designs had been selected as finalists in a national design competition.