Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Our last amendment, I believe, is G-1.

Mr. Kerr, did you want to make a comment on that, or is it self-evident?

I think it's rather self-evident with the title.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I just wanted to be sure.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Shall the title as amended carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Before I go any further, I know that Madam Sgro had a concern, because we are just about ready to adopt this bill.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I supported the amendments because I think you're making the bill better. Clearly, from listening to some of our witnesses today, that was important. In the event that the bill passes, I think it has probably been cleaned up and it has probably helped Mr. Schellenberger.

But I have to go back to Tuesday's witnesses and the comments they made about their medals. We heard today that they are given to them. If a medal were given to me, it belongs to me. If it's supposed to come back to Canada, or in some other form, then in the future they should have them sign some sort of contract to say that in the event they pass on this must come back to the Government of Canada.

But they were very clear: those medals are theirs and they have every right to do whatever they want with them. I supported getting Mr. Schellenberger's bill here because of the same thing as everybody: I feel uncomfortable with the idea of people selling these things; they're too priceless.

Again, a lot of that has to do with collections that are gathered. I don't know what I thought people were selling them for; I probably thought they were selling them because we're not giving them big enough pensions and they need $50. We've heard those stories.

The reality is that they're really selling them because people are collecting them, so they are staying within the family of people who respect and appreciate those medals. The fact that I don't like it and I would rather they didn't do that is secondary to what our Royal Canadian Legion folks said the other day: “These are our medals.”

We gave them, they earned them, and they have a right to do what they want with them. I feel very bad to go against that. I support the intent of what Mr. Schellenberger is trying to do, but from my perspective I'm going to vote against the bill.

You've cleaned it up a bit, so you probably have a little bit stronger bill, but I can't look those legionnaires in the face and know that I said those medals don't really.... “You can have them for a while. Even though you risked your life on behalf of our country to earn them, you really shouldn't have them forever; they should come back to us.” I don't agree with that.

If there's another way of amending the cultural property act that helps to achieve some of what you want, then maybe that's the avenue to go--I don't know. But they were very clear the other day that the men and the women in the Legion do not support this, and for that reason I'll be voting against this bill.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Sgro.

Monsieur André, then Mr. Kerr.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

To agree with Ms. Sgro, we in the Bloc Québécois are also going to vote against this bill. That position, of course, is based on meetings we have held with veterans and various other witnesses.

There is one question about this bill that disturbs me considerably. When a medal is awarded, a contract is made. The person who receives the medal believes it belongs to them, but in a way it does not really belong to them. That is fine up to a certain point. the problem is that we don't tell them this. There is no agreement, either oral or written. So there is no real contract.

So under this bill, as under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act that is currently in force, what is being done is to penalize people who break it by doing something they were never told broke the law. They weren't told it was breaking the law, they weren't informed of the conditions on which the medals were awarded. That is what disturbs me.

For example, under the Civil Code of Quebec, when there is a sale, a contract of sale or a contract of exchange is made. Here, there's no contract of exchange or contract of sale, there's nothing. When a person receives a medal, it is presumed that they are informed of the procedure, the right way to pass the medal on to the next generations, or what they can do with it in future. They are presumed to know the law. If I were a soldier and I received a medal, I don't know whether I would find out about all the laws there are.

As well, I think that the Canadian public service, which we in the Bloc Québécois consider to be relatively well equipped, should be more proactive and do the follow-up itself. If there are concerns about certain medals that have been awarded and there is a desire to see them be part of the cultural heritage, it is up to the public service to be more proactive, as my colleague said earlier, and stay up to date on what happens to those medals. Knowing that a particular person has received a medal with a particular value, there has to be the ability to follow up on that medal. For example, when the person dies, they should be able to call the family, find out about their intentions, and inform them of the desire that the medal be returned, to contribute to Canadian heritage. There should be discussion. I think the public service should be more proactive, and not simply engage in enforcement and applying consequences, for example, when it is found that a medal we would have liked to see be part of the heritage has been traded, given away or exported.

I did vote in favour of a fine. Certainly $5,000 is still lower than five times the value of the medal in question. But we in the Bloc Québécois are having a hard time supporting this bill, in view of all this. We are going to vote against the bill. We voted for amendments, yes, to improve the content of the bill a little in the event it is passed, but we are going to vote against it.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Next is Mr. Kerr, Mr. Marston, and Mr. Vincent.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I'd point out that, first, in terms of our witnesses, and including today, there was recognition that the intent is a good intent. It's an honourable intent, and I don't want to see that intent cherry-picked away. I think it's extremely important that we don't lose that.

Secondly, the Legion, which was a very strong mixed opinion, made the point after saying those are their medals. And by the way, the amendments recognize that: all the family, right down through--we're not interfering with any of them. The family of the owner, the recipient, and the one awarded the medal--no one is being interfered with. That was part of what we'd tried to consider here.

But remember also that the Legion said they would prefer we go back and amend the act. That means they had recognition that they didn't want them sold, but by the way, they do recognize they're sold and protected under existing legislation, and therefore an amendment was conflicted in terms of what the message was.

What we're saying is we think it honours that whole concern—and we all want to make sure we do the right thing. This bill is, if you want to call it that, an introductory attempt. It certainly is an effort by the proponent to recognize that there are certain circumstances whereby.... It's not at all interfering with protecting, preserving, looking after, and honouring the rights of the award recipients, but rather where those fall through the cracks and no one seems to care, if we do nothing, nothing happens. Those disappear and we make no effort to keep them in Canada. That's the intent here, and to say it's on the high level that we're interfering with the award recipients I think is a false argument because that's not in this legislation. Certainly we believe the amendments have made an effort to try to close those gaps as much as possible.

I don't think for a moment that anybody working under this piece of legislation is going to try to do anything to interfere with the recipients of those awards, medals, and honours. None of us over here would ever want that to happen.

I think it's important, though, that we understand that when we started this effort with Mr. Schellenberger's proposal, it was agreed pretty well by everybody that it was a good intent to try to recognize that there are problems out there. That's why we strongly support what was put forward here, and we certainly brought forward amendments that we thought closed some of those gaps, made it more palatable, if you like, recognizing that nothing is perfect. But if we do nothing and simply shoot it down, then we've walked away from the issues that are still out there. I think that's the wrong way to go.

I think we make this effort, we start forward, we recognize that nothing is perfect. As I said, I remember debates over the original act were pretty heated at the time. I think it's kind of a bold step forward to say it's not perfect out there, but we're trying to help. Certainly this side, our government members are going to support it, and I hope it does pass.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Kerr.

I would just encourage members--it's 5:05--to keep your comments poignant and brief.

Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Being new to the committee and just dropping in--of course, I talked to our critic prior to coming here. Our critic indicated support for the amendments.

Listening to both sides of the table...I certainly can have empathy for what's being said by the opposition here, but I would accept Mr. Kerr's explanation, so I will be supporting it.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is a government intrusion into the lives of veterans of the Canadian Forces, soldiers who have demonstrated their courage and supported this country before receiving a medal. Now we're trying to tell them what they must do with their medal. The Canadian Legion and all the other legions and veterans' associations have told us that this law should not be enacted. We have no respect for these people, we aren't listening to them. First, we ask them what they have to say about this. We are talking about them, we are telling them we are going to make a decision for them about their medals. We hear witnesses who tell us to abandon this bill, but then we don't even listen to them.

Is that the respect we have for our veterans? Is that the respect we want to show these people? We want to tell them that we have no respect for veterans, but we do have respect for their medals. The medals are important. The people who earned those medals in combat, on a battlefield, them we don't respect. We don't respect their decision to do what they want with their medals. I think this is a lack of respect for veterans, in the aim of keeping the medals here, in Canada.

Think about this twice: you are disregarding all the veterans who earned these medals, veterans from the maritime and air forces as well as the land forces, and all those who came to testify that they disagree with this. You are going to disregard their opinion and say that the medals are more important than the people who earned them, who defended their country. Some of them lost life or limb in doing that.

If that is how you see it, fine, there's no problem, but on this side, we disagree with it. I think the important thing is the human being.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I have no comments.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was a little torn after meeting with the Legion, because I'm a big believer in personal property rights. But I believe the amendments we made today really strengthen this bill and address the crux of what the Legion was talking about. The members from the Legion were concerned about being able to pass on their medals to whomever they wanted. It wasn't about money, because we all agree that these things shouldn't be currency.

Changing it so you can pass your medals on to an heir before you pass away means that a veteran like my uncle can pass them on to anybody he wants, as long as he makes them an heir and he's not selling them. So I think the amendments have strengthened this bill, and that's why I will be supporting them now.

I just wanted that on the record because I thought it was important.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

As a point of information--because I've sat back through the debate--they can still be sold. It's simply that the first right of refusal--

[Brian Storseth]

In Canada--we're talking about non-residents here.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Madam Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate the intent of the bill, I cannot support this. The Legion, the largest veteran organization in the country with almost 360,000 vets, doesn't support it. I believe this committee's job is to respect the veterans. We are not hearing their views that were spoken last week.

They explained the process for reviewing the bill. They said it was a bottom up organization. They urged us not to pass the legislation, that it would violate Canadian rights and they should not be violated lightly.

The army, navy, and air force vets do not support it, along with the Canadian Naval Air Group, the Naval Officers Association of Canada, and the Royal Canadian Naval Association. The fundamental issue is the right of individuals to determine their private property. When we asked if this could be overcome, both representatives last week very clearly said no.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Duncan.

Seeing no other members wanting to take the floor, I'll move to show the bill as amended carrying.

Do you want a recorded vote?

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

No.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Shall the bill as amended carry?