Evidence of meeting #24 for Veterans Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was medals.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tom Scrimger  Assistant Deputy Minister, Citizenship and Heritage, Department of Canadian Heritage
Lyn Elliot Sherwood  Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
André Lévesque  Director, Honours and Recognition, Department of National Defence
Brian Storseth  Westlock—St. Paul, CPC

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS

Yes, Mr. Chair. The big question there was.... We talked about extending it to a spouse and so on, but a common-law partner was excluded. This recognizes the common-law partner as an equal recipient. I believe it also better clarifies the meaning of the word “insignia”, its being less than 50 years old.

If I could just comment, as pointed out today, 1967 is a benchmark for modern recognition. There was conversation on what happens to medals between 1967 and, I think you said, 1960. That hasn't been totally cleared up. That's why I said we need more time to talk about that, because it does recognize that the intent was to go back, picking up from the time of the legislation. But as pointed out today, some of that 1967 was a benchmark. I'm not sure I have the exact answer. If we do it this way, then 1967 becomes automatic, but the 50 years would go back to 1960.

It's not a major matter, but it does need some clarification, so that's an area that we're not quite finished dealing with today.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

Are you saying that if the bill passes today, then the benchmark is 1967?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS

The bill intends it to be 50 years, but because of the actual intent of....

What was it--1967? What was the wording of that?

Could you please help me out here?

4:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

Absolutely, Ms. Elliot.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS

Bail me out here, will you, please?

4:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage

Lyn Elliot Sherwood

The issue we raised in our presentation was that right now the Cultural Property Export and Import Act covers medals that are 50 years old and older.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS

Yes.

October 21st, 2010 / 4:45 p.m.

Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage

Lyn Elliot Sherwood

Some of the medals covered under this bill will soon be 50 years old, and at that point you will have to ask whether they fall under the new law that will be passed as a result of this bill or under the cultural property act. The proposed amendment here would assure that the modern medals were covered under the legislation that would be passed as a result of the bill. Up until the point they were 50 years old, they would be governed by its provisions. Once they were 50 years old, they would fall under the existing provisions of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, and that would solve the problem of the missing seven years for medals between 1967--

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS

So you're comfortable that it does cover that seven-year period? That was my concern.

That's fine then. Good. Thanks.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

Mr. Marston.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Mr. Chair, I have a question on the policy decision made that the cohabitation period be one year. Is that standard law elsewhere?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS

The cohabitation period of one year is standard, isn't it?

4:45 p.m.

A voice

Yes, it is.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

Thank you to our researchers who are always on the ball here.

It should also be known that if this is agreed to by my colleagues, then this negates the Bloc Québécois amendment number 1, because it's obviously the same line.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Guy André Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Their proposal is a good one. That's fine.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

Okay. I just wanted to be transparent, sir.

Mr. Storseth, did you have a comment or question, sir?

4:45 p.m.

Westlock—St. Paul, CPC

Brian Storseth

Yes, I just had a question actually, in regard to subclause 2(1), which says “'near relative', in respect of the owner of an insignia, means the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, brother or sister of the owner.”

What we're talking about here is inserting “common-law partner”, but we still haven't put “spouse” in there.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

That was covered under a different amendment.

4:45 p.m.

Westlock—St. Paul, CPC

Brian Storseth

It was covered. So the earlier amendment we have would cover that?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

That's correct.

4:45 p.m.

Westlock—St. Paul, CPC

Brian Storseth

Okay.

It's just because it wasn't in the definition of a “near relative”, but it's in the other one?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

It is, absolutely.

All in favour of the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

Does clause 2 carry as amended?

Madam Sgro.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON

When you finish this and want to vote on the overall clause, I want to speak to it.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet

Do you mean the overall bill?