Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I'll be brief. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very quickly, is it possible for you to outline...? It's not a short answer. What is currently unprotected in terms of the military cultural heritage? What are the current gaps? Does this legislation address those current gaps?

[Lyn Elliot Sherwood]

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act requires that to be protected, to come under export control, objects must be at least 50 years old. In the case of military insignia and accoutrements, there is a minimum threshold of $3,000. So under the existing legislation, for medals less than 50 years old, if my esteemed colleague would help my mental arithmetic, I believe that would take us back to approximately 1960. Any medal since 1960 would not fall under the export controls, nor would any medal for which the current market value is less than $3,000.

The value of cultural property at any given time will vary according to market conditions, so I couldn't say all of these medals are therefore excluded from that and all of these are included. A medal that belonged to somebody of extraordinary recognition in Canada, because of the association with that individual or because there was a group of insignia belonging to a particular individual, might very well hit the threshold, whereas the same medal awarded to somebody less well known might not.

So I really can't give you a precise answer in terms of categories of medals that would be reliable over time.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madam Sherwood.

Madam Duncan, if we go around, we can return back if you have some follow-up.

Monsieur Vincent, for five minutes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the committee.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Lévesque, because I was a little struck by your presentation. You said that medals had been issued to members of the Canadian Forces because of the quality of their service, their courage, and so on. Do you think those medals were given to these people by the government in good faith?

[André Lévesque]

Can you explain what you mean by the words “in good faith”?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Because of the quality of their service or the courage they showed on a battlefield, for example, to reward them for doing what they had to do properly, the government issued them a medal. At that point, if I'm not mistaken, the decoration is issued in good faith to tell the individual they have done proper work. If the government has given a medal in good faith, then it belongs to the person who received it. There's no elastic attached to the medal that means that when the person who received it wants to dispose of it, they have to give it back to whoever gave it to them. It was given to them; it belongs to the person who received it.

In the existing regulations, I see that insignia, decorations and medals become the property of the person to whom they were given. So the medal belongs to the person who received it, it doesn't belong to the government.

[André Lévesque]

Yes. There are two parts to the answer. First, when a person has performed an act of courage, bravery, valour or merit, it is the chain of command that decides that the person should be recognized. That is a very important effect.

When the chain of command, through the system, initiates the process for obtaining government approvals, the government accepts the recommendations by the Canadian Forces, and the medal, decoration or order will be issued, very probably by the Governor General, at an appropriate location. At the time of presentation, the medal, and we're talking about a generic medal, is presented in good faith. It really is a tangible gesture to reward individuals and recognize what they did. It is precisely a symbolic sign of recognition for what they did.

So in terms of ownership, awarding a medal means it has been given to the individual.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

So I would like to know how this can be explained:

The fine for exporting illegally or attempting to export illegally is $5,000 on summary conviction and $25,000 on conviction on indictment.

So the medal is given in good faith, but the person who receives it can't do what they want with it. It's given to them, but it doesn't really belong to them. They must not export it, and if they do they are fined.

There seems to me to be a paradox. Either you give it or you don't. It seems extreme to me to fine people, people who have risked their lives, or been wounded or performed an act of courage, simply because they have decided to do what they like with their medal and it breaks the law. Don't you agree with me that it's a bit extreme?

[Lyn Elliot Sherwood]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to answer that question.

The purpose behind the Cultural Property Export and Import Act is really to keep our heritage in Canada. Exporting objects of value is allowed, but for certain things considered to be of national importance, there is a pause in the process to give public institutions in Canada the opportunity to buy the objects. If there is no offer at the end of that pause in the export process, the person is free to export their property.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

The main issue is that the person is not free to do what they want with their decoration or medal. In a way, we are telling them not to do it because we want to conserve heritage. If we give a medal, we should not go back on it. We can't say that we are giving it and we are not giving it. If we give it, the person who receives it can do what they want with it.

If you want to protect heritage, there should be something more concrete somewhere. For example, a letter could be sent that determines the fair market value of the decoration. At present, minimal amounts are given. For the Victoria Cross, I have heard the value is $250,000 or $270,000. I'm not sure the government or museums have that kind of money to buy those medals. Museum representatives have testified before the committee. They will not buy all the Victoria Crosses that have been issued, to conserve our heritage; it would be a little too expensive.

So what can we do to keep them here, in your opinion?

[Lyn Elliot Sherwood]

You're right. In protecting our heritage, we try to strike a balance between the public interest and the rights inherent in personal property. That is the reasoning on which the present legislation is based.

For medals of great significance, like the Victoria Cross, to my knowledge, none have left the country because of a lack of funds. The grant program for protecting these medals is offered to national museums and institutions in Canada. A contribution has been made to buying these medals, which are of national importance, and the export of which is subject to a delay imposed by the commission responsible for exports.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Merci, madame Sherwood et monsieur Vincent.

Now we'll move on to Mr. Marston, whom I've seen quite a bit of today, for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Schellenberger, I think this is a wonderful initiative on your part. I'm kind of struggling with how to approach it, though.

Mr. Lévesque, you were talking about Her Majesty and the right of Canada and taking the word “military” out. Were you talking about the Star of Military Valour and the Medal of Bravery? The reason I ask that question is that I received the Medal of Bravery in 1987, and I'd like to know if it's still mine.

My father-in-law just passed away. He was a navy veteran who had two ships shot out from under him. If anybody tried to tell him those weren't his decorations, you would have had your hands full.

I was just curious, because the day in 1987 when I received my award, there were two Star of Courage medals given posthumously. An individual had walked through a burning house to save children and got them out but ultimately died. They were for things of that nature. Would this apply in cases like that?

[André Lévesque]

The answer is that, again, within the constitutions for orders—that's the Order of Canada, the Order of Military of Merit, and things like that—it's written within the constitutions that the decoration belongs to the crown. That's for orders. In the case of bravery decorations, which is yours, medals and decorations basically belong to the individuals, once presented.

What I was trying to say was that military people, like all Canadians, receive all kinds of medals. If you're a military person, you don't necessarily receive just military medals. You receive other national honours given by our government for things you've done in a military environment, but the medal may not necessarily be considered a military medal per se. That was my only point.

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

Going back to the Star of Courage and the Medal of Bravery, there's no problem if I want to send that to my son, who lives in the U.S., at some point. It's not an issue at all, then, from what I'm hearing.

[André Lévesque]

It is not a sale.

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

It is not a sale; it's a transfer.

Ms. Sherwood, you referred to “fair cash value”. In a dispute on that, who resolves it? Who decides? Is there any role of the government in that decision?

[Lyn Elliot Sherwood]

Under the Cultural Property Export and Import Act it is the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board that is responsible for that determination.

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

For brevity I'll end there, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to you all. It's a helpful process.

I'll start by indicating, as the chair noted, that we are quite prepared to extend our activities because we are still learning as we go and we don't want to rush the final outcome. But I would point out a couple of comments about suggested amendments that cover two or three of the items of concern that were raised today. We appreciate the additional ones as well.

I think one should also point out, as a reference, that the Legion was here, and we talked about the potential conflict of principle, but it should be back on the record that the Legion did indicate they are quite okay if you looked at amending the act to include it. So it continues to be a contradiction as to the right of ownership and the right of disposal, as it were.

I go to Mr. Lévesque's point in that the intended principle of what Mr. Schellenberger brought forward was to try to close some of the gap in the more modern era. I'm quite aware that when your bill was first introduced there was quite a bit of debate and discussion about similar sorts of things and there was some very strong feeling. So I think there is a modest opportunity here to bridge some of that gap, and that's certainly our intent to try to do that. So we welcome the input.

When you talked about the cash question, I guess I go there for the value. I'd like to understand a little bit more, in helping us, because we want to deal with that particular issue. We don't want to create an undue burden. What would the suggestion be to simplify that so that it does become more in line with what is done nationally?

[Lyn Elliot Sherwood]

The transaction and consideration that are described in Bill C-473 match the term used in the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, determining a fair cash offer. The term “fair market value” is used in an entirely different context in the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. Having terminology mean the same thing, in my view, is generally clearer than two different terms that mean the same thing.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Therefore, we are talking terminology to make sure there's not a contrast in outcome. Is that the main concern?

[Lyn Elliot Sherwood]

Yes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Okay.

And it's also the sense of where these medals or honours or whatever do move on.

I know one of the concerns that first came through was the identification of the institutions they should go to. As Mr. Lévesque just pointed out, there's a lot of opportunity within the military museum. We also know within the Legion and many other recognized organizations that there are places where these would quite rightly end up. I know it's the intent both of the author and I'm sure most of the members, and we have no problem in looking at broadening that. It was not to exclude anybody; it was just trying to recognize where we started.

So I think you raised a good point that there is a network out there now that can probably receive quite a few of these. That was part of the concern; we don't want to jam the system or make this untenable. I do appreciate that.

Generally speaking, Mr. Chair, I don't have a number of questions. As I say, they brought some valuable information, and I think it probably adds to our continuing to look at it. But I do appreciate the fact and the sense that I get that this bill would fit quite nicely in the context of what we're attempting to do to protect our decorations and precious medals and honours.

I do respect and thank you for bringing that forward today.