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.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)
There's an amendment to the short title. It's amendment G-2 and it's on page 2.
Mr. Kerr, would you like to speak to amendment G-2 on the short title of the bill?
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Yes, Mr. Chair.
It's, again, clarification of the actual terminology. There was a previous question about recognizing that it included orders, insignia, and medals, and this I think makes it consistent with other legislation.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet
Very good.
I think our witnesses mentioned that as well.
Madam Zarac.
Liberal
Lise Zarac Liberal LaSalle—Émard, QC
I would simply like to check something. Did the witnesses not recommend that we not use the word “military”, because some of the medals are not awarded?
Director, Honours and Recognition, Department of National Defence
In fact, the bill doesn't refer to military medals. What I said was that members of the military receive other medals, like the cross of courage. So it wouldn't be covered. Do we want to preserve military heritage or military medals? It's one or the other.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet
Okay. Very good.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall clause 1 as amended carry?
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
Mr. Storseth.
Westlock—St. Paul, CPC
I realize I'm coming to the party late with this. It's just a question. We've already passed the amendment.
It's on paragraph 3(2)(b). I was reading the amendment that we did. Paragraph 3(2)(b) reads as follows:
Subsection (1) does not apply to the transfer of an insignia to
(a) a near relative of the owner of insignia; or
(b) to an heir of the owner of the insignia upon the death of the owner.
Would it still read that way in the bill, Mr. Chair?
October 21st, 2010 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Westlock—St. Paul, CPC
I'm in paragraph 3(2)(b). Would it still read that way? We sped through it quickly.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet
No, it would not. If you look at G-5.1, you'll see the actual wording of (2). There is no (a) and (b) anymore. There is (1)(a) and (b) and then (2).
Conservative
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative David Sweet
I certainly will.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the export of the insignia to a spouse or common-law partner, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, child of the spouse or common-law partner, grandchild, brother, sister or heir of the owner of the insignia.
Conservative
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, since we have the value of our witnesses here, you have expressed what might have been a concern with the wording of this...or have you actually seen the wording of this?
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
The wording that is proposed in this amendment addresses the concern we had raised in respect of the different language between the bill, as it had been presented, and the language of the Cultural Property Export and Import Act. The transaction “fair cash offer” is the transaction that mirrors the current “fair cash offer” role of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board in case of a disputed price. The term is “fair cash offer”. The change is from “fair market value” to “fair cash offer”, and the amendment addresses that.
Conservative
Executive Director, Heritage Group, Department of Canadian Heritage
Yes.
Conservative
Greg Kerr Conservative West Nova, NS
That's as well as I could have explained it, but it was to make sure that we weren't in conflict with the pricing, and that it's “fair cash” and not “market”. That's the change this makes.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
