This article was downloaded by: [Oregon State University]On: 21 December 2014, At: 02:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Museum Management andCuratorshipPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmc19

The cultural property export and import act of Canada:A progress reportIan Christie Clark aa Secretary‐General of the National Museums of CanadaPublished online: 14 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Ian Christie Clark (1982) The cultural property export and import act of Canada: A progress report,International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship, 1:1, 5-15, DOI: 10.1080/09647778209514812

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09647778209514812

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The International Journal of Museum Management and Curatorship (1982), /, 5-15©1982Butterworths

The Cultural Property Export and Import Actof Canada: A Progress ReportIAN CHRISTIE CLARK

Introduction and General Principles

On 6 September 1977, an Act respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and theimport into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states came intoforce. The purpose of this federal legislation was twofold; to ensure the preservation inCanada of the best examples of the nation's cultural, historic and scientific heritage and toprotect in Canada the legitimate interests of foreign states concerned with the preservation oftheir own heritage in movable cultural property. The method of control outlined in this Actwas designed to ensure the co-operation of the collector-dealer fraternity in Canada. Experi-ence in other countries has shown that without such co-operation no system of export controlwill work smoothly, efficiently and fairly. The drafters of the legislation were particularlyinspired by the principles enunciated in the United Kingdom by Viscount Wa verly in 1950 inhis report for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art and since known asthe Waverly Rules: (1) The state must retain the right to prevent the export of objects of highimportance in suitable cases by establishing a delay period; (2) In every case in which exportis prevented, the owner must be assured of an offer to purchase at a fair price; (3) Offers topurchase should be related to the market price wherever the conditions admit of a genuineand reasonable market price being arrived at.

Prior to its consideration by Parliament, thesubstance of the legislation and the control system itproposed were the subject of consultations with repre-sentatives of the various interested groups, the custodialinstitutions, collectors and the trade. As soon as thelegislation was proposed in Parliament, these groupshad an opportunity to consider the Bill in detail. As aresult of suggestions received, amendments were pro-posed and adopted during its consideration by Parlia-ment. If all interested groups found some aspects of thelegislation with which they were not in total accord,there was general agreement that the legislation asadopted was fair and had been designed to protect thelegitimate interests of all concerned. Most people in-volved with movable cultural property in Canada wouldagree that a number of important heritage objects haveleft the country over the years which, if Canadian publicauthorities and institutions had been in the position topurchase them, or even if they had been made awareearly enough of the seller's intentions to dispose of them

Salish Sheephorn Rattle. Exportprevented under the Cultural Pro-perty Export and Import Act,1980, and purchased by the British

Columbia Provincial Museum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Cultural Property Export and Import Act of Canada

\1

Portrait of Tee Yee Neen Ho Ga Row (calledHendrik), by John Verelst, 1710, oil oncanvas, 91-5cm by 64-8cm. One of a set of oilportraits of the so-called Four Indian Kingscommissioned by Queen Anne to com-memorate their visit to her Court in April1710. 'Patriated' by the Public Archives ofCanada with a grant from the Secretary ofState under the Cultural Property Export

and Import Act, 1977.

abroad, would have been kept in Canada. The Cultural Property Export and Import Act nowensures that henceforth an object of importance does not slip away unnoticed and that anopportunity is provided for considering whether it should be retained in the country or not.

The Government's approach was to devise a system of control in terms of Canada's needbut based upon the experience of other countries, particularly the United Kingdom andFrance, to ensure that appropriate steps could be taken, following their example, so that thenational heritage would be better preserved for future generations. The legislation thereforewas conceived as a package involving a balance of restrictions and incentives as outlined in theAct and Regulations. The success or failure of the legislation would depend on the successfulimplementation of each of its component elements. The concern of the drafters of the legisla-tion was to limit control to a minimum. After examining export control systems in force inother countries, it was concluded that all had some inherent defects which became greater asthe number of objects potentially subject to control increased. Whatever arrangementsdecided upon would have to be administratively practical; any attempt to be over-meticulouswould defeat itself. A workable system of export control must confine itself to limited, well-defined categories. Control has been least effective and most irksome when it deals withobjects not of the first order of importance. The legislation envisaged, therefore, the controlof objects which are in the national treasure category. The intention was to catch those thingsthat should be controlled without making the net so tight that too much is caught, and thesystem becomes oppressive or unworkable, or both.

The instrument selected to establish the basis upon which the system would operate was a

6

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

IAN CHRISTIE CLARK 7

Canadian Cultural Property Export Control List; it would set the ground rules. At its sim-plest, by virtue of the Control List, control would be applied to objects above a certain ageand value limits; but no attempt would be made to exert control over objects beneath theselimits. The Act would allow for changes in the Control List in response to the upward move-ment of prices on the market, or in cases where the control may have originally set at too lowor too high a level. But before examining the Control List in detail, the principles governingexclusions from it should be explained.

Exclusions from Control

The Act exempts from control objects that are less than fifty years old and made by a livingperson. Of course, there are national treasures to be found in Canada that are less than 50years old. But to try to safeguard them by the control system proposed was judged to be bothimpractical and undesirable. First of all, it would considerably increase the number of objectsto be scrutinized. It is also worth pointing out that any control of trade in objects of less than50 years of age might discourage the vigorous, two-way traffic which brings recent, importantworks of foreign provenance into the country in exchange for those that leave Canada. MostCanadians would agree with the decision not to exert control over an object created by a livingperson. It would infringe upon that person's right to dispose of a work as that individual seesfit. During an active, creative life, an artist should be allowed complete freedom—in factencouraged—to gain an international reputation. There remains the practical considerationthat, while an artist is living, the body of work is not finite and the institutions responsible forselecting from it can do so in free competition with foreign private collectors, dealers andinstitutions.

Questions have been raised concerning the application of the control system to objects notof Canadian origin. What are the principles that the Act incorporates in the case of objectsimported to Canada which owners wish to export? As in other countries which have adoptedsimilar legislation, objects forming part of the cultural heritage are defined to include not onlyindigenous objects but foreign made objects. However, the British precedent has beenadopted of requiring foreign cultural property to acquire 'citizenship' through time andassociation with our country. To be subject to control, objects must be on the Control List,but permits are issued forthwith by the permit officer without reference to an expertexaminer for objects which have been in Canada for less than 35 years. The 35-year ruleshould not discourage collectors in any way from importing objects from abroad in thefuture. On the contrary, those who are astute stand to gain by doing so, if they choose wiselyand well, as an outstanding foreign object will be eligible for tax exemption in the future inthe case of successful referral to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board whenan owner and institution are negotiating a gift or sale—even when export is not involved.Then, too, 35 years represents a lifetime of collecting for those importing cultural propertyfrom abroad during which time they will have complete freedom to export as a permit will beissued forthwith by the permit officer in the same way as temporary permits will be issued.

How does the owner establish to the satisfaction of the permit officer that the object hewishes to export has been in the country less than 35 years? The applicant for an exportpermit, if it is claimed that the object has been imported into Canada within the last 35 years,attaches supporting evidence or makes a signed declaration to that effect. The permit officerdoes not question such information unless he suspects fraud, and as in the United Kingdom,the permit is issued forthwith by the permit officer in the same way as temporary permits areissued. If the export is for some temporary purpose (such as exhibition loan, authentication,restoration, research purposes, etc.), the permit is issued forthwith by the permit officer.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

8 The Cultural Property Export and Import Act of Canada

Temporary permits are also granted forthwith to Canadian residents temporarily residingabroad. If the permit concerns a loan to an institution or public authority in Canada made bya non-resident, the permit is also issued automatically by the permit officer.

The Control System

Under the Canadian system, the export of cultural property is regulated by reference to theCanadian Cultural Property Export Control List which establishes categories and age andvalue limits. The departure from Canada of an object falling within the Control List can bepostponed if, as the result of an appeal by a person to whom an export permit has beenrefused, the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board judges that a reasonable delayperiod should be created. This enables interested public authorities and custodial institutionsin Canada to purchase it at a fair market price. If the object is not purchased within the timelimits of the delay period, an export permit is granted.

The Control List, as described in the Act, may include 'any objects or classes of objects'which it is deemed necessary to control 'in order to preserve the national heritage'. There aresix categories set out in the Act which provide the guidelines for establishment of the Listitself and for five of the six the Act sets minimum value limits. Objects with a value below theminima are not included in the Control List. Therefore no permit is required before export-ing them. It is important to note that these minima cannot be lowered without Parliamentaryamendment but, when appropriate, higher value limits can be set and these can be changed asthe market varies or other circumstances dictate. The Control List, therefore, is a detailedand specific definition of the classes of objects which are subject to control under the Act. It isthe legal reference for determining whether or not an export permit is required before cul-tural property can be exported from Canada. The Control List also serves to define culturalproperty designated by Canada for the purpose of any cultural property agreements withforeign countries. This means that any objects included in the Control List would be illegalimports into countries with which Canada had bilateral and multilateral agreements unlessthey have been exported from Canada under a Cultural Property Export Permit. The Con-trol List divides cultural property into seven groups: Group I: Objects recovered from thesoil or waters of Canada. Group II: Objects of ethnographic art or ethnography. Group III:Military objects. Group IV: Objects of decorative art. Group V: Objects of fine art. GroupVI: Scientific or technological objects. Group VII: Books, records, documents, photographicpositives and negatives, and sound recordings. With the exception of certain classes of objectsrecovered from the soil or waters of Canada (where export permits are required irrespectiveof commercial value) varying minimum values for categories of objects within each groupdetermine whether an export permit is required.

The regulatory system is administered across the country through 16 customs ports where32 customs officials have been designated as permit officers. These permit officers act on theadvice, as necessary, of some 343 locally designated expert examiners. Normally, custodialinstitutions such as the local museums, art galleries, provincial archives, university librariesin reasonable proximity to the customs office or offices selected in each province to issueexport permits are designated as expert examiners. The customs office has a list of theseinstitutions. From the description of the object on the application form in relation to theControl List, the customs officer is guided as to which institution he should approach toobtain a professional opinion. Instructions regarding the duties and responsibilities of theexpert examiners have been drawn up to ensure that the Act is applied equally across thecountry while taking regional or provincial considerations into account. It should be empha-sized that the Government was concerned from the beginning about avoiding unnecessary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

IAN CHRISTIE CLARK 9

delays. In the case of permanent export, if the permit officer, who makes no artistic judge-ments under this legislation, agrees that an object is, in fact, subject to control by reference tothe Control List, he refers the application to a local expert examiner, otherwise, he issues thepermit. If the expert examiner decides, after applying the criteria set forth in the Act forjudging the significance and national importance of the object,1 that the permit should begranted, he so advises the permit officer who will immediately issue an export permit. If theexpert examiner decides that an export permit should not be granted, the permit officer willnot issue it and the applicant can either keep his object, try to sell it in Canada, or he mayappeal to the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.

The Review Board reviews the decision and applies the same criteria to determine

Journal de Minet, MS, 1684-85. Page fromthe journal written in 1684 and 1685 byMinet, an engineer and cartographer, trac-ing Rene-Robert Cavalier de la Salle'sdescent down the Mississippi River(1678-82) and la Salle's last expedition,when he attempted to reach the Mississippiby passing through the Gulf of Mexico(1684-87). 'Patriated' by the PublicArchives of Canada under the CulturalProperty Export and Import Act, 1981.

- pim tour u-ekw Eton t£lu>. • Οκιί&,+ ιΧη a)u fiaui- τ»·

t i ) ln 'A& fail» 2vn.pUlit Clifuu. iviu, nahm

«lire Jtin. itfum4-

un jiarty A» £f /. Ju tyuJt* Λ/W txaur feu fix,

. eiu. -fit- Utm f fiuii, us

.'(num. a· VX.&. ftun vllc^u m. m ftutL·* ψϊν* flu- ί

ο«Λ t>vmt> fmn3 mure· euiit hiimiarioaun turn tuu

UK part./ C-107*9 « fto ίΛ\

whether, in its view, the object really falls in the category of outstanding significance andnational importance required by the Act. If the Review Board decides that it does, and con-cludes that an offer to purchase the object might be made by an institution or public authorityin Canada, it may establish a delay period of up to six months. If it decides that it is not likelythat an institution or public authority in Canada would be interested in purchasing the objector, in the event that it has established a delay period and no fair cash offer to purchase theobject has been made within that time, it directs that an export permit be issued. There is aprocedure for determining what is a fair cash offer to purchase in the event that the partiescannot agree.

Provisions governing the general permit and the open general permit, which are Minister-ial permits, are defined in the regulations and have specific purposes. The general permit,really a bulk licence, can be issued to a reputable dealer to alleviate undue hardship or inter-ference with his business. Such a dealer, on application, and in accordance with agreed termsand conditions, is permitted to export objects which although they might technically fall

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

10 The Cultural Property Export and Import Act of Canada

Dentsiq Board (Kwak-iutl Indian dancescreen), collected CapeMudge, BC, 19th cent.Repatriated by NationalMuseum of Man underthe Cultural PropertyExport and Import Act,1978, for the Museum at

Cape Mudge.

'£=Ζ3β

ι I"

Sir Humphrey Gilbert MS., 1582. A page from one of two draftagreements dated 1582 between Sir Humphrey Gilbert and hisassociates, by which the participants were to receive vast tracts ofland in the New World in return for their support of Gilbert'sexpedition. Gilbert's voyage to Newfoundland took place in 1583,when he formally took possession of it in the name of QueenElizabeth I and established the first English colony in the NewWorld. 'Patriated' by the Public Archives of Canada under the

Cultural Property Export and Import Act, 1978.

within the control, were not in themselves of such importance that an export permit wouldnot be issued if applied for. Of course, this privilege can be withdrawn if it is abused. Theopen general permits refer to a type of permit applicable to all persons, and are published inthe Canada Gazette. They, in effect, create exceptions to the Control List while they are inforce. For instance, a particular class of object subject to control might be in abundant supplyand the ability to exempt such a particular class of objects for a period, which might belimited, assures the necessary flexibility in the control system.

The system of control, therefore, is seen to be fair. Its operation only affects objects consi-dered to be of outstanding significance and national importance and so it does not seriously

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

IAN CHRISTIE CLARK 11

interfere with normal trade nor infringe unduly upon personal rights. It does not expropriateor confiscate property. If a person has applied for an export permit for an object considered tobe of national importance, he either obtains a fair price for the object or at worst, from hispoint of view, his intention to export is delayed for a period of a few months in order toprovide time for Canadian custodial institutions and public authorities to examine whetherthe object can be purchased at a fair price and thus retained in Canada. There can be no doubtthat the legislation demands close co-operation between all of the interested groups. Dealersas well as collectors must work closely with the private and public institutions which have theresponsibility of preserving the Canadian heritage. This point cannot be overemphasized.Any system of export control has a public relations function, and it also has the responsibilityof setting the rules of the game. Already the very fact of the legislation, with the incentives itcontains, has encouraged the interested communities to work together more closely. If thesystem could work ideally, the legislation itself would become superfluous. At each stage ofthe control process, which as an end result is only creating a delay period in order to allow afair cash offer to be turned up, there are opportunities for the potential exporter and an in-terested institution to reach some kind of agreement.

Funds Made Available for Purchases

Legislation which creates delays and ties up capital will not gain acceptance. However,dealers and collectors are not an element of the population at which the Act is aimed as if theywere singled out as a group that had to be controlled. On the contrary, the success of thesystem in force depends on their active co-operation. This co-operation would not comeeasily if they, as a group, were constantly faced with a conflict between their own naturaltendencies of wishing to see the best elements of the heritage preserved in Canada and theirpocketbooks. The system implemented provides funds to assist in the preservation ofnational treasures which have been ruled as such by the Review Board. No scheme of exportcontrol can be effective without an adequate supply of funds to assist Canadian publicauthorities or institutions in purchasing national treasures for which a delay period hasbeen created. The absence of sufficient funds would negate the scheme. Therefore, it wasestablished that the Minister responsible to Parliament for the Act be given authority, out ofmonies appropriated each year by Parliament, to make grants and loans, as individual cir-cumstances might require, to public authorities and institutions in Canada to help enablethem to purchase such objects. Grants and loans also may be made for the repatriation ofCanadian heritage objects which have already left the country and become available forpurchase abroad.

Responsibility for preserving the heritage must be shared between levels of government ina federal system and it must be shared between the public and private sectors. That is why theAct envisages the creation of a Canadian Heritage Endowment Fund to which individuals orcorporations can make contributions.2 This makes monies available to supplement theresources which the Government itself provides to facilitate the purchase of cultural propertyfor which a delay period has been established, and to repatriate Canadian national treasureswhich have already left the country and appear on the international art market abroad. In theperiod September 1977-1 April 1981,440 export permits were processed of which 95 permitswere issued on the advice of an expert examiner, 3 were denied on the advice of an expertexaminer but were not appealed, 8 export permits were subsequently issued by the CanadianCultural Property Export Review Board on appeal, and 21 export permits for permanentexport were denied by the Review Board. Of the cultural property subject of the 21 exportpermits denied by the Review Board, 20 have been purchased at the declared fair market

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

12 The Cultural Property Export and Import Act of Canada

lll-6-ni.f

Ceremonial pipe and stem, 1770-1840, Great Lakes region, EasternOjibwa type, bowl cast in bronze, wooden stem carved in a spiralaround the metal tube. Repatriated by the National Museum of Manwith a grant from the Secretary of State under the Cultural Property

Export and Import Act, 1979.

value by Canadian institutions. In 18 cases out of the 21, purchase, on the advice of theReview Board, was facilitated by grants from funds made available under the Act.

Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board

The body responsible for regulating the export of cultural property subject of the Act's pro-visions, is the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board which is appointed by theGovernment. In addition to the Chairman, there are ten members, two of whom representthe public interest while the balance represents in equal proportions public collecting institu-tions on the one hand and private collectors and dealers on the other. The intention was to setup an independent body made up of individuals having a recognized knowledge about, andinterest in, the Canadian heritage. The Board is considered a body of professionals withaccess to people employed in custodial institutions, or who may have recognized expertiseoutside that community and have the technical and special knowledge to assist it in anymatter in an advisory capacity. The first duty of the Board, as we have seen, is to reviewappeals from applicants who have been refused export permits for permanent export byexpert examiners. The second duty arises when an owner and a Canadian institution cannot

Detail of ceremonial pipe above

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

IAN CHRISTIE CLARK 13

agree on a price for an object for which the Review Board has created a delay period. In such acase the Board, calling upon the advice of valuation experts, determines the amount of a faircash offer. If the institution in question accepts this evaluation and offers to purchase theobject, but the applicant does not accept the evaluation, an export permit will not be grantedand the owner must wait two years before applying again for an export permit. If the appli-cant accepts the evaluation but no institution is willing to purchase the object for the amountof the fair cash offer, then the Review Board must instruct the permit officer to issue an exportpermit. The third duty arises out of the amendments to the Income Tax Act (Canada).

The Incentive System

In addition to outlining a system of control, the Act provides tax incentives. The Income TaxAct (Canada) was amended in order to give Canadian institutions and public authorities acompetitive 'edge' in negotiating for important works, and to encourage the collector to 'dobusiness' with the custodial community in Canada. The amendments to the Income Tax Actwhich are included in the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, exempt from capitalgains tax, certified cultural property disposed of to designated institutions or public authori-ties in Canada (i.e. those found to be technically and professionally equipped and responsiblebodies). Since the Act came into force, amendments have been enacted by the Canadianprovinces in the area of inheritance taxes and succession duties so that provincial tax law inthe matter of capital gains is now consistent with federal tax law. In addition, gifts andbequests for such property under the Act are now deductible up to 100 per cent of income.This amendment placed all designated institutions and public authorities on the same footingwith regard to the tax incentives. This enshrined the principle of the donor's right to choosethe repository for his collection wherever in Canada that repository was located and whateverits jurisdiction.

The tax exemptions are not restricted to cases where owners are attempting to exportnational treasures or to objects covered by the Control List. When cultural property is beingdisposed of by owners to their local institutions, whether by sale or gift, if the disposition isreferred to the Review Board and results in the cultural property being certified, the ownerscan benefit from the tax exemptions if the institution was designated at the time of the dis-position. Thus national treasures less than fifty years old and made by a living person canqualify for the tax exemption. In this way the transfer to the appropriate custodial institutionsof objects in the national treasure category of more recent origin, and of whatever provenance,are encouraged before they are subject to the export control provisions of the Act. It alsomeans that outstanding collections and objects, the individual components of which do notmeet the minimum values of the Control List, are also eligible for tax relief on an aggregatebasis. During the period September 1977-1 April 1981, 120 Canadian collecting institutionswere designated for general purposes under the Act and 20 in relation to a specific culturalproperty. From the applications received by the Board during this same period, 778 CulturalProperty Income Tax Certificates were issued thereby facilitating the transfer of culturalproperty to designated institutions evaluated at 52-6 million dollars Canadian.

Estimating Fair Market Value for Income Tax Purposes

It became evident from the first applications for certification received by the Review Boardthat there was wide variance among Canadian institutions as to the acceptable means forestimating fair market value for donations. Some institutions had established in-house evalu-ation committees for this purpose—against all accepted professional ethics; others viewed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

14 The Cultural Property Export and Import Act of Canada

evaluations obtained for insurance purposes as necessarily synonymous with current fairmarket value. Where dispositions by gift are concerned, the Review Board has taken theposition as a matter of principle that, for all evaluations in excess of $1,000.00, applicantssupport their estimates of fair market value with appraisals obtained 'at arms length' frompersons recognized as professionally competent and qualified for this purpose. Particularly incases where the cultural property is of considerable monetary value, the Review Board hasfound it prudent to require two 'at arms length' appraisals. However, for fine and decorativeart, and for archival material, where agencies exist to provide an appraisal which representsthe opinion of more than one professional evaluator, one appraisal which represents a com-bined opinion has been found to be acceptable to the Review Board.

Repatriation of Cultural Property

In addition to the duties specifically assigned to it under the Act, the Review Board makesrecommendations regarding the purchase of cultural property situated outside Canada that isrelated to the national heritage from grants and loans made under the Minister's authority.During the period September 1977-1 April 1981, of the applications for grants received fromdesignated institutions for the repatriation (or 'patriation') of cultural property, 102 weredetermined by the Review Board to meet the conditions of outstanding significance andnational importance. As a result grants totalling 3-1 million dollars Canadian were issued. Itshould be noted that the designated institutions involved participated financially to variousdegrees; the monies voted by Parliament, as intended, have been used to supplement localresources and initiative.

Foreign Cultural Property

There are provisions in the Act which concern the import into Canada of objects illegallyexported from foreign states. There has been growing concern in recent years over illicittraffic in cultural property. The Act therefore contains provisions to make it illegal to importto Canada any cultural property illicitly exported from a country with which Canada has atreaty or which is party along with Canada, to an international agreement concerned with theprevention of such illicit traffic. Action may be taken in the Canadian courts to recover suchproperty and return it to the country of origin; but innocent purchasers and holders of suchproperty in Canada are protected, for it will not be confiscated and returned to the country oforigin until the present owners have been paid a just compensation determined by a Canadiancourt. On 28 June 1978, Canada became the 37th member state of UNESCO to accede to the1970 UNESCO Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import,export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. The transfer of cultural property fromone country to another is no longer a matter of indifference to the community of nations. Byimplementing the Cultural Property Export and Import Act the Canadian Governmentassumed its responsibility to act as guardian of the heritage of all Canadians, and by accedingto the UNESCO Convention, has taken an important step in recognizing that this responsi-bility extends to the cultural heritage of all mankind.

No action has yet been taken to restore cultural property to Canada or to return it fromCanada to a reciprocating state under the provisions of this Convention.

Penalties

Under the Act, it is illegal to export or attempt to export from Canada any object included inthe Control List without a permit. Secondly, it is illegal to transfer a permit to allow anyone

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014

IAN CHRISTIE CLARK 15

other than the legal permit holder to use it. And thirdly, anyone who wilfully gives false ormisleading information in connection with a permit application or its use commits an offence.Exporting or attempting to export foreign cultural property which has been imported intoCanada, and is being claimed as an illegal export by another country and in respect of whichcourt action has been instituted by the Attorney General of Canada, is also illegal. For any ofthese offences, the penalty is a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to twelve months, orboth, on summary conviction. On conviction upon indictment, the penalty is a fine of up to$25,000, imprisonment up to five years, or both.

Conclusion

The Act, which has been described in very general terms, is a 'package deal'; it balancescontrols and restrictions with incentives. As it was devised with the problems of export andimport in mind, to be workable it had to be limited to objects in the national treasury cate-gory. For those involved in defining its scope, the choices were really not that difficult—to tryto identify and protect the best. To conclude, with special reference to the Review Board, it isappropriate to quote from the present author's report submitted in 1978, when Chairman,and contained in the first annual report made under the Act:

In each of the specific duties of the Review Board under the Act, as well as those carriedout at the request of the Minister, the communities at interest are implicated in varyingdegrees. But experience to date has shown just how symbiotic the relationship isbetween them and just how important it is that these communities manage to worktogether towards a common interest in the preservation of the heritage, which ulti-mately is the public interest.

The knowledgeable dealer, the sensitive collector and the dedicated scholar, each inhis or her own way a 'professional', can bring new dimensions to bear on the most mun-dane of deliberations. What has been a revelation (and a relief) to the Chairman in thefirst seven months the Review Board has been in operation is the rapidity with which themembers of the Review Board have come to grips with the issues and the surety withwhich they have invariably achieved unanimity in making their decisions. In the processthe Review Board has become a formidable new instrument on the Canadian heritagescene.

Notes

1. '. . . he shall forthwith further determine(a) whether the object is of outstanding significance by reason of(i) its close association with Canadian history or national life,(ii) its aesthetic qualities, or(iii) its value in the study of the arts or sciences; and(b) whether the object is of such a degree of national importance that its loss to Canada would significantlydiminish the national heritage.'2. To date the provision regarding the establishment of a Canadian Heritage Endowment Fund has not beenimplemented.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ore

gon

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

02:

26 2

1 D

ecem

ber

2014