What is interesting is that since the Canadian VC was created in 1993, not a single Canadian has been awarded it. Could it be that the Govt of Canada would not be willing to fork out the $3,000 per year that each recipient is entitled to after being awarded the VC? Where as the Cross of Valour, Star of Courage and Medal of Bravery do not entitle the recipient to any monetary annuity. With only a handful of Cross of Valour being awarded since the creation of the VC (Canada), it's actually not that suprising that there are not any recipients of the VC as it is the only award higher than the Cross of Valour. Not to take away from any of the actions of any soldier on the battlefield, but clearly for it to be awarded it would need to be an action that is "Unthinkable" or "Unimaginable" beyond any action that someone received the Cross of Valour for.
The $3000/a pension is completely irrelevant as that only applies to VCs awarded to Canadians for WWII and before. There is no pension attached to the current Canadian VC (or any other current Canadian awards for that matter).
It is worth noting that these awards come under a great deal of scrutiny. After a nomination has made it through the Chain of Command, it ends up in front of the CF Decorations Advisory Committee (CFDAC), which is chaired by the CDS and includes all the Environmental Commanders. The level of scrutiny at CFDAC is high and all nominations have the benefit (or hindrance) of all being compared to each other. In other words, no one can accuse one organization of having different standards than another as all nominations are reviewed by the same people in the end.
Consider also the following:
1) Modern warfare is (for lack of a better term), "safer" than in the past in that it is no longer necessary to send hundreds of men over the top in order to attain an objective. Modern warfare uses fewer people and relies more on technology than it did in previous generations. Now, before the dogpile starts, I'm not saying modern warfare isn't dangerous, but we do fight it differently to the point where I think there are fewer opportunities for individuals to exhibit personal valour than in the past;
2) In keeping with the above point, we as a society are less willing to sacrifice human life for "glory" or to gain turf than we have been in the past. The Charge of the Light Brigade would never happen today;
3) if you look at recent awards, they are virtually all for cases where individuals go in harm's way in order to save other people, not to achieve an objective. Capturing the enemy's colours would win you a VC at Crimea, but would be seen as foolhardy today;
4) I think the bar has been set pretty high for a VC when you look at what we have awarded SMVs for. I'm not sure anyone knows how much more valour will be required for a VC.
5) comparing a VC to CV is apples to oranges. What is considered exceptional bravery for a civilian working outside of his/her area of expertise, could be seen as routine for a trained soldier in a combat zone. Since 1972, only about 20 CVs have been awarded and each case involved a person who could easily have saved themselves or avoided the situation, but chose not to and instead dove in and did more than anyone could ever have reasonably expected. A soldier in combat is expected to get involved and do something.
6) The standard for the VC has steadily risen over the years. Modern VCs are harder to win than the original ones at Crimea were. In fact, modern VCs are worth more at auction for that very reason.
7) The biggest challenge will be awarding the first Canadian VC. Once the standard has been set, others will follow.
