Skip to content
 

Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs

Issue 7 - Evidence


OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 3, 2000

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-18, to amend the National Defence Act (non-deployment of persons under the age of eighteen years to theatres of hostilities), met this day at 3:35 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Peter A. Stollery (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Today we are here to deal with Bill S-18, to amend the National Defence Act. The first witnesses are from the Department of National Defence.

[Translation]

Ms Louise Bellefeuille-Prégent, Director, Arms and Proliferation Control Policy: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before you this afternoon to discuss the Government's proposal to amend the National Defence Act as it pertains to the deployment of members of the Canadian Forces under the age of 18.

I hope that my associates and I will be able to answer all of your questions concerning Bill S-18. As you are aware, the government is not proposing to make extensive changes to the act.

[English]

Indeed, the proposed amendment amounts to one clause in each official language and would put into law the existing practice of the Canadian forces, which is not to deploy members under the age of 18 to theatres of hostilities.

To understand the government's intent in proposing this amendment, one needs to see it as part of Canada's broader effort, made in concert with other concerned members of the international community, to address the terrible problem of child soldiers and war-affected children.

[Translation]

In 1996, a UN report portrayed the devastating impact that modern-day conflicts have on children. The report notes that over the preceding decade, conflicts across the globe have killed nearly two million children, left more than four million disabled, orphaned one million and left over ten million psychologically scarred by the trauma of violence committed against their families.

The UN estimates that approximately 300,000 children are currently involved in armed conflict around the globe. Some of these children are as young as seven years old. These children are serving in regular armies and guerrilla forces as fighters, cooks, porters, sexual slaves, mine layers or spies.

[English]

The UN has been working to address the problem of child soldiers and war-affected children for over a decade. In 1989, the UN adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child. At the time, it was only possible to reach a consensus on setting a minimum age for recruitment, either voluntary or compulsory, and direct participation in hostilities, at 15 years of age.

In 1994, the UN Commission on Human Rights established a working group to draft an optional protocol to the convention to raise this minimum standard. After six years of work, a consensus was reached on the text of this protocol in January. States parties to the optional protocol would be required to raise the minimum age for compulsory military recruitment to 18. They would be required to raise the minimum age for voluntary recruitment to age 16, and they would be required to take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces who are under 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities.

The optional protocol is expected to be adopted by the UN General Assembly this summer. Once this happens, we hope to see the member states ratify it before the end of this year.

The current policies and practices of the Canadian forces are fully compliant with the provisions of the optional protocol. We do not have compulsory military recruitment. Our minimum age for voluntary recruitment is 16, and we do not allow members under the age of 18 to serve in theatres where hostilities are ongoing or likely.

Many of you will be aware that the Canadian forces enrol 16- and 17-year-olds, about 1,000 per year. These young people enrol in the Canadian forces on a strictly voluntary basis. Reliable proof of age and parental consent are required. The majority serve in the reserves, although there are some in the regular force, principally those attending the Royal Military College in Kingston. Enrolment at 16 and 17 enables the military to attract top quality candidates when they graduate from high school. This is particularly true in Quebec, where students graduate from the secondary school system earlier than other Canadians. For our part, we are able to provide these young Canadians with valuable employment opportunities as well as education and training.

[Translation]

Serving in the Reserves helps some of our younger personnel pay for post-secondary education. In addition, our leadership courses expose them to concepts of ethics and accountability. Other training imparts valuable skills such as fire fighting, basic medical skills and mechanics. However, I wish to reiterate that these personnel are not allowed to deploy to theatres of actual or imminent hostilities.

The government's proposed amendment to the National Defence Act will reinforce this policy by giving it the force of law. Moreover, in amending the Act, Canada will clearly signal its commitment to respect the Optional Protocol.

I will conclude by noting that the amendment is only one aspect of Canada's efforts to promote the protection of war-affected children.

As the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Olara Otonu, noted during his visit to Canada last month, much remains to be done to aid children on the ground.

[English]

Canada intends to explore over the coming months additional ways in which the international community can come to the aid of war-affected children.

Senator Andreychuk: The bill is obviously very short and self-explanatory. You have explained the policy. My concern is with the actual administration. You said, either imminent or actual hostilities. Do we in fact send anyone under the age of 18 outside the country in any capacity at all? If in fact we do, how do we then determine what is a theatre of hostilities? As we know, there are very peaceful situations that turn overnight into other than that. The risk factors are not known today as they were in the old, traditional ways of warfare. How do you administer that?

Captain Stephen King, Special Advisor, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence: The Chief of Defence Staff decides and he will declare whether a theatre is or is not hostile. He does this on the basis of provided intelligence and in consultation with our allies. We do not send anyone outside to a theatre of hostility such as that.

Senator Andreychuk: Do we send any 16- or 17-year-olds abroad?

Capt. King: In the case of the navy, which often goes outside the 12-mile limit, you will find officers or young sailors on board from time to time during summer training.

Senator Andreychuk: Would that be with the NATO training?

Capt. King: No, summer cruises, things like that.

Senator Andreychuk: What would happen in a civil crisis where the military is brought in? Are 16- and 17-year-olds deployed in those situations?

Capt. King: Are you talking about aid to the civil power, for instance, where we would respond to situations like Oka or a prison?

Senator Andreychuk: Right.

Capt. King: That is not laid down in this particular amendment, but the Chief of Defence Staff is quite clear that he does not wish to send children to these theatres.

Senator Andreychuk: Have we ever sent 16- and 17-year-olds into the prisons or situations like Oka?

Capt. King: I cannot give you 100 per cent assurance on that. The likely answer is no.

Senator Andreychuk: There is no definitive policy?

Capt. King: It is not possible to go back through past records and ask, did we ever send 16- or 17-year-olds? The answer is most likely no. If you recruit someone at 16 or 17, generally once they complete their basic training, language training and trade training, they are 18 or older. We do not see many soldiers, sailors or airmen in operational units until they are well past 18. Basic training takes that long.

Senator Andreychuk: Obviously this protocol was not directed at Canada, but at many other countries, and we are setting the example. At least I hope that is what we are doing. There has been some discussion, certainly some literature that I have received, indicating that we would probably do better if we also adopted no recruitment of 16- and 17-year-olds. While I understand the positives of the education, the involvement of younger recruits, have you considered whether we would be doing a greater service to the international community if we did not recruit anyone under 18 under any circumstances for anything?

Ms Bellefeuille-Prégent: This was discussed, reviewed, and considered for quite some time. Canada worked very hard to come up with the strongest optional protocol that will protect children and would also be signed by most countries. The results were as I mentioned. We looked at our policies, practices and so on, and found that we were fully compliant. The real issue was that we were trying to ensure that no child of 16 or 17 would be sent to a theatre of hostilities. That is why the amendment is being proposed, although it is already a policy. We weighed that against the fact that we do provide some valuable training, education, and opportunities to 16- and 17-year-olds, and also that we must be a competitor with other employers when these 16- and 17-year-olds leave high school. We want to be there and say, "Here is a career for you." We do not want to say, "You must pick another career and maybe in two years you can come back." All of those issues are important.

Another issue is that reservists depend on the money they make in the Canadian forces to pay for their post-secondary studies. These are good part-time jobs for them.

In terms of the negotiations on the optional protocol, perhaps Mr. Snyder would answer that.

Mr. Ross Snyder, Deputy Director, Peace Building and Human Security Division, Global and Human Issues Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade: It is safe to say that during the final round of negotiations in January on the optional protocol, people involved fairly early on in the discussion had concluded that both the realistic and, in the current context, the most desirable outcome was to do everything possible to keep people under 18 out of hostile theatres of operation. There certainly had been debate in the earlier stages of the negotiations about going for a straight 18, but there was no international consensus on that. The negotiation of the optional protocol concluded with clearly keeping deployment of individuals to those over 18, and including in the recruitment provisions some safeguards to ensure that, even if people are recruited under the age of 18, they are genuinely voluntary recruits and are not deployed. The practices in the Canadian Armed Forces are already in line with that. The fundamental objective was to keep young people under 18 out of harm's way.

[Translation]

Senator Corbin: Is an 18-year-old young man or woman emotionally mature enough to be sent into a theatre of war? Putting it another way, not just any 18-year-old can be sent off to battle. I have a problem with this. Based on my experience, an 18-year-old female is probably more mature than her male counterpart, regardless of the training they have received. It is a question of human nature. At least, that is what I learned in my psychology courses and what I have observed in my own life.

I am not at all happy with the fact that we are moving to set a legal age at which a young person can be sent into an armed conflict situation, regardless of whether we are talking about a peace keeping mission or about a real war. Realistically, should we be recruiting 18- and 19-year-olds to engage in hostilities?

[English]

Colonel Gord Grant, Director of Military Human Resource Requirements, Department of National Defence: In the past several years I have completed three operations that had the potential to be highly hostile. Perhaps we are limiting ourselves in saying that 18 is the prerequisite to go on an operation? I do not believe so. I can speak as a commanding officer who has had to carry the burden of certifying that every soldier is what we call "good to go" or ready for the environment in which we wish to deploy them.

Captain King mentioned that there are a number of directives. In all three operations I was involved in, I was in command of a large number of soldiers. Some were 18, but most were older. None were 17. I was not permitted to take them. I had to read a number of orders and instructions personally, which I did. They outlined such things as the minimum physical standards that those people must meet, including mental checks and dental checks. There was a very large training bill. I had 15 evaluators assigned to my unit on all three occasions. I was given hundreds of scenarios where my soldiers had to react. They were mentored to the point where I felt that every one of those members of the armed forces was ready to go. I was then given 24 hours to conduct an exercise or training operation. Approximately 1 in 10 people were sent to evaluate my unit and they certified as to whether everyone had the abilities to operate within those environments.

You can clearly understand the accountability burden put on individuals. I had to then sign a document and list every member of the Canadian Armed Forces travelling with me. I had to make an affirmation that I personally accepted that every one of those people was ready to go on that operation. I would not sign that document and take on that accountability if I were not reasonably certain that they had the maturity to not only operate, but also cope with some of the worst potential situations they might face. The three operations I was involved in were not unique and all commanding officers continue to face those responsibilities today. That is directed by the highest ranks in the military. Every commanding officer who goes on an operation is very familiar with that and it is not an easy burden to bear.

Senator Corbin: Thank you for that information.

Senator Grafstein: How many people were tested by the 15 evaluators?

Col. Grant: The first operation was 700, the second was 250, and the third was just under 200. The operations were in Sarajevo, the Congo, and Bosnia.

Senator Corbin: On the return of these troops, what was their mental or psychological state after seeing all sorts of horrors? We know that in other circumstances, very mature persons have totally broken down. What has been your experience with younger soldiers aged 18 or 19 in situations of that nature?

Col. Grant: We are moving away perhaps from what I was asked to come here to address.

Senator Corbin: You do not have to respond.

Col. Grant: In my own experience, people who had trouble were of all ages.

Senator Corbin: We are not becoming personal here.

Col. Grant: I am not taking it personally.

Senator Corbin: I may have a preconceived bias or prejudice about sending young people into conflict situations. Members of my family have been on peacekeeping missions in Korea and Cyprus and elsewhere. Fortunately, they came out of it in fairly good condition, but that is not the case for everyone. I appreciate that the Canadian military is more than ever concerned with the well-being and proper training of its staff. Nevertheless, we must be realistic. I still say that 18 or 19 is too young to be exposed to situations like the ones you are talking about.

You can train them, you can make them into machines, you can condition them mentally, but I certainly would like to know the answer to my question. How many of them come back and can lead normal lives after seeing the kind of horror that they are sometimes exposed to? Is that really necessary?

Senator Di Nino: To get back to the purpose of the bill for a moment, one paragraph puts into law the current practice of our armed forces?

Ms Bellefeuille-Prégent: Yes.

Senator Di Nino: In the group of 16- and 17-year-olds recruited through either the military institutes or the reserves, is there a reasonable number of women? What are the statistics?

Col. Grant: I do not have the specific statistics on that. My own unit was about 20 to 30 per cent were women, but I do not know if that was representative across the armed forces. Certain occupations have higher numbers of women than others.

Senator Di Nino: The 16- and 17-year-olds are mainly in the reserve and/or in the institutes and are not actual members of the military establishment other than under those categories?

Col. Grant: Not quite, senator. We do recruit at 17 into the regular force; however, their training program tends to be 12 to 18 months.

Senator Di Nino: Whether through the military institutes or some other process, it is really part of an education and training program?

Col. Grant: Yes, senator.

Senator Di Nino: If they were ever to be considered for an operation in some theatre of conflict, they would likely be 18 anyway?

Col. Grant: No. The directive states that they must be at least 18, regardless of whether they completed their training at 17 or not.

Senator Di Nino: How do we define a theatre of conflict? For instance, the floods in Winnipeg would not be considered a theatre of conflict. Those under the age of 18 would participate. We understand that. Are there grey areas here you may want to explain, or is it basically where one is expected to shoot and kill?

Col. Grant: I will defer to the policy man.

Capt. King: The Chief of Defence Staff has issued definitions on two occasions, the first in 1998. He has defined a hostile theatre of operations as "any area or region where hostilities are ongoing or reasonably likely to occur or recur, or any area or region designated by the Chief of Defence Staff as a hostile theatre of operations." Again, it is incumbent on the Chief of Defence Staff to declare an area hostile.

Senator Di Nino: That is defined as an area where one is likely to kill or be killed?

Capt. King: Kill or be killed, or where life and limb are hazarded.

Senator Di Nino: Would the younger members of the forces be assigned to defensive or support positions as opposed to front lines, or does the age not make any difference?

Capt. King: The age is irrelevant. The people recruited into the Canadian forces are spread across the entire spectrum of trades and classifications. I joined at age 17, and I have been in the navy since then. My training took four or five years. I finished my university degree and my basic navy training before I was actually assigned to an operational ship. I was 21 by the time I joined my first operational unit.

Senator Di Nino: To satisfy those who are suggesting that no one under 18 should be recruited, could there be some classification or designation other than being regular members of the armed forces?

Ms Bellefeuille-Prégent: One of the things we considered was the benefits that these people would receive. We did not want to have two classes of members of the Canadian forces. They all receive the same benefits and have these years count toward their pensions. They have the same system of discipline, so they are the treated the same as the others, except that they are protected from being sent to a theatre of hostilities. As my colleague mentioned, there is a definition of a theatre of hostilities and so they have that protection. They receive the same benefits, so we think it is more advantageous to retain these 16- and 17-year-olds as full members of the Canadian forces.

Senator Di Nino: Is it correct that a theatre of hostilities can be domestic or foreign?

Capt. King: That is correct, but it has been quite a number of years since we have experienced a declared theatre of hostilities in Canada.

Senator Di Nino: Was Oka not a theatre of hostility?

Capt. King: Oka was not.

Senator Di Nino: So a 16- or 17-year-old could have been sent to Oka?

Capt. King: Potentially the answer is yes. Would we? Emphatically no. There is a moral responsibility here that we as leaders exercise.

Senator Bolduc: There is no statutory impediment.

Senator Di Nino: Thank you.

Senator Pearson: What are the practices by which you recruit young people? Do the young people express themselves and say why they want to join and that kind of thing? Since it is voluntary recruitment, I presume that the young person who wishes to join the forces must pass a certain number of tests, in addition to producing a birth certificate and having the permission of his or her parents. However, do you make some effort to find out why they want to join?

Capt. Grant: The short answer is yes. Whether it is the reserve or the regular force, we have a series of aptitude tests and a series of standards that vary, depending on the occupation. We would not want to put 17-year-olds into certain occupations. It has to do with aptitude. We take a risk on whether we think the member will reasonably succeed in that trade or occupation, because at the end of the day, we also want a return on the investment of the Canadian public's dollar.

Do they provide reasons for joining? Yes, and there are a myriad of reasons. Many of them have to do with gaining employment, but a lot have to do with what they believe will be the excitement that the military offers. Most people want to go on UN and NATO missions. There are other reasons. We are wrestling with how to make the Canadian forces the employer of choice and as attractive as possible. When a Canadian citizen is ready for full employment, which is normally at 16 or 17, we do not want to have to close our doors to those who will make excellent service members and ambassadors for the country. One of my jobs is to coordinate recruiting and production in the Canadian forces, and one of our biggest concerns is that every time we put an impediment in the way of guaranteeing full employment, the potential applicant leaves us for good and seeks employment elsewhere, whether it is with Nortel or Canada Post or whatever. We want to offer employment like any other institution or agency or industry within Canada at the age at which they are ready to be employed.

We do have aptitude tests and we obviously try to put the right people into the right training programs and jobs.

Senator Pearson: I asked about why they want to join. In this discussion on the age of deployment and so on, have you done, or do you know if anyone has done, any kind of focus groups with the kids themselves, the young recruits, to get their ideas about how young people should be involved?

Capt. Grant: In short, are there focus groups with the young people? Yes. Have there been focus groups to specifically address the issue of whether at 18 they should go on operations or not? No, but I almost believe it is a moot point. By the time we recruit and train them, they are already over 18.

Senator Pearson: I was not thinking of that. I would be pleased if you were having discussions with young people in the training programs. I would like to hear what they have to say about the whole issue of child soldiers, because young Canadians always have something to contribute. I would like to recommend that you do that.

Capt. Grant: Child soldiers, no. Certainly we conduct sensitivity training, diversity training, harassment training, cultural training. I might add though that the biggest complaint I have heard from the reserves, which are the largest employers of 16- and 17-year-olds, is about the restrictions on taking part in operations. That is the most common point made by young people, including those who are older than 18.

Senator Pearson: I can understand that because I do think that one issue that must be addressed by all of us, particularly those who are old enough to remember the Second World War, is there are some just wars. It is difficult to tell young people that just because they are under 18, they cannot engage in this kind of activity. I do not know the answer, but the more we can hear from the young people themselves, the better, and the more we will all be able to address this issue in the international area.

Senator Grafstein: I was a member of the cadets at age 13. I was very upset that I could not join sooner, but 13 was the limit. That was in high school. You could not join in public school. In my era, we admired people who wore the uniform. I am of the school that believes sooner as opposed to later is good for a whole raft of different purposes. I do not quarrel with the moral intent of this proposed legislation. I want to state my own biases and prejudices about this, then step back a little and ask some general questions.

What has been the norm in NATO, of which Canada is a part? At what age are cadets recruited, and at what age are young people accepted directly into the reserves or the regular armed forces? How do we compare with our compatriots in NATO?

Second, what is the experience of the Chinese army? I believe it is the largest standing army in the world? What is their current experience and are they part of or involved in the optional protocol?

Third, what is the experience of Switzerland, which I understand still has a form of compulsory conscription for every youth of a certain age? At what level are they invited to participate? Can they avoid serving direct time in the military by spending longer periods of time at an earlier level? There is some sort of quota. I raise this to provide us with a sense of us in the world, as opposed to others who may be of help to us. What does the word "optional" mean legally when we come to the protocol?

Lieutenant-Colonel Dominic McAlea, Director of Law International, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of National Defence: I do not have the comprehensive answer to the first question. I can tell you there is no common NATO standard with respect to recruitment in general. When you asked about cadets, did you mean in the Canadian sense, or persons in training who are members of an armed force?

Senator Grafstein: Cadets as a precursor to moving into the forces.

Lt-Col. McAlea: There is no common NATO standard. There is a different approach in each of the NATO countries, reflecting different philosophies. Although NATO tries to standardize many things, that is not one of them.

As to the second question, I cannot comment on the Chinese experience, other than to say they were present in Geneva for the negotiations on the optional protocol and they did not raise any serious objections to the final text.

With respect to your third question, the Swiss experience, of course, is very different from the Canadian experience. Over much of their adult life, the Swiss are liable for national service, which does not exist in Canada. They were prepared to support 18 as the minimum age.

Senator Grafstein: Minimum age for what?

Lt-Col. McAlea: For recruitment.

Senator Grafstein: That is for full-time service?

Lt-Col. McAlea: Yes, but they have compulsory service. They have a different approach from ours, so in a sense it is like comparing apples and oranges. Although there are career officers, they do not have the same concept we do with respect to voluntary service, parental consent, and the age of 18.

With respect to the adjective "optional," it is an international law mechanism for allowing standards to be raised when you cannot achieve complete consensus. This protocol is optional to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This vehicle allows certain states to raise their own standards, even if not all states can sign on. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is widely ratified, with the exception of two countries. This is expected to be widely ratified also, but perhaps not as widely or as quickly.

The Chairman: I cannot resist asking which two countries? You must know that.

Lt-Col. McAlea: One is the United States and Somalia is the other.

Mr. Snyder: A provision in the optional protocol does allow for countries that did not sign and ratify the overall convention to sign and ratify the optional protocol. Therefore, even if the United States did sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child but did not ratify it, they would be able to sign and ratify the optional protocol. At the same time, they gave an undertaking at the negotiations that in doing so, they would respect those parts of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that were applicable to the optional protocol itself.

The Chairman: I want to thank the witnesses from the Department of National Defence.

Our next witnesses are with World Vision Canada and Amnesty International, Canadian Section.

Ms Kathy Vandergrift, Senior Policy Analyst, World Vision Canada, Chair, Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict: I appreciate this opportunity to make a presentation on this question. Bill S-18 is short, but it is a very important piece of a complex and important part of our foreign policy. I speak to you today on behalf of World Vision Canada, but the World Vision partnership is one of the six members of the international coalition to prevent the use of child soldiers and which has been the primary advocate of the optional protocol.

The age for recruitment and deployment is only one piece of a comprehensive strategy to deal with the issue of children in armed conflict. I will leave a comprehensive policy statement, which we have developed, that deals with the issues of prevention, protection, and reintegration in dealing with child soldiers and other children impacted by war. This is one small piece of a much more comprehensive strategy.

I am here today to ask you to consider recommending that Canada adopt the same norm that it expects of non-state armed groups in the optional protocol. That would mean amending the legislation to make 18 the age of recruitment as well as deployment.

As the material you have received makes plain, this is being presented as a way for Canada to comply with the optional protocol and maintain leadership on the issue of children in armed conflict. The negotiations for the optional protocol involved a considerable degree of compromise, with the result that the end product is a relatively weak tool. The international coalition is hoping to deal with that situation by persuading a large number of nations to voluntarily adopt a more consistent position, and in that way, establish a stronger international standard.

I will focus on one problem area of the optional protocol in terms of its usefulness as an effective tool to actually deal with this situation. We approach this from a practical level because World Vision is involved in many countries where we are dealing on a daily basis with children impacted by war and with child soldiers. We have dealt with over 5,000 former child soldiers in Northern Uganda alone. I am concerned about the double standard for non-state armed groups. Getting non-state armed groups to comply with any protection provisions for children is a difficult proposition, and one we struggle with in the international community. It is a major focus of the international campaign to deal with this problem. If we want to have credibility in asking non-state armed groups to comply, it does not help to set a higher standard for them than states are willing to adopt for themselves.

In the optional protocol as drafted, states have a minimum age of 16 for recruitment, but they are asking that non-state armed groups have 18 and that it be a criminal offence to recruit under that age. There is a considerable double standard there. A fundamental principle of international rules of conflict is that the same laws apply to both sides. The basic approach of the international campaign, which I am conveying to you today, is to ask countries to voluntarily adopt the higher standard. We hope to have 100 ratifications, which would be a majority. I believe that is a reasonable request, because of the 191 nations who ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, less than 50 officially allow recruitment under the age of 18. Therefore, the chances of achieving that are reasonably good, and then Canada will no longer be in a leadership position on that issue. If we want to be in a leadership position, I would hope this committee will recommend that we adopt a higher standard.

As NGOs, we have had some discussions with the Department of National Defence on ways of achieving that and still allowing for transition from school into the military. I offer the example of the Government of Norway, which has developed an approach to that. There are ways of resolving that problem, short of allowing official recruitment below age 18. You have the full written submission.

Mr. Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International (Canadian Section): Thank you for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. Amnesty International is pleased to have the opportunity to share our views on Bill S-18. With me this afternoon is Hilary Homes, who is the coordinator of our youth and student program, and who has shepherded along our work on this important issue.

As I am sure all the committee members know, we are an international human rights group. In our work, we have increasingly sought to pay more and more attention to the rights of children. Within that context, we have sought to focus on issues of children in armed conflict, and within that, very much see the issue of child soldiers as a crucial human rights issue. That is the context in which we come to the table to share our views with you this afternoon. I will ask Ms Homes to share with you our specific views on this bill.

Ms Hilary Homes, Coordinator, Youth and Student Program, Amnesty International (Canadian Section): As many of you may imagine, our views are not dissimilar to those of our colleague from World Vision. We are both part of an NGO working group that has been looking at the subject and speaking with a number of people in Foreign Affairs and National Defence. My colleagues at DND presented a very good overview of the situation of war-affected children and the process which led up to the optional protocol as it stands now. They are right when they say that current Canadian policy, including this bill, is in line with the eventual draft optional protocol arrived at. That was a compromise, and it is important to look back at what the original idea was when the process first moved forward. There has been quite a lot of discussion on the age of 18 issue, and I will come back to that.

There is an international context to the matter. It is not just the draft optional protocol, it also has to do with the child soldiers and the stories we have heard. While I was preparing my remarks for today, I remembered that the last time I sat on a panel addressing this issue was at the peace-building consultations. I was sitting beside Paska Otto, a child soldier in Uganda with another armed group, the name of which escapes me right now. She is here in Canada and is in her 20s. Now she is a student at the University of Guelph. Her story is pretty grim. One of the few uplifting things about it, apart from the fact that she is still alive, is that she is remarkably together, considering that her life and her family and friends and community were all torn apart. As we sit here, with all the conflicts going on around the world and children involved in them, we know that more and more lives are being torn apart. It seems really far away, but I think it is actually much nearer than we realize. It has a lot to do with this bill. It is easy to get caught up in the Canadian situation, but the international context needs to be remembered.

The original framework for the optional protocol proposed that recruitment should also not take place under the age of 18. There has been some discussion here already about those under the age of 18. I want to think about this. When I was 17 or 18, if I had heard about the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, I would have been offended to be called a child. That is why we pause and say, "What options do 16- or 17-year-olds have in their lives and what do they aspire to?" Senator Pearson alluded to that. You are at that point in your life when you want some control. I left home at the age of 17. I also reflect upon whether it would have been better if I had left home slightly older, but that is not what the hearing is about.

We attach significance to the age of 18 and the original framework for the optional protocol did the same. Canada was supportive of that framework and that original idea. It was a good idea. We set that as the border here in our own society between the protections we provide to a child and the transition to the protections and the accompanying responsibilities of adulthood. We set that as our voting age. That is linked to when someone participates fully in the military. We set all sorts limits, for example, when you can buy cigarettes and alcohol, at even higher ages in some provinces. It really is the watershed age, which is relevant to the discussion here.

The bill does, of course, set the age of 18 for deployment. We are glad to see that, although when I heard that Oka was not described as a theatre of hostilities, yet still had a certain degree of risk, I paused over my opinion that, "This is a great sentence in the bill." Nonetheless, this is in line with the optional protocol as it exists. Canada originally backed 18 as the age of recruitment. It is still a very good idea, and we feel that should be there.

I have raised some of the arguments. One of the stronger ones concerns the impact this has on armed groups. Canada wants to be a leader. Setting that difference between 16 and 17 really was a compromise. Why should Canada rest on that compromise, given that the governments did agree that the original idea was a good one? It will be quite a challenge to persuade armed groups, who have a horrifyingly long list of reasons why they should involve people under the age of 18 that sound rather similar to the reasons we want to bring in people under that age.

It will be very hard. If we set an example, it will be much easier. We will be confronting armed groups for a long time. When you look at how many of the conflicts around the world are internal and not cross-border, it becomes clear just how much the example needs to be set.

I listened with great respect to what my colleagues from DND had to say about the opportunities we provide for 16-and-17-year-olds. We also need to recognize that while we talk about the armed forces as an employer, it really is an employer like no other. We live in a society with great diversity and great opportunity, and we can provide opportunities for 16- and 17-year-olds in other ways. I do not meant to belittle involvement in the armed forces at all. In fact, I am trying to trying to point to the seriousness of that commitment. Our actions cannot be separated from the impact they have on the international stage. If Canada respects that original straight 18 option, in the end it will have a much stronger impact on war-affected children around the world than the bare minimum set out in the optional protocol.

Senator Grafstein: I take it that you have no objection to continuing with cadet training, as long as there is no recruitment into the full-time services below the age of 18, or am I taking you out of context?

Ms Homes: You are not taking me out of context at all. The example we really want set has to do with when people are officially part of the armed forces and when they are not. We are not saying that people cannot be on a path to join the armed forces. I say this, having a stepbrother who in his teenage years wanted to join the American Armed Forces, and certainly could have. In the end, he took the decision not to go to the United States Air Force Academy until he was 18. That was a tough decision. It was a healthy discussion within the family, but the path was not blocked. The intention is not to block the path, but to really recognize the seriousness of the commitment and remember it is in an international context.

A lot of the arguments on child soldiers had to do with international situations, where human rights protection was greatly compromised and involvement of younger people was a form of exploitation. It is not the same issue here in Canada. The example that is set is a powerful one. Canada wants to be a leader, aspires to be a leader, and is a leader on issues like this. That is what makes the example so important, and what makes it a bigger issue than a private decision within a Canadian family. Cadets are not part of official armed forces.

Senator Grafstein: It has always been an issue of the difference in maturity between 16-and-18-year-olds. We have had great problems with that age period, ranging across a whole raft of issues, particularly relating to criminal law and where culpability begins. I am still not clear in my own head. I understand the desire to raise levels, but there is also the question of the youth themselves, who want to take control of their lives. For instance, we put a weapon called a car into the hands of 16-year-olds, and it is a very serious weapon that we allow them to use at their whim and desire, including ownership.

The Chairman: It is 15 years old, the last I heard. I got my licence in Ontario at 15 with my parents' consent.

Senator Grafstein: Have you given some thought to that? You touched on it in your testimony. There is a question of age, but there is also a question of responsibility and when children are mature enough to be able to respond to it. Whether we like it or not, it seems to me that that is moving down in age as opposed to up, having in mind what we see youth today do at various ages. It is a serious psychological question for adults. Certain 16-year-olds may be fully robust mentally according to some psychological testing and have a great desire to make their own decisions, yet we are in effect saying -- and I am not quarrelling with the principle -- "We want to tell you when you are able to become accountable for your life. We say you will not become accountable for your life until age 18." You have touched on that, and I know it is of concern. Have you given some deep thought to that question?

Ms Vandergrift: The groups we represent feel very strongly about the active participation of youth in their communities and societies. We are strong promoters of teenagers being much more involved in their communities. Certainly, the large percentage of teenage populations, particularly young males, is a very strong factor in some of the countries, for example, Sierra Leone, where we find this problem. We are strong advocates of these people being active in their communities and in decision making. There are lots of ways they can be active and responsible without being involved in the military. As was already said, in our situation, there are ways of making that transition without the formal recruitment.

I would like to describe two other factors. Practitioners in the field highlight the fact that it is easier to pass a 14-year-old off as 16 than as 18. There is that physical reality. So when we are dealing with 14-year-olds, 12-year-olds, some as young as 9, there is an argument that 18 years old would make it easier in those concrete situations.

Second, the distinction between voluntary and compulsory is not as clear as it is here. We deal with a lot of youth who say, "I joined voluntarily." However, if you can draw them aside and talk to them, it was anything but voluntary. It was either for sheer survival reasons, or to protect other members of their family that they felt they had to join the military, those kinds of things. The distinction between voluntary and compulsory is not so clear in most of the situations we are dealing with. In light of that, Grac'a Machel, who did a detailed study of the impact of war on children, said straight 18 is the way to provide the best protection in this situation.

Senator Di Nino: Can you describe the Norwegian example?

Ms Vandergrift: I will have some difficulty, since I do not know the details. My understanding is, they have developed a way to provide some training opportunities, with emphasis on the peacekeeping side and those kinds of things, but they are not formally recruited until they are 18. So they are on a clear path from high school that leads to the military, but there is no formal recruitment until age 18.

Senator Di Nino: Could you forward that information to us?

Ms Vandergrift: Sure.

Senator Di Nino: What we are really talking about is training a young man or woman at the age of 18 to blow somebody's head off. Senator Corbin commented on it and you talked about it a little now. He asked, what is really the difference between training someone who is 18 to blow somebody's head off and somebody who is 17? Is there that much difference?

Ms Vandergrift: In democracies -- Canada, for example -- 18-year-olds do have the right to vote on the policies of the government. Do we ask kids to defend policies for which they do not have a right to vote?

The Chairman: We did in World War II.

Senator Di Nino: I asked our previous guests if there was some way that those under 18 could be so designated, as opposed to being members of the military. This is why I was interested in the Norwegian example, if that was something we could learn from. In effect, they made a relatively good point. They have an educational system where some kids are attending school and they call them part of the military. It may be a question of definition is all that is needed. I have some sympathy with the position that you folks are bringing here, which wants to wait until they are 18 to call them soldiers and give them the right to shoot somebody's head off. That is a challenge. You are asking us to find a way for you to satisfy the needs of these young people as well as the proposed legislation we must put through. Is there anything else you can add about how we can do that?

Ms Vandergrift: We believe other countries are developing options to do that. Norway is the example that is being held up now. I will obtain that information for you. There are options.

Senator Pearson: Thank you for the presentation. It is useful to have it on the record and I am glad you were able to come. We know that this optional protocol will not solve the problem. Wars will continue, and kids will continue to be used as soldiers, unfortunately, even young kids. It may help, but this is a norm. When you are talking about the international context, my understanding of the way in which this was negotiated is that there are countries that we wish to hold to a high standard because they are the ones where most of these problems are taking place. Then we have other, very powerful countries that we wish to bring closer to it, such as the United States, China, and Russia. So this is, in a sense, a compromise, because you would not obtain their signatures on the straight 18.

One of the exciting things about the optional protocol -- and not only this one, but also the one on child prostitution, which has been adopted in the same way -- is that if we can have the United States sign on, which they are prepared to do, then eventually they will have ratified the convention by the back door. How do you respond to this question of having to ensure that we have the really powerful actors onside?

Ms Homes: There is a difference between the process that goes into the negotiation of the international treaty and that whereby we implement it domestically. We know very well that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, like other international treaties, is a product of compromise. Let me back up a step.

International human rights law is not highly detailed. It sets principles that balance each other, and when states sign and ratify, they do not leave their own domestic legislation quite so vague. They take these principles and further elaborate on them. Our own Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a great of example of taking these principles and spinning out the detail in our own context and, in some cases, creating a higher standard than exists in international human rights law. For example, international human rights law only outlaws the death penalty for juvenile offenders, yet we do not have a death penalty at all in Canada. We implemented a higher standard than exists in the international arena. The draft optional protocol document it is a product of compromise on the age of recruitment and we understand the forces that went into that. That will result in much greater ratification.

We originally backed the straight 18 option -- in other words, raising the age of recruitment. Why then rest in our own implementation on the international compromise? Why not set a higher example at home? We do it in other ways, in other legislation. Why not do it with this as well, particularly since one of the weaknesses in this protocol is that we are hoping armed groups will abide by a higher standard than governments. Armed groups cannot be bound by a piece of international legislation. This will be a great example. There was the will before to set the age of 18 for recruitment. Why not try to find it domestically again? Is that distinction I am making fairly clear?

Senator Pearson: Yes. I am not entirely sure the will was there.

Ms Homes: I have a Foreign Affairs press release.

Senator Pearson: That represents Foreign Affairs. It does not represent the whole government position.

Senator Andreychuk: As a supplementary to that, I was there in 1989. It was definitely the will of the government of the day to set it at 18, so whatever compromises were reached then, that was a watered-down document. There were a lot of square brackets. There was a lot of difficulty coming to the point of creating a convention. Once that was a done, then we went into the option.

Senator Pearson: The Canadian government position was 18 for recruitment?

Senator Andreychuk: Yes. It was supposed to be a blanket 18.

Ms Vandergrift: We are not critical of arranging a compromise in order to have more people sign on to it. We understand that. In this case, the compromise involved putting in some real weaknesses. The best strategy to deal with those weaknesses is to have a majority of nations voluntarily be consistent. Then when it comes to us trying to educate particularly non-state armed groups, we can cite that voluntary consistency.

Senator Corbin: We have talked about non-governmental armed groups. I would like to know who they are and how many have gone along with this option.

Ms Vandergrift: I do not know if I can tell you how many there are. I can cite perhaps one that we use as a best example. At one point, the SPLA, the opposition group in Sudan, did agree to stop recruiting child soldiers and did release a fair number of them. In Latin America, we have been able to obtain some agreements as well. It is a very difficult situation. It would be good to have a consistent position on our side if we want be a leader in those discussions.

Senator Corbin: Is that not where most of the damage is being done, by non-governmental armed groups?

Ms Vandergrift: There are many government forces that use children as soldiers. The Government of the Congo not very long ago swept up a whole bunch of street children and put them in the army. We have lots of examples on the government side as well with which we are dealing.

Senator Corbin: I wish we had some hard figures.

The Chairman: When you say child soldiers, to me that is not someone 18 or even 16 years old. We all know they are used. I know the FARC in Columbia quite well. I know these groups. When I think of child soldiers, I think of people 12, 13, and 14 years old. I was just consulting with our legal expert. Even in Canada, under the Young Offenders Act, a young offender can be declared an adult at 14. I cannot imagine that anyone is in favour of child soldiers. The question becomes, at what point is someone a child soldier?

Senator Corbin: I do not think we can expect non-governmental armed groups to comply in any way, shape or form. The goons in Sierra Leone and the drug people will not pay any attention to this sort of stuff, but so much the better if some of them do. I would entirely agree that every little counts. In any case, any progress is welcome.

What I did not like about the statement of the officials who appeared before us -- and that is why I invited them to remain, so we could have a debate -- was that they talked about competition in recruitment and a return on investment. They are now using a different language, and it seems to me that the whole point is being missed. The army is now run like a business? I do not know what we are getting involved in here. A more human objective would certainly be to lessen all risks. I sympathize considerably with the position presented by these two groups. Competition in recruitment with private enterprise, return on investment -- if that is the name of the game, I want to reconsider the whole approach, frankly.

Ms Homes: It is quite relevant to talk about what is a child, because that is part of what confuses the issue. International law only has the option of deciding whether someone is or is not a child. One of the most vulnerable groups, when it comes to being forcibly recruited into child soldiering, is adolescents. In the Canadian context, we are talking about 16- and 17-year-olds. Legal language requires us to include them in the rubric of "child soldier." It is a difficult language.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 1, in defining what a child is, states that it is someone under the age of 18, unless the age of majority is otherwise. Someone asked about NATO. In Europe, the standard is age 18. It applies to all sorts of things such as voting and so on. At the age of 16, you can have that dangerous weapon, a car. In Ontario it is no longer so easy. They have instituted a system whereby that particular weapon is not yours entirely for awhile. They are moving in the other direction, questioning that. That is really worth pausing to think about.

The other thing just mentioned was the language being used about armed forces as employment. It certainly gives me pause, because as the ads say, "There's no life like it." It contains a degree of risk to the point where the International Labour Organization has said that if you are forced into child soldiering, that is a hazardous form of labour in any country. We need to remember that.

It is about young people wanting a certain direction to their lives. On a personal level, I really understand that. I spend a lot of my time empowering young people. It is a big step from joining in an extra-curricular club like an Amnesty club to joining the armed forces. As much as I think of my own organization and the importance that we have in society, it is not the same, and we really need to recognize that.

Mr. Neve: I wanted to pick up on Senator Corbin's concern about how in God's name do we go about dealing with the actions of armed opposition groups, murderous rebels such as those in Sierra Leone? We share that frustration and concern. It is a huge challenge in humanitarian work, relief work, and human rights work to find ways to hold groups like that accountable, but increasingly we understand the degree to which in many countries of the world they are violators of human rights on a huge scale. It is incremental, is the only answer we can provide. As others have pointed out, this would not suddenly lead overnight to the FARC or to any other group suddenly agreeing to no longer recruit children under the age of 18. However, what we do see in the laws of war, and in the work of the Red Cross with the Geneva conventions, is a slow move to define provisions that can actually deal with, and hopefully regulate, the actions of non-state actors. Slowly, there is progress being made. Some groups, for example in the Sudan, are willing from time to time to engage in those discussions, to commit themselves. The fact that we have international documents dealing with obligations of non-state actors is in itself a huge breakthrough that did not exist 15 or 20 years ago. We are developing standards in this area, developing good practice and moving towards a world where human rights really are protected. It is often a slow and gradual process; however, law, and similar means, is about the only way forward.

Senator Andreychuk: Thank you, Mr. Neve, for touching on the points I wanted to raise. Who are the armed groups and who are the legitimate powers in any country is often a matter of who grabbed power first; therefore, which way do you move? Did you obtain greater respectability because you were entrenched and received international support, or did you go underground and become nefarious? That is the real key. It is not so much an issue in Canada. I have some confidence that we are doing it for good reasons. Perhaps we put wrong labels on them.

We must rethink what we are saying. Training people and providing discipline at 16 and 17 with a view to joining the armed forces seems valuable to me, but if it is because you are competing and trying to make it a profession equal to others, I have some worries.

Are you saying that because there are conflicts in these countries around the world into which we get dragged -- through humanitarian aid, through peacekeeping and everything like that -- we must work with all sides? We must work with those in power and out of power, those trying to obtain power, and it would have been better for the Canadian government to send a clear signal of 18 and stick to what we said in the convention? Granted, that was arbitrary. We could have picked 19 or 17. We had a signal we could have built on. We seem now to be reducing the terms -- for very valid reasons, as Senator Pearson pointed out -- in order to obtain a consensus. We are reducing the standard we adhered to in 1989, and that is the wrong signal to send, because others now will find other reasons to opt out of the optional protocol or the convention, or reinterpret it in innovative ways. Is that why you are worried about it?

Ms Vandergrift: Precisely. When warlords become heads of state, the differences are not so clear these days. We are dealing with both sides, and we will have the most effect if we have a strong, consistent position.

Senator Di Nino: When you are training killers, I still think 16-and 17-year-olds are children, even 18-year-olds. Really, what you are asking for is sort of a small step with big symbolic value. Is this what we are talking about here?

Ms Vandergrift: It is a small number, and there is another way.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for providing very important testimony. I would like at this point to call on the committee members to deal with Bill S-18, to amend the National Defence Act.

Senator Di Nino: A good argument has been made here for finding a way to satisfy this. I do not know what Norway is doing, but would it be of some value to wait and obtain that information, so maybe we can craft it in such a way that it satisfies what the government wants and maybe what the NGOs have asked us to do?

Senator Pearson: Getting National Defence to come this far has been a huge achievement. I am sure you are right, Senator Andreychuk, there was an earlier government position. If it had actually been adopted and you had to obtain agreement from everybody, it would have been very difficult. It appears as if we have moved back from a position, but I do not believe that is true. We have moved forward. That is my experience after having been involved in this for about four years. My feeling is that it would be good to keep the issue open, but it would be very difficult to amend this bill without putting us back. You could make some comments to that effect in your report. I do not have the power to vote today anyway.

The Chairman: You do, Senator Pearson. Normally, when you are presenting a bill, we make you a member of the committee.

Senator Pearson: That is good. I have struggled with the fundamental issue for a long time and I understand all the dimensions. I hated the idea of kids being incorporated into armed conflicts when they were very young. However, like others, I have been confused about the issue of adolescence. I know many kids do not like to be treated as if they have no meaning. If their family is attacked, they have no right to protect them. I think this is very difficult for young people. I decided that I would be content with not sending them into hostilities at the age of 18, because if they do not have the right to vote, then the government has no right to send them out to be killed.

The voluntary recruitment does not bother me to the same extent. The reasoning against the voluntary recruitment must be looked at in the context of our role in the rest of the world. It does not have to do with the Canadian domestic context. I would like to pass this particular amendment, which legislates what is already practised, and then move on to the other aspect of the issue and see whether or not it makes any difference, whether the other issue was as important. I am not making myself that clear.

Senator Di Nino: What is the hurry?

The Chairman: You are making yourself clear, Senator Pearson. In view of the fact that you are moving, it seems to me that realistically, this is the policy of the Department of National Defence and the change to the National Defence Act makes it law and puts it into effect.

Senator Pearson: It is essential for us to adopt the protocol.

The Chairman: None of us likes the idea of child soldiers, and we understand perfectly well the arguments of the witnesses, at least speaking for myself. As the Chairman, I will proceed with the clause-by-clause study of Bill S-18, to amend the National Defence Act.

Senator Grafstein: Maybe counsel has the answer to this. I was not clear about the relationship of the optional protocol to this bill. It is important because we are viewing both sides of the equation, which is that we need the optional protocol to have the bill, or we need the bill to have the optional protocol.

Senator Pearson: No. We must have the proposed legislation in order to be able to sign the optional protocol.

Senator Grafstein: Why is that? We have never done that before. We make a treaty, and then we implement it through legislation.

Mr. David Goetz, Research Staff, Library of Parliament: It is a matter on which reasonable people can differ. The optional protocol requires parties to take all feasible measures. I heard one witness say that we are taking all feasible measures to some extent.

Senator Grafstein: I do not mean to defer this. I will agree to approve this bill. I have heard two different things here and it is confusing. One is that we are implementing proposed legislation that does not meet the objective that the latter witnesses have just stated. We therefore find ourselves in this position of advocating possibly a higher standard for ourselves in a protocol, having implemented legislation that, in effect, is lower than that. That is where the confusion lies. Historically, I cannot remember another example of that in this committee. The executive exercises its responsibilities to enter into a protocol, treaty, convention, international norm or whatever, and then, by way of signing and/or ratifying, enters into implementing legislation. So where are we on this?

The Chairman: What happens currently is that the executive, the cabinet, enters into protocols and that sort of thing, but if there are necessary changes to acts of Parliament, which this requires, then Parliament makes those changes, which is what we are doing with the National Defence Act.

Senator Andreychuk: The executive can sign a protocol and then try to meet the standards in it, but if they ratify it and do not meet the standards, then they are violating the protocol. Generally, they want to have their enabling legislation in place before ratification. Is the protocol to be signed? I understood it was to be ratified.

Senator Pearson: It is ratification.

Senator Andreychuk: The protocol sets a standard equal to our policy, but higher than our law.

Senator Grafstein: Is that sufficient for us to therefore assume we have ratified the protocol?

Senator Andreychuk: The executive has not ratified it yet.

The Chairman: May I proceed with the clause-by-clause? Bill S-18, to amend the National Defence Act (non-deployment of persons under the age of eighteen years to theatres of hostilities). It is moved by the Honourable Senator Pearson that the committee complete its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-18. Shall the title stand?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall the title carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall the bill carry?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Chairman: Carried. Shall I report to the Senate that Bill S-18 has been adopted without amendment?

Senator Di Nino: On division. I would like to see if there is some suggestion we can include in the bill. If you do not want to amend it, that is fine. I have some sympathy for the senator. I would like to see what other nations may be doing that we can recommend to National Defence. Maybe there is a different term we could use so these people would not be considered recruits, and yet accomplish the same thing. I have not really looked at it sufficiently to make that recommendation.

Senator Andreychuk: For future reference, in a few other committees that I sit on, we take an evening for reflection, because you hear some evidence, you are enamoured of some of the points of view, and you are then torn in making an immediate decision. In fairness to witnesses and to weighing all the evidence, that overnight breather is appropriate, unless there is some real emergency that cannot wait a week. For future reference, if we could do that, it makes us reflect on and think through our arguments. From our side, we were always put in a position of going on division because it leaves all our options open. I leave that with you for future reference, and you will be out of this conundrum.

Senator Corbin: I wish you had said that before the questions.

Senator Bolduc: It is not a matter of not agreeing with what my colleague said here. On the one side, we should not send people into hostilities before the age of 18. Should we have a recruitment policy for people under the age of 18? I also agree with that. It is a good thing that people can attend military college at the age of 17. Then we will see how we can organize it so they are not called soldiers. It is a matter of defining the pension plan, the benefits, and things like that. However, in the bill itself, I do not see how.

The Chairman: We passed the bill on division and I shall report it to the Chamber. I will take Senator Andreychuk's advice seriously. The meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned.


Back to top