Debates of June 14th, 2000

National Defence Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McClelland in the chair)

[The Deputy Chairman]

Order, please. House in committee of the whole on Bill S-18, an act to amend the National Defence Act with respect to the non-deployment of persons under the age of eighteen years to theatres of hostilities.

Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to)

(Bill reported)

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for the Minister of National Defence]

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed. (Motion agreed to)

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for the Minister of National Defence]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this important amendment to the National Defence Act. This amendment will clearly show that the government is concerned about the issue of child soldiers.

The recruitment of children for the purpose of sending them to war is a problem which cannot be ignored. Statistics on that are depressing, and the images regularly shown in the media strikingly remind us that we are facing a serious problem with regard to human security.

In the last throne speech, the government clearly indicated that our foreign policy would put more emphasis on human security. Our desire to play a leadership role in the international campaign against child soldiers is part of a broader program to promote human security.

As I mentioned earlier, our Canadian forces recruit young people of 16 and 17 years of age, but that is done in a way which is fully in line with the protocol. Some may say that we must put an end to this kind of recruiting practice.

This is not necessary or wise. It is not necessary because, as I stated a moment ago, recruitment of 16 and 17 year olds is fully in line with the new protocol. It would not be wise because of the benefits these young Canadians derive from their attachment to the Canadian forces. They volunteer because they want to serve their country. They are interested in a career in the Canadian forces that will provide them with valuable skills and which in some instances will pay for their post-secondary education.

Members of this House can help the cause of child soldiers. They can do it by supporting this amendment to the National Defence Act, which will make the deployment of children to theatres of hostilities illegal.

As I explained, this is not done in Canada. Nevertheless, in entrenching this policy in law, we are sending a clear message to the other members of the international community.

Therefore, I urge all members to help us by giving their full support to this bill.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central and on behalf of the Canadian Alliance to participate in the debate on Bill S-18. The bill originated in the Senate and that is why it is numbered S-18. Usually the bills we debate originate in the House of Commons, but the weak, arrogant Liberal government which lacks vision did not have the stamina to introduce the bill in this House. The bill started in the other house which normally gives sober second thought to what we debate here and send there for senators to comment on.

The Liberal government proposes to amend the National Defence Act by adding a section declaring that a person who is under the age of 18 years may not be deployed by the Canadian forces to a theatre of hostilities.

The Canadian Alliance supports the intent of the bill. All Canadians support protecting our children from harm. We do not like to see children in contact with aggression. We see this all the time in many parts of the world, particularly in the developing countries.

As my eldest son will be 17 years old this year, I can understand the state of health, the mental maturity and the views of a 17 year old.

As a nation we feel helpless watching the images of sometimes very young children trapped in combat situations. We have watched on TV the young children used or abused in civil wars in third world countries, such as in Africa, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and many other countries.

Some kids who are in the combat role cannot even lift the heavy weapons they are using. A loaded AK-47 is too heavy for some of the children who are shooting and killing people mercilessly. This causes us to want to do something to protect our own children in Canada and send a strong message to the rest of the world, particularly to the countries I mentioned where the children are used and abused in the civil wars.

The sentiment of the bill is understandable. We do not want minors serving in combat. In that sense, the Alliance agrees with the objective of the bill.

The Canadian forces has a policy that precludes members under the age of 18 from participating in hostilities or from being deployed to hostile theatres of operation. Bill S-18 proposes to print this policy in the National Defence Act.

The Canadian Alliance believes that Bill S-18 should be amended to say the following, “A person under the age of 18 years may not be deployed in a combat unit which has been placed on active service and deployed to a theatre of hostilities”.

Active service under the National Defence Act means service: (a) by reason of an emergency, for the defence of Canada; or (b) in consequence of any action undertaken by Canada under the United Nations Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty or any other similar instrument for collective defence that may be entered into by Canada.

This ensures that minors will not be deployed in combat but still allows for flexibility in employing soldiers in support of active operations. As my hon. colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla has mentioned, soldiers are employed by support units like engineering, signals or other support activities in defence.

The genesis of Bill S-18 is an optional protocol that has been proposed for adoption at the United Nations. By the end of this year, once this optional protocol is adopted, the United Nations will want member countries to sign on. Clearly, the deployment and recruitment practices and policies of the Canadian armed forces satisfy the provisions of the United Nations optional protocol.

The terms of Bill S-18 are left completely undefined. What constitutes a theatre of hostilities? It is not defined in the bill.

To the Prime Minister, a theatre of hostilities may be a Canadian Alliance townhall meeting.

Are the Liberals going to prohibit the activation of underage reservists within Canada in the event of some internal emergency? Is it necessary to ban persons under the age of 18 from serving in rear area duties in theatres where hostilities may be taking place? Certain terms or definitions in this bill remain undefined.

Yesterday I was debating another bill, Bill C-19. Many terms in that bill, even the procedures and rules of evidence, were not defined, but the government still rushed it through because it did not want to wait. There will probably be an election so it wanted to do something in a rush without properly monitoring and taking care that the bill would serve its intended purpose. It tried to put the horse before the cart.

We see that again here in this one line bill. There are no details and no definitions. If we are going to expand the reserves, we should not place artificial and ill-defined restrictions on the use of personnel in theatres of operation. We should try to convince the government to amend the bill to say that a person under the age of 18 years may not be deployed in a combat unit which has been placed on active service and deployed to a theatre of hostilities. This would ensure that minors would not be deployed in combat, but would still allow for flexibility in employing soldiers in support of active operations.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The question is on the motion for third reading of Bill S-18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 8.52 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 9 a.m., pursuant to order made earlier today.

(The House adjourned at 8.52 p.m.)