EDUCATION WORK
ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

FACT SHEETS ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Fact Sheet NO. 1

Canada and the rights of the child

This first fact sheet deals with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which held its 34th working session from September 15, 2003 to October 3, 2003. At the 34th session, the Committee on the Rights of the Child examined the situation with respect to the promotion and protection of children’s rights in nine countries that have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including Canada.

Objectives and goals of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:

When a State ratifies the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it undertakes to recognize the right of all children to life, and to ensure their survival and development. In order to achieve the objectives and goals of the Convention, the State Party must take the appropriate steps to protect the child from all forms of violence. The best interests of the child must be a fundamental consideration, and the child’s opinions must be taken into account, considering his/her age and maturity. It should be noted that since May 2000, the General Assembly has adopted by consensus the two optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child dealing respectively with the involvement of children in armed conflict, and the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

No other international instrument has been ratified by so many countries (192 so far). In fact, the only countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child are the United States and Somalia. The Committee on the Rights of the Child examines the progress accomplished by States Parties in implementing the provisions of this Convention.

The Committee’s examination of Canada’s last Report...

Canada’s previous report on this Convention was in 1998. At the time, the UN Committee congratulated Canada for generally strengthening the protection of human rights, in particular children’s rights, through the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various legislative measures in the area of children’s rights.

The Committee was, however, very concerned about the lack of any tangible intention to establish a permanent national monitoring procedure that would allow for the creation of an effective system for implementing the Convention throughout the country. It was also concerned about the disparities among provincial and territorial laws and practices. Furthermore, the Committee expressed its concern about the emergence of the problem of child poverty. A nuance is necessary here regarding the situation in Québec. Although Québec differs from the other provinces in its system for handling young offenders, it seems obvious that Québec’s approach – much more progressive and much less repressive – has better results in terms of the rehabilitation of young offenders.

The Committee also deplored the fact that the principles of non-discrimination, the best interests of the child and respect for the child’s opinion are not always given the desired importance by the administrative bodies dealing with the situation of refugee or immigrant children.

The Observations made by the Committee of Experts for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, following Canada’s report on implementation (2003)

Briefly, Canada’s report discussed the status of the Convention, Aboriginal children, the child’s right to be heard, social benefits, housing problems and the homeless, the youth justice system, the situation of refugees and asylum-seekers, corporal punishment and issues in health and education.

The Committee member in charge of examining the Canadian report was Ms. Moushira Khattab. She began by acknowledging that Canada’s report was excellent, but regretted that the Committee’s recommendations following its examination of Canada’s initial report (1994) had not all been implemented.

Presentation of the Canadian report:

Canada’s report was presented by Ms. Landon Pearson, a member of the Canadian Senate. She was accompanied for the occasion by delegates from Alberta, Québec, and Newfoundland and Labrador. While indicating that even more improvements were needed, the Senator argued that many initiatives taken by Canada had resulted in tangible improvements for children. Canada’s approach to the implementation took a number of forms, including constitutional protection, in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; legislation; policies; programmes; and public education and awareness. Furthermore, the Canadian delegation reiterated that inter-government collaboration on social policy in Canada was guided by the Social Union Framework Agreement, while taking into account specific provincial systems, including Québec’s.

To follow up on the creation of the National Child Benefit in 1998, the Canadian government recently launched a long-term investment plan (through to 2007) for improving early childhood development programmes and services. These programmes were completed by the addition of a special education programme aimed at giving First Nations children living on reserves access to special education programmes and services in accordance with standards comparable to those for services and programmes offered to other Canadians.

In criminal law, Canada stated that numerous reforms had been carried out to strengthen the protection of children against exploitation in the form of child prostitution and pornography. The Canadian Criminal Code provisions on pedophilia have been amended. As well, the delegation indicated that the new legislation that came into force in the spring of 2003 was aimed at establishing a more effective youth justice system, while striving to reduce the number of youth entering the system, often for minor offences. Here a nuance must be noted for Québec, which has demonstrated the originality and effectiveness of its system for young offenders.

The Canadian delegates discussed Canada’s National Children’s Agenda, an initiative aimed at identifying the priority action measures and ensuring that Canada’s progress in fulfilling its obligations under the Convention is reviewed and the subject of regular reports. As mentioned earlier, Québec has not joined the National Children’s Agenda, preferring to rely on its current policy on young offenders.

Finally, in response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Government proposed to renew partnerships, strengthen Aboriginal governance, develop new fiscal relationships and support communities, people and economies. A nuance is necessary here too, and Aboriginal peoples are still engaged in discussions with the various governments on these matters. Like Québec, they want to protect the autonomy and specificity of their policies in these areas.

The Committee’s consideration of Canada’s report:

The Committee focused on the most marginalized and disadvantaged groups in Canadian society, and hoped that all children in Canada would enjoy the same rights. It also examined the issue of growing poverty and housing problems, the situation of refugees in Canada, and the situation in Aboriginal communities.

The Committee first wanted to know whether Canada has a body charged with assessing and monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It also noted that the definition of a child differed from province to province and wanted to know whether the provinces intended to harmonize the age of majority across Canada, because the lack of a harmonized definition results in different levels of protection for children in different provinces. The Canadian delegation replied that a single definition could be harmful to youth over 18 years of age who are protected by legislation in some cases. They emphasized that Canada’s federal system is not an obstacle per se to the implementation of the Convention in Canada, but that the central Canadian government is solely responsible at the international level for the implementation of the Convention. Our political system means that for a convention, treaty or pact to have force of law, it must be adopted by the Canadian Parliament, which must then subsequently adopt a certain number of measures enabling Canada to satisfy the requirements of the treaty.

Various experts made criticisms or asked for clarification of the situation in Canada. They stressed the poverty that is rife in Aboriginal communities and the gap between children living on and off reserves, which has significant implications for access to primary health care and health status in general.

A number of Committee members emphasized that corporal punishment persists in Canada, within families. Canada’s delegation recognized for its part that Section 43 of the Criminal Code – which provides for using corporal punishment of children in certain circumstances – is a problem. The question is currently before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, a member of the Committee wanted to know why the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have not all been implemented.

On the administration of justice for minors, the delegation indicated that the new legislation implemented in Canada last spring was aimed introducing a justice system for minors that would be more effective while at the same time striving to reduce the number of youth entering the justice system, often for minor offences. A Committee member welcomed this trend, while deeming it regrettable that Canadian children continue to be subject to the same sentences as adults at an even younger age (14 instead of 16). Here it is important to note the profound differences between Québec and the rest of Canada on this matter: Québec has vehemently defended its policy, which focuses more on the reinsertion of young offenders than on mere repression without any attempt at rehabilitation.

This is a brief overview of the preliminary observations made after Canada presented its report. The Committee’s final report on the situation of children in Canada is now available on line from the Committee’s web site.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is not the only instrument protecting children’s rights. There is also the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Protection under the ICESCR is an integral part of the social protection that each member State undertakes to provide to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to progressively ensuring the full realization of children’s rights by all appropriate means.

When it comes to children’s economic and social rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the ICESCR must be examined jointly and interdependently.

The rights of Aboriginal children in Canada

KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives) and the Ad Hoc Coalition on Aboriginal Children’s Rights in Canada submitted a brief to the Committee of Experts for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, describing the breaches of Aboriginal children’s rights in Canada (September 2003). What follows is a summary of their brief.

Key facts:

• Aboriginal children account for at least 40% of the 76,000 children in care by the various provincial and territorial child welfare agencies. The figure for Manitoba is 78%.

• There are now approximately three times as many Aboriginal children in care today as there were in the 1940s, at the height of the residential schools.

• From 1995 to 2001, the number of Status Indian children living on reserves increased by a staggering 71%. First Nations children are four to six times more likely than non-Aboriginal children to be taken into care.

• Disability rates for First Nations people are twice as high as for non-Aboriginal Canadians. Aboriginal youth between the ages of 15 and 24 are deemed “disabled” three times more often than non-Aboriginal youth.

• Many “disabled” Aboriginal children suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol effects (FAS/FAE). It is estimated that these children are between 3 and 30 times more likely to suffer from FAS/FAE than non-Aboriginal children.

• Many support services for special needs children are not readily available except for children in the care of child welfare agencies. So children are often placed in care so that they can receive specialized support services that are beyond the reach of their biological families.

• In 2001, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada estimated that there was a shortage of almost 8,500 houses on reserves, and that close to 44% of the existing 89,000 houses on reserves required renovations.

• Population growth on reserves is double the Canadian average, and more than half of this population is under 25 years of age.

The response from the Committee of Experts:

The Committee reacted to this presentation by raising a number of questions and concerns.

• The lack of decent housing on reserves means that Aboriginal children live in substandard conditions. Inadequate housing has a negative impact on the health, education and general living conditions of First Nations children.

• The Canadian government continues to pursue policies leading to the assimilation of Aboriginal peoples.

• Canada is not making progress in eradicating poverty among Aboriginal children and youth: 53% of them live under the poverty line.