Mandatory Service in Canada (split fm Ukraine - Superthread)

[KevinB]

When Canada conscripted soldiers in WW2 it caused a political nightmare. The conscripted could not be sent on operations - war - overseas. They had to volunteer to be sent. The ones who didn't volunteer were nicknamed "zombies" and were not very well treated by those on active service.

I am not for conscription in any way, shape or form.

I don’t disagree with you.
My point is Universal National Service would hard to fight in a Charter Challenge for an individual. Especially if it hard specific non combat carve outs for religious or social belief reasons.

 

[brihard]

Arguable If it applies to everyone.

Not at all. You’re hung up on s.15, Equality rights. Also in play would be s.2, freedom of conscience, belief and religion; s.6 mobility rights; s.7 security of the person; s.9 freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Any of of these would kill it; each in potentially multiple different ways. Only in an extreme case of literal national survival could I see the state succesfully arguing a ‘reasonable limitation’ exception under s.1.

Conscription in Canada, regardless of if it’s military or civil, is an utter non-starter. Nobody’s time will be well spent indulging the fantasy.

 

[OldSolduer]

Conscription in Canada, regardless of if it’s military or civil, is an utter non-starter. Nobody’s time will be well spent indulging the fantasy.

This. Maybe this thread needs to be summed up. We have better fantasies to indulge in.

 

[Weinie]

This. Maybe this thread needs to be summed up. We have better fantasies to indulge in.

floor pie simpsons - Bing video

 

[RangerRay]

I would think that the American experience during Vietnam would turn most professional military members off of the idea of conscription in a modern country with safe borders.

 

[Skysix]

I think the baggage of the word "conscription" is clouding the conceptual issue. Which to me is not so much getting military training to a significant portion of the population with the retained ability to force them into combat, but of instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal. And to grow them the F up with exposure to the real world

Hence "National Service" not "Conscription". All sorts of service that are of benefit to the nation would suit. Those that remember Katimavik might also remember the moving of participants from their home region elsewhere in the country. A environmental protection track would also be valid (updated CCC?)

I agree that dumping undertrained teens with resentfull attitudes into wildfire yeams, rural ambulances, community patrols etc is not very viable. In a 14 month block realistically only 3 or to 4 months would be done in those tracks that require significant education PCP's or structural firefighters ir technical rescue/USAR.

The first and last months would be collective orientation an movement to the area of the country they will be serving in (the Arctic and northern areas for the lower mainland/401 belt types and vice versa. East to west to central etc. The last month for returning and outprocessing with 2 weeks or so of travel/touring the rest of the country on the way home.

MILITARY service would simply be 3 of the tracks. policing, fire, rescue, EMS, community social support, CCG, wildfire, conservation, community development projects, Habitat for Humanity, the Peace Corps (Canadian approved locations that support national interests), provincial/national park maintenance and development, "candy striping" in old age homes or hospitals etc would be other options.

Admission into a college, vocational school or university would require proof of completion of the National Service payback for the 14 years society has invested in them. Might even guarantee 2 years of post secondary education free ascis done in much of Europe.

And yes a suitable budget and legislation would be required. I leave it to supply management and economic analysists like Perun to determine viability and scope.

https://youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q

 

[FJAG]

Not at all. You’re hung up on s.15, Equality rights. Also in play would be s.2, freedom of conscience, belief and religion; s.6 mobility rights; s.7 security of the person; s.9 freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Any of of these would kill it; each in potentially multiple different ways. Only in an extreme case of literal national survival could I see the state succesfully arguing a ‘reasonable limitation’ exception under s.1.

Conscription in Canada, regardless of if it’s military or civil, is an utter non-starter. Nobody’s time will be well spent indulging the fantasy.

I think I'll disagree on that one.

I see s.1 more broadly than that. Don't forget that there are numerous western countries with constitutions as strong as ours which have had conscription as part of their heritage.

In the US, the constitution's authority given to Congress to raise armies was held to permit it to do so through conscription. The USSC upheld that. Canada's constitution at s 91 7 gives that authority to the Federal government

The EU has also left the issue to individual countries when it dealt with the issue of limiting compulsory military service to men only.

There is a general reluctance of courts to interfere in the rights of the legislature and executive in general in matters of national security.

Restricting conscription to "periods of extreme literal national survival" is impractical because again it would fetter the executive from deciding when that national survival is at risk. That is a political and not a legal question. Just as an aside remember that not only did the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 authorize military conscription but also to register workers and move them into defence related industries.

Similarly the current Emergencies Act has a provision for an "International Emergency ... that arises from acts of intimidation or coercion or the real or imminent use of serious force or violence and that is so serious as to be a national emergency." and which includes provisions to "the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;"

There is, under that Act also a "War Emergency ... means war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or any of its allies that is so serious as to be a national emergency" which provides broad regulatory powers BUT "(2) The power under subsection (1) to make orders and regulations may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the Canadian Forces."

Accordingly, while the Emergencies Act can provide for major defence industries and workers in that regard, it cannot, by itself, create conscription. That requires a separate Act of Parliament such as was done in WW1 and WW2.

The final bullet in the issue is s 33 - the "Notwithstanding Clause". I sincerely doubt that the present government would ever use it in this type of circumstance but I would expect in the right type of situation, some government will. IMHO, if the situation is dire enough to require conscription, either during war or under the threat of war, then a government would use s 33 either immediately or if challenged.

 

[QV]

. but of instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal.

Something needs to be done to repair this. There’s been too much “Canada has no identity” over the last 7+ years.

 

[mariomike]

I agree that dumping undertrained teens with resentfull attitudes into wildfire yeams, rural ambulances, community patrols etc is not very viable.

Before any person can apply as a PCP in Ontario - urban, rural or remote,

In Ontario, any person who would like to become a paramedic must attend a recognized college or university paramedic program. All accredited college and university Primary Care Paramedic programs are 2 years in length.

Becoming a Paramedic

In Ontario, any person who would like to become a paramedic must attend a recognized college or university paramedic program and pass a number of medical exams, provincial exams and physical fitness requirements. Click here to find out more about becoming a paramedic as well as what you need...

www.ontarioparamedic.ca

In a 14 month block realistically only 3 or to 4 months would be done in those tracks that require significant education PCP's or structural firefighters ir technical rescue/USAR.

Only City of Toronto firefighters and paramedics are eligible to join CAN-TF3. That's the only HUSAR unit in Ontario.

Toronto (CAN-TF3) Heavy Urban Search and Rescue - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[brihard]

I think I'll disagree on that one.

I see s.1 more broadly than that. Don't forget that there are numerous western countries with constitutions as strong as ours which have had conscription as part of their heritage.

In the US, the constitution's authority given to Congress to raise armies was held to permit it to do so through conscription. The USSC upheld that. Canada's constitution at s 91 7 gives that authority to the Federal government

The EU has also left the issue to individual countries when it dealt with the issue of limiting compulsory military service to men only.

There is a general reluctance of courts to interfere in the rights of the legislature and executive in general in matters of national security.

Restricting conscription to "periods of extreme literal national survival" is impractical because again it would fetter the executive from deciding when that national survival is at risk. That is a political and not a legal question. Just as an aside remember that not only did the National Resources Mobilization Act of 1940 authorize military conscription but also to register workers and move them into defence related industries.

Similarly the current Emergencies Act has a provision for an "International Emergency ... that arises from acts of intimidation or coercion or the real or imminent use of serious force or violence and that is so serious as to be a national emergency." and which includes provisions to "the authorization of or direction to any person, or any person of a class of persons, to render essential services of a type that that person, or a person of that class, is competent to provide and the provision of reasonable compensation in respect of services so rendered;"

There is, under that Act also a "War Emergency ... means war or other armed conflict, real or imminent, involving Canada or any of its allies that is so serious as to be a national emergency" which provides broad regulatory powers BUT "(2) The power under subsection (1) to make orders and regulations may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the Canadian Forces."

Accordingly, while the Emergencies Act can provide for major defence industries and workers in that regard, it cannot, by itself, create conscription. That requires a separate Act of Parliament such as was done in WW1 and WW2.

The final bullet in the issue is s 33 - the "Notwithstanding Clause". I sincerely doubt that the present government would ever use it in this type of circumstance but I would expect in the right type of situation, some government will. IMHO, if the situation is dire enough to require conscription, either during war or under the threat of war, then a government would use s 33 either immediately or if challenged.

Short of a real threat to the absolute security of our nation, what pressing and substantial objective could the government articulate for which military conscription is a policy response minimally impairing on rights? I don’t think a s. 1 analysis would be as kind to this notion as you think. If the government really wanted to bolster CAF, they could throw enough money at pay and comp to make it a more attractive employer. That alone presents a major challenge to the ‘minimally impairing’ component of Oakes.

I think the baggage of the word "conscription" is clouding the conceptual issue. Which to me is not so much getting military training to a significant portion of the population with the retained ability to force them into combat, but of instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal. And to grow them the F up with exposure to the real world

Hence "National Service" not "Conscription". All sorts of service that are of benefit to the nation would suit. Those that remember Katimavik might also remember the moving of participants from their home region elsewhere in the country. A environmental protection track would also be valid (updated CCC?)

I agree that dumping undertrained teens with resentfull attitudes into wildfire yeams, rural ambulances, community patrols etc is not very viable. In a 14 month block realistically only 3 or to 4 months would be done in those tracks that require significant education PCP's or structural firefighters ir technical rescue/USAR.

The first and last months would be collective orientation an movement to the area of the country they will be serving in (the Arctic and northern areas for the lower mainland/401 belt types and vice versa. East to west to central etc. The last month for returning and outprocessing with 2 weeks or so of travel/touring the rest of the country on the way home.

MILITARY service would simply be 3 of the tracks. policing, fire, rescue, EMS, community social support, CCG, wildfire, conservation, community development projects, Habitat for Humanity, the Peace Corps (Canadian approved locations that support national interests), provincial/national park maintenance and development, "candy striping" in old age homes or hospitals etc would be other options.

Admission into a college, vocational school or university would require proof of completion of the National Service payback for the 14 years society has invested in them. Might even guarantee 2 years of post secondary education free ascis done in much of Europe.

And yes a suitable budget and legislation would be required. I leave it to supply management and economic analysists like Perun to determine viability and scope.

https://youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q

On the contrary, in extreme enough circumstances, conscription for military service conceivably can become defensible, because of the imperative to protect the existence of the country and safety of its citizens. That, at least, could potentially present an objective critical enough to justify the Charter breach. But any of the other stuff you said? That’s basically just yelling about ‘those damned kids’. The government doesn’t get to just say “ok, we’re going to make you go do this program for a few years so that you’re properly brought onboard with our national identity.” The last time the state did try this, a bunch of indigenous kids got raped by priests.

The government doesn’t get to compel you to take part in any form of service or employment.

 

[Brad Sallows]

instilling a common sense of national identity and service over self to a generation (or several) that are very "what's in it for me" and tribal.

Each person's sense of national identity and selflessness vs selfishness are none of anyone else's business. Once again: other people are not a means to your ends.

 

[KevinB]

Short of a real threat to the absolute security of our nation, what pressing and substantial objective could the government articulate for which military conscription is a policy response minimally impairing on rights? I don’t think a s. 1 analysis would be as kind to this notion as you think. If the government really wanted to bolster CAF, they could throw enough money at pay and comp to make it a more attractive employer. That alone presents a major challenge to the ‘minimally impairing’ component of Oakes.

You are inferring Compulsory National Service to be the same as Conscription.
If it is drawn up correctly, it isn’t.

If one really wanted it, one could create a National Construction and Outreach, a Foreign Construction and Outreach Program.
Those who didn’t want to join the CAF for a year could opt for either of those.

The government doesn’t get to compel you to take part in any form of service or employment.

It could, and not breach the Charter.
But I’d argue that the Trudeau Government really doesn’t give a shit about the Charter anyway.

I honestly don’t see a good value add to Canada for Compulsory National Service, but I think it could be crafted inside the Charter.

 

[brihard]

You are inferring Compulsory National Service to be the same as Conscription.
If it is drawn up correctly, it isn’t.

If one really wanted it, one could create a National Construction and Outreach, a Foreign Construction and Outreach Program.
Those who didn’t want to join the CAF for a year could opt for either of those.




It could, and not breach the Charter.
But I’d argue that the Trudeau Government really doesn’t give a shit about the Charter anyway.

I honestly don’t see a good value add to Canada for Compulsory National Service, but I think it could be crafted inside the Charter.

No, I’m specifically including “compulsory national service” or anything like it. The principle of the state telling you that they will legally compel you to maintain a certain employment and go certain places to do it remains the same. I don’t care if it’s joining the army, the peace corps, being a forest firefighter, working at community health clinics… The state doesn’t get to make you do that, full stop. Blatant Charter breach on several counts, and the onus is on the state to successfully argue for a ‘reasonable limitation’ under Section 1.

The state tells me, “congratulations, you’re 19, you now have one year of compulsory national service. You’re been assigned to work with the National Civil Engineering Corps”.

I come back and say “GFYS, don’t tell me what to do.” The state’s only move now is to use coercive power of law and presumably the leverage of charging me with an offence and potentially detaining or arresting me. That would die in court, fast, at the lowest level. Easiest Charter application ever.

 

[The Bread Guy]

You are inferring Compulsory National Service to be the same as Conscription.
If it is drawn up correctly, it isn’t.

If one really wanted it, one could create a National Construction and Outreach, a Foreign Construction and Outreach Program.
Those who didn’t want to join the CAF for a year could opt for either of those ...

Bang on for "national service".

However, let's not forget that the thread was originally broken off starting with a post asking why Canada didn't have a system to generate loads o' troops like UKR seems to be using. Which is also why some have said "gotta decide what you want to achieve before figuring out the how."

... The state tells me, “congratulations, you’re 19, you now have one year of compulsory national service. You’re been assigned to work with the National Civil Engineering Corps”.

I come back and say “GFYS, don’t tell me what to do.” The state’s only move now is to use coercive power of law and presumably the leverage of charging me with an offence and potentially detaining or arresting me. That would die in court, fast, at the lowest level. Easiest Charter application ever.

Which is why it might have to be more Katimavik-y as a "could" than a "must" - unless this is the hill someone in charge wants to die on using "notwithstanding" or some equivalent to push this politically for a population overwhelmingly aching to see this done.

 

[brihard]

Bang on for "national service".

However, let's not forget that the thread was originally broken off starting with a post asking why Canada didn't have a system to generate loads o' troops like UKR seems to be using. Which is also why some have said "gotta decide what you want to achieve before figuring out the how."

Which is why it might have to be more Katimavik-y as a "could" than a "must" - unless this is the hill someone in charge wants to die on using "notwithstanding" or some equivalent to push this politically for a population overwhelmingly aching to see this done.

Hey, if they want to throw cash at funding extensive opportunities to voluntarily partake in stuff like Katimavik, that would not have the same constitutional barriers. Hell, we already pay for thousands of minds a year to go to summer camps through Cadets.

Anything voluntary is a totally different situation.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Hey, if they want to throw cash at funding extensive opportunities to voluntarily partake in stuff like Katimavik, that would not have the same constitutional barriers. Hell, we already pay for thousands of minds a year to go to summer camps through Cadets.

Anything voluntary is a totally different situation.

Would it be constitutional if, instead, national service were set up with significant benefits for participating like tax breaks or educational scholarships?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Would it be constitutional if, instead, national service were set up with significant benefits for participating like tax breaks or educational scholarships?

Pull rather than push?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Pull rather than push?

Yeah, that was what I was thinking…

 

[Skysix]

Before any person can apply as a PCP in Ontario - urban, rural or remote.

Only city of Toronto firefighters and paramedics are eligible to join CAN-TF3. That's the only HUSAR unit in Ontario.

Ontario is not all of Canada.

The didactic phase of PCP in other provinces is 2 to 4 months. There are other USAR teams and others could be stood up.

Legislation and policies can be changed. With a national level program such as this many would have to be. Insularity and provincial/local protectionism are some of the issues it is meant to address.

 

[Skysix]

government doesn’t get to compel you to take part in any form of service or employment.

School is cumpisory (up to a certain grade/age). This could be considered as an extension of that (a 'Life Skills' course if you will) and the leaving age administratively upped. I haven't heard of sny constitutional challenges against the requirement to attend school.