Evidence of meeting #39 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
So at the end of the day, it is your intention that it would be a last clear chance, before the possibility of death, for the parent to see the child and the child to see the parent.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Your intention is to provide a window of opportunity for either the child to see the parent or the parent to see the child, in the terminal situation.
December 11th, 2006 / 4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Casson, for bringing this forward and for walking us through some of the debate. I know there was a lot of good debate that surrounded this bill and also some amendments.
I know we can get bogged down sometimes in all the details. I appreciate that we have some witnesses who are going to present on some of the finer legal points, but I want to give you a chance to talk about the typical scenario that this bill would encompass--without speaking specifically on any case--simply to hear your intention with the bill.
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Comartin pointed out a couple of instances where there are no custody orders or where they are being developed. I agree that section 17 doesn't deal with that.
When I started this, I saw a parent who was denied access to their children at a time when there was very little time left. I thought, how could this happen in this country? If there's no other reason for the judge to stop it--for instance, from a previous order that saw some issue of abuse or whatever and the parent had no right to see those children, then certainly. But with all of that absent, my goodness, shouldn't we allow that child to see that parent or that parent to see the child?
That was the driving force, and that was what I was thinking. There was a situation where the courts had decided that the child would be in the custody of the other parent--the one who wasn't ill--and the one who was ill needed access. That's what we're trying to work toward here.
Mr. Lee's comments are pretty important. He made some of these issues during the debate as well. From a lawyer's point of view, on any statement or any law, if you just drill into one word or one aspect of it, you could pretty much find an argument against almost everything.
I think the overall encompassing reason for doing what we're doing is just that. I'm not trying to read anything into this that doesn't exist. I'm not trying to force children to see a parent they don't want to see. That's all covered off elsewhere in the legislation.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I appreciate, too, that the underlying principle of your bill, when it comes to custody, has been for some time, and should remain in the future, the best interests of the child. Your bill fully recognizes that. I know some of that flowed from the debate that took place. I think the amendndment is now well placed in the bill.
Do you want to comment a bit on that factor--the best interests of the child--and how you see your bill respecting that fundamental principle in custody law?
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Well, it has to be. That's what everything is based on here--the children. We have adults who have chosen to disagree and go different ways in their lives, but we have young people who are caught up in that. The courts have come into play to deal with this as the tug-of-war gets started.
To make tools available that are better suited to deal with all the situations that exist goes one step further. Certainly this doesn't answer all the questions.
If a judge, for any reason, doesn't think it's in the best interests of the child, then he will rule as such. All the facts would have to be placed in front of him by anybody who is seeking to change an existing order.
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Casson, thank you for bringing this issue to us.
Prior to being elected I was with an insurance company, and we dealt with critical and terminal illnesses. There are so many definitions of critical illness and terminal illness, especially terminal illness. A major consideration was the timeframe one was faced with. It was not whether one was terminal--terminal is easily defined--but within what timeframe was that person not going to be with us any more. Some terminal illnesses may provide a person a life expectancy of ten years after they're diagnosed. In other areas, when we're talking about a critical illness, there are to my knowledge as many as 38 different definitions of critical illness, anything from cancer, to skin cancer, to heart attack, and so on.
I don't see here where you're defining that. Maybe you could give us a little more information on the definitions of these, because if the bill is intended to have children visit a terminally or critically ill parent, it can happen with even the least amount of consequences there, unless defined appropriately.
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Again, I'm not an expert on the 38 definitions. Are you saying the medical profession has 38 definitions?
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I have seen as many as 38 different critical illnesses covered under critical illness.
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Whatever that number is, I suppose it's up to the medical profession to establish whether it's a critical illness or a terminal illness and report that to the courts. Then it's for the judge to decide if there are one, two, or thirty-some, as you indicate. I think that would have to be taken into consideration.
I'm trying to get my head around your suggestion that there may be too many definitions of critically ill to allow this to work. I don't think that would matter. If the doctor has indicated this is the case, that's the way it would be, regardless of what the illness was.
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I think the point I was trying to make is that one could use this critical illness to their advantage to bring their kids to them inappropriately, or even when it is a terminal illness, when there's ample time in the statute as it stands to provide a parent access to their children. The termination might be prolonged or take maybe ten years to happen, as opposed to something urgent, when we're thinking of terminal.
Personally, I think of terminal as something under a year or two, but within the insurance industry I have seen it be as long as ten years.
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I guess it would be better for the child to have visitation rights for ten years rather than a week to see a critically ill parent. I don't know if we could include a definition of timeline. In the best scenario, somebody who was classed as being critically ill would recover at some point through some new medication or treatment. But I'm not going to argue about a timeframe. I don't know how you'd administer that. If it's a doctor's decision or observation that this person is terminally ill, and he states that, then I think that's the criterion the judge would have to go on.
Conservative
Liberal
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had the opportunity to speak on this. It was one bill that I really wanted to speak on at second reading because I do very much support the intent. The member has taken a case.
What concerned me was I wasn't sure whether the member was aware of who drafted the amendment. Where did it come from?
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I believe it came from the officials out of the.... I got help from the parliamentary secretary to the minister, I believe.
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
As for who drafted it, I'm not certain. I don't know the person's name.
