SMEM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, December 4, 2002

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.))

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance)

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Rick Casson

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

¹

1545

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Rick Casson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Rick Casson

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 002

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, December 4, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)): [Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Casson actually had a private member's bill in the last session. It was subject to the draw back in June. Because the draw was held on June 20, just one day prior to the House adjourning for the summer, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business never had an opportunity to hear arguments from Mr. Casson as to why the bill should be designated votable. Subsequently, there was prorogation, a new session, and Mr. Casson had his private member's bill reintroduced. He was given the opportunity, as were three other members the last time this subcommittee met, to come forward and make his case to the subcommittee as to why his bill should be designated votable.

    The Chair: Was there not a time limit on reconsideration with the other ones? Were we not supposed to do it within so many days of returning?

    The Clerk: There's a time limit as to when a private member's bill can be reinstated, and that was November 22. The House agreed by unanimous consent on November 21 to have Mr. Casson's bill reinstated.

    The Chair: That's what I wanted everybody to hear. Basically, we're dealing with an exception.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Why couldn't Mr. Casson come with the other three when they made their presentations?

    The Chair: I don't know, I haven't asked him.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm just checking.

    The Chair: Okay.

    You know the way this works. You have five minutes to talk to us about how your bill respects the five criteria. We have five minutes to question you also. Then we push you out of the room and decide.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): I appreciate this opportunity. It was agreed by the House leaders that unanimous consent would be given to introduce my bill without my being here. I was ill for the last couple of weeks. That's no excuse for not having it done earlier, but I appreciate this opportunity.

    The reason for this private member's bill came forward a couple of years ago from a constituent. We in Lethbridge had a terrible situation where a young girl was abducted and eventually found murdered. At the time that young girl was missing, this particular lady took her daughter, of similar age and description, and boarded a plane in Lethbridge without anybody asking her any questions. She had proof the child was hers with her. It was never asked for, and when it was offered, they wouldn't even have a look at it. So she came to me and said, Rick, there's something wrong with the fact that an adult can take a child onto a domestic flight in Canada without any questions being asked.

    From that we started working on this. We came up with this amendment to the Transportation Act that would require adults travelling with children under 16 years of age to have proof that they have consent of the child's parent, if they are not the child's parent, or indeed a non-custodial parent, to have that child with them. On the international flights it's required. It's not required on domestic flights. The statistics we used to come up with this were gathered from the year 2000 from the missing children's report of the RCMP. On average, 65 to 70 children are abducted by strangers every year in Canada. On average, more than 400 children are taken by non-custodial parents. We felt that it wouldn't be too onerous a task for an adult travelling with a child to have some kind of proof that they have authorization to have that child with them. I've talked with organizations like Child Find Alberta, which registers children and has an identification process. They support what we're trying to do here.

    We think, with this amendment, if we can help to stop any of these abductions from taking place, it's a step in the right direction. Certainly, with what's going on in the transportation industry since September 11, 2001, and some of the security checks that are going on for terrorist activity and things of that nature, one more question at the check-in to prove that you actually have custody of the child is not too much to ask for.

    That's the reasoning behind it. That's the format of the bill. That's what we're trying to promote here.

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    How can the airline be certain of the child's age? It's impossible to determine subjectively that the child is under the age of 16 years, which means he must necessarily carry some identification that lists his age.

[English]

    Mr. Rick Casson: I suppose, if you had proof that this person wasn't 16, through a birth certificate or whatever, you wouldn't be required to do that. But if there is a question, the question should be asked. It could be as simple as an authorized or notarized note from the guardian saying, this person has permission to have my child. I suppose, if you ask a person who is 18 and they can show you that they are that age, you won't have to pursue that any further, but if you are travelling, you should have those kinds of picture IDs with you anyway, as an adult.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: My second, and final, question, Mr. Chairman, concerns the international kidnapping of a child that was resolved recently at the airport in New York, if memory serves me well.

    The parent in question departed from Montreal and made a stopover in New York; the airplane was intercepted just before liftoff. Are similar procedures also in place in the case of international flights?

[English]

    Mr. Rick Casson: It's my understanding that it does exist. Whether it's a passport or whatever, there is a necessity to have an ID for that child. It's the domestic laws we're trying to change with this amendment.

    The Chair: Okay, Michel.

    Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: It's a laudable issue. I'm a little confused as to what kind of identification, what kind of proof you're anticipating will be asked for, and who is to authorize it. If I took my child and my wife stayed home, is my wife supposed to give me a note that says I'm able to travel with my child, which I'm supposed to make available to the airline?

    Mr. Rick Casson: If you are travelling with your children, from personal cases when I've gone across the border--

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: No, this isn't across the border. I agree, going across the border you'd need a birth certificate, you'd need proof that the child is yours, or a passport with the details about the child. We're talking about going between Calgary and Ottawa. If I travel with my child on an aircraft, what type of authorization am I required to get and from whom?

    Mr. Rick Casson: We'd ask for some kind of proof that the child is yours or that you have authorization from the parents to have that child, whatever the form it needs to be in.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I am the parent, I authorized that myself, so do I give myself a letter?

    Mr. Rick Casson: No, I don't think you'd need to if you had the documents.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The documents being a birth certificate?

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Rick Casson: Yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: All we're asking is that there be a birth certificate, some identification that the child is in fact yours?

    Mr. Rick Casson: Mr. Chairman, I must confess, Rick has a good question on the format. Some days I think I have it figured out and some days I'm not sure I do. Because the majority of children are abducted by non-custodial parents. Do those parents have access to birth certificates, can they get hold of these types of things? Then it probably wouldn't work that way. But we feel that if you are travelling, it's a small thing to ask that you make sure you do have that kind of proof as a parent of the child.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Yvon.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): If it's a matter of travel within Canada, I have to wonder what's stopping these people from taking the train. What difference does it make whether they're travelling by airplane or by automobile?

[English]

    Mr. Rick Casson: Personal vehicles you can't do anything with, but you could expand it to anything that would take a ticket. Right now we're dealing with flights, because this section of the act deals with flights, not with trains or any other public transportation. That could be another case, I guess, to expand it.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We have the buses, we have the train, we have the flights, and here we're dealing only with flights.

    Mr. Rick Casson: You have to start somewhere, I guess, Yvon.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, but why up in the air? I can understand going out of a country, but that's the question that I have on this.

    The other thing is the type of document you need. I could sign a document saying that's my child and go with it.

    Mr. Rick Casson: Well, it would have to be notarized or have some legal connotation to it.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay.

    The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): I actually think there's some value in it, but I'm not sure how much value. If you have a 15-year-old being abducted on an airplane, it's pretty easy for most 15-year-olds to cry out for help. The bigger problem is non-custodial parents making off with the kids, people with a trusted relationship of some sort, but not a custodial one. I think you're actually on to something here, but I don't think the summary is as strong as your bill. Someone may have to lie. If they lie and say, I'm the custodial parent, and here's my signature saying.... I had this in my own riding. Someone left Chilliwack and went to Nova Scotia, and trying to get those kids back is a real problem. At least then the court would have one more piece of evidence that the non-custodial parent's a crook or not to be trusted or has violated the Canada Transportation Act.

    I think it's actually a stronger argument, perhaps, or it could be included in your arguments. With child abduction for infants, it's still valid, but someone could forge it, whereas the other argument is a very good one, because non-custodial parents are always shafted in this system; they just don't get to see their kids, or they're abducted to the other end of the country. I think that would strengthen your argument.

    I guess the question I have is similar to everyone else's. Are you suggesting that if this is passed, the rest can be solved by regulation?

    Mr. Rick Casson: Yes, I think it could be. If it becomes a requirement, the format of that requirement is something that could be worked on and made available to parents. The people from Child Find go into schools, they educate, they register each child, and they keep that on file, but that process is in its infancy, and there are millions of children who could be at risk. They're only doing kids from grade one to six or whatever, so it doesn't cover that. I had people say to me, you're just asking for child registration; you want us to register our children just as you want us to register our guns. I said, no, I don't, because many children aren't in that situation, but anyone in a threatening situation should take precautions to protect their children. It's the details, I guess, that you're asking for, and I don't have them. If it goes to a committee, these types of things can be talked about.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have a daughter who has travelled extensively with my ex-wife since probably when she was six until recently. She's now 12. It's interesting the inconsistencies that can occur when my ex-wife is with my daughter at the airport flying to the same country, Mexico. One year they will accept a certain document with a certain stamp, not ask for a picture, and the very next year they had all the documents that were asked for the first year, there was a picture of my ex-wife and my daughter, but the picture was old--not that old, but we have to remember that children change in 2 or 3 years--and they would not accept it. Interestingly enough, for $75 they'll gladly have somebody at the airport give you a more current picture. Some other guy will gladly do it for $35.

    So in principle, I think this is great. I'm speaking from experience, and I hope there would be more consistencies between airlines. You wouldn't have this problem of having to meet the regulations of all the foreign countries, because it can be a nightmare at the airport when you get there, it seems to me at the whim of whoever is there to make that judgment. In one instance they accepted the clerk of city hall with the corporate seal, and at another time they didn't, it had to be a lawyer with the corporate seal. All these things would have to be tied down in the regulations, because it could be a nightmare. But I respect the principle, the intent of this, absolutely.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Rick Casson: Well, thank you. I appreciate your allowing me to present.

    The Chair: A pleasure.

    We have to go in camera to discuss this.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]