Debates of Oct. 30th, 2009

Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after 30-plus years in politics, I have never heard a hypothetical question answered successfully, so I do not intend to start now. I would say to the hon. member that I have much more confidence, perhaps, than he does in his question with respect to our ability to persuade the government, perhaps even through something as simple as the force of numbers, that amendments are necessary.

It is my sense, too, from discussions with a number of groups that have been very actively involved, the survivors of 9/11 and the families of the victims of Air India, that there is a powerful sense that we want to ensure we get our legislation right in Canada.

I do want to say to members that I appreciate the leadership the government has shown in at least bringing the legislation forward. I am sorry, however, that it was not done in the way it was proposed by my colleague from Mount Royal, who has been a real leader on this issue, not only in this chamber but, indeed, internationally. However, I do think we can pass legislation that will set a standard, not only for Canada but for the rest of the world.

As we learn to take terrorism far more seriously as a country, we also need to learn to understand that the real impact of these acts of violence is felt by real people whose rights should not be eliminated for political reasons.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-35, An Act to deter terrorism, and to amend the State Immunity Act.

As members of the House know, the bill was introduced on June 2 by the Minister of Public Safety. The bill would create a cause of action that would allow victims of terrorism to sue individuals, organizations and terrorist entities for loss or damage suffered as a result of acts or omissions punishable under part II.1 of the Criminal Code, which is the part of the code that deals with terrorism offences that have been committed by individuals, organizations or entities.

The bill would also allow victims of terrorism to sue foreign states that have supported terrorists who have committed such acts in certain circumstances. The victim's loss or damage can have occurred inside or outside Canada but must have occurred on or after January 1, 1985. If the loss or damage occurred outside Canada, there must be a real and substantial connection to this country.

Bill C-35 would also amend the State Immunity Act to create a new exception to state immunity, the general rule that prevents states from being sued in Canada's domestic courts.

However, the new exception serves to remove state immunity only when the state in question has been placed on a list established by cabinet on the basis that there is reasonable grounds to believe that it has supported or currently supports terrorism.

As we heard this morning through most of the debate, a lot of the dissension surrounds the whole question of whether or not it is proper to have this list included.

We know, through experience, that the Americans have had similar legislation in effect for at least 10 years. Critics of that legislation point to the fact that it is the list that causes the problems and makes the bill difficult to deal with.

On the basis of the conversations I have heard this morning, the excellent comments from at least two and maybe more Liberal speakers, it seems to me that at the end of the day there could develop a consensus on this bill surrounding this particular list. It seems to me that if we were to remove the list, then it would remove the impediments to supporting the bill at committee stage.

Another important component that we would look at adding at committee stage is the issue of torture.

The new exemption serves to remove cabinet immunity only when the state in question has been placed on the list established by cabinet and there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the state has supported or currently supports terrorism.

Bill C-35 is similar to a number of private member bills and Senate public bills that have been introduced in Parliament since 2005. The primary difference between the previous bills and Bill C-35 is that the other bills sought to include the cause of action in the Criminal Code, whereas Bill C-35 would create a free-standing civil cause of action.

In terms of the background and context of the bill, one of the most significant features of Bill C-35 is the fact that it would give victims of terrorist acts the ability to sue in Canada's domestic courts foreign states that support terrorism. Most states do not recognize sponsoring or supporting terrorism as the exception to the general state immunity principle. Customary international law historically gave states, their agents and instrumentalities complete immunity from being sued in the domestic courts of other states. This principle arose out of another international law, the sovereign equality of states.

I do know that we are getting a little bit short on time today and that I will have more time to continue with the debate on this bill when we resume, but I do want to specifically deal with the whole issue of the bill as it exists in the United States.

Once again, I really feel that the government should be looking at best practices. It should go anywhere in the world to find examples of where best practices exist. Where there is a piece of legislation that has shown to be effective and we can isolate and determine the reasons for it being effective, then we should simply use that case to improve our own.

As I indicated, in the United States, similar legislation has been in place for more than a decade and only listed countries can be sued, which is what this bill contemplates, with currently listed countries being Cuba, Iran, Syria, Sudan and North Korea. Iraq and Libya were originally listed but have since been delisted.

The common problem identified by the Congressional Research Service, and this can be documented, has been the refusal of defendants to recognize the jurisdiction of the American courts. Well, there is no surprise there. As such, the defendants do not appear and default judgments are rendered, which the debtor countries then ignore and refuse to pay.

So there is feel-good legislation where people in good faith launch lawsuits thinking they will get results but only get a default judgment against the rogue state that is on the list which then ignores the judgment or refuses to pay. They go on to say that even if people do get the judgment and the country refuses to pay, they cannot recover money anyway because there are very limited assets of the listed countries being held in the United States, and Canada would have far less percentage of assets to be looked at. Regardless of the limitation of assets—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but as he knows the time for debate on government orders today has come to an end. I assure him that he will have 12.5 minutes left in the time remaining for his remarks when this matter comes before the House the next time.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Support Measures for Adoptive Parents

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be instructed to examine current federal support measures that are available to adoptive parents and their adopted children, recognizing and respecting provincial and territorial jurisdictions in this regard and, following completion of its study, report back to the House with its findings.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on my motion regarding the subject of federal supports for adoptive parents.

My Motion No. 386 recommends the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities examine current federal support measures available for adoptive parents, while recognizing and respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Such a study would be beneficial in helping us evaluate current public policy, while shedding more light on issues faced by adoptive parents.

Some hon. members may be surprised to discover that I was adopted as an infant into the care of a wonderful family, and that I count an esteemed senator and Hockey Hall of Fame forward as a relative through my biological mother.

It may come as a further surprise that my wife, Sarah, and I have desired for several years now to add to our five beautiful biological children and adopt a child as well. It is this journey that has connected us to many other Canadians who are seeking to adopt, or who have adopted, and the myriad challenges they face along the way.

I will come back to this later in my comments, but first, let us establish a clear foundation.

The family is the basic building block of society. Everything starts with the family. It is where we raise, nurture and protect our children. It is where we teach them about who they are, where they come from and why they are here. So much of our society's future depends upon ensuring Canadian families receive the proper respect and support they need to ensure their children succeed, learn, grow and take their place in society.

Let us agree that there is equal value for parenting, whether one is a biological or adoptive parent. Let us also agree that there is equal value for children, whether biological or adopted. And let this fundamental accord ultimately find full expression in the policy choices of government.

Currently there are several support measures available to adoptive parents. EI parental benefits are available for working parents. Our Conservative government passed Bill C-14, granting permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship to adopted children, making that process quicker and easier. Adoptive parents are also eligible for a range of supports that our government provides to families with children, including the adoption tax credit, which helps defray the cost of adoption at tax time.

Adoptive parents also receive the universal child care benefit of $100 per child under six and the child tax credit of $2,000 per child under 18, measures enacted by this government. As well, they are eligible for the Canada child benefit and the national child benefit supplement for families with low and middle income levels.

By way of example, and as the most visible support available to adoptive parents, let me speak more fully about the EI program and its special benefits, which include parental benefits.

The EI program currently includes four types of special benefits to support working Canadians when they experience an interruption in earnings owing to childbirth, parenting, illness or the provision of care or support to a gravely ill family member.

The EI program has provided maternity benefits to a maximum of 15 weeks since 1971. These weeks are specifically for birth mothers to recover while they are physically unable to work due to pregnancy or childbirth. Maternity benefits can start up to eight weeks prior to the expected date of birth, and allow biological mothers to recuperate after childbirth and care for their newborn infants during their first weeks after the birth.

The EI program helps both biological and adoptive parents balance work and family responsibilities by providing support for them to stay home with their newly born or adopted child. These are parental benefits and they are payable to a maximum of 35 weeks. Adoptive parents may receive these benefits from the date the child is placed with the new family, and the 35 weeks of parental benefits can be used by either the mother or father, or shared between them.

There are some elements under maternity and parental EI benefits designed to make the program flexible and supportive. For example, if parental benefits are being shared by both parents, only one waiting period needs to be served. If a child has to be hospitalized, parents can choose to claim parental benefits immediately or when the child comes home from the hospital.

Additional benefits are also available to assist low-income families with children through the family supplement, which can increase the basic benefit rate from 55% to a maximum of 80% for claimants with low net family incomes.

A further element of flexibility is parents may collect maternity and parental benefits while out of the country by advising Service Canada of their absence from Canada before leaving.

The EI program also allows parents to work while on claim. Effective as of December last year, our government increased the amount that could be earned while working part-time and receiving EI benefits. Some families require that.

Last, I will not to go into possible maternity benefits for self-employed Canadians except to say that a government bill will ultimately capture that part of the debate.

Biological and adoptive parents share many things. Bringing a baby home is exciting, exhilarating and exhausting. There is a shared concern about having the abilities and the time needed to lay a solid foundation for a healthy relationship with their children. Both biological and adoptive parents need recuperation for emotional, physical and psychological effects of receiving children.

While maternity benefits recognize this for biological parents, currently there is no additional benefit for adoptive parents. There are some real and often little or unknown challenges facing adoptive parents, which birth parents do not face and which need to be considered in the light of public policy.

First, adoption means parents have to prove they are acceptable in order to receive a child and the process is gruelling. The same is not true of biological parents. As one adoptive mother shared with me, “We were meeting with the social worker and watching our family, marriage, children and history get picked apart and analyzed. We spent four months under an intense microscope. They questioned our motives, our communication, our parenting and our marriage. We usually left these meetings feelings wrung out and completely bare”.

The same mother understood the need for ensuring the fitness and commitment of potential parents for adopting a child but, nevertheless, what it underscore is this process is draining and something biological parents do not have to face.

Second, the time before receiving the child can be very different for biological and adoptive parents. Not only is the screening process I spoke of emotionally taxing, but the process of adoption has fees and costs, not to mention the abundant lost work time, and that is income that is not replaced.

Adoptive parents almost always wait longer to receive their child than biological parents. Gestation is usually not longer than nine and a half months. While quick adoptions are available for those seeking a child with special needs, beyond that adoptive parents wait and wait.

Adoptive parents are at a disadvantage to biological parents in the attachment process before receiving a child. Attachment starts for biological parents during the pregnancy. Mom begins to feel and experience fetal development and movement in her own body. Dad can begin to experience and relate to the developing baby in utero, as well. With the marvels of modern ultrasound, biological moms and dads can see their baby long before birth.

Adoptive parents, on the other hand, cannot begin the process of attachment until their child is placed with them. Though, in some cases, like private adoptions, where the mother is known to prospective adoptive parents, the process of attachment can begin earlier. However, there is little freedom to fully enter into attachment for either parents-to-be or a child with remaining ties to the biological mother and the prospect that after child placement, the biological mother can revoke her decision to put the child up for adoption. In most cases, however, the child is unknown to the hopeful parents until the time of placement.

Third, adoptive parents usually have little notice when it is time to receive their child. For biological parents, and as a father of five, with a wife who as a doula or a birth coach has attended some 200 live births, I have a little knowledge about this, normal pregnancy offers many clues to the arrival of baby in the lead-up to birth. As such, maternity benefits can be planned for. For adoptive parents, pre-placement is a wait, then a frantically, or almost chaotically at times, hurry up. Such a situation leaves little or no opportunity to prepare for placement by arranging proper leave from work. In other words, transition is far from seamless for adoptive parents.

Fourth, birth always involves a baby. Adoption does not. The older the adopted child, often the tougher is the transition for parent and child. Older children who are adopted can experience developmental delays or health issues that can complicate the process of attachment to adoptive parents.

Because older children come with a history, either with the biological mother or through foster care, they can often be dealing with issues of loss, trauma, neglect or multiple caregivers. Moreover, barriers to successful parent-child attachment perpetuate the child's inability to form trusting and reliable relationships in life.

Consider Jennifer L. and the transitional difficulties that she, her husband, Jason, their three biological children and her then two-year-old adopted son, who had a history of neglect from his biological mother, experienced. She stated:

“No one will ever convince me that children have less awareness than adults. Sometimes...they're more keenly aware of what is happening. That was true for our little boy. He knew [his biological mother] was leaving him forever and reacted like she was. I've never heard a cry like that one that came out of his little body that day, not before, nor since. He shook with loss, sobbed with loss, fully understood loss and a part of his heart was broken. That's what it sounded like. Five years later we still face it every once in a while: a broken heart more ready to lash out at love than to receive it and more able to test than trust”.

Once our parental rights were established, two weeks after “leaving day” we thought he'd be able to experience a smooth transition into our family. We spent a year thinking that every day. And every day his actions begged that we reject him...If we hugged, he bit. If we praised, he ripped. He banged his head into walls and threw himself off stairs. He rolled screaming from one end of the room to the other for hours and hours - sometimes the entire time he was awake. And we loved and we cried and we despaired and we held on harder. We were told he had an attachment disorder. No one needed to tell us - we lived it. When I considered the attachment I had with my biological children I remembered the time spent holding them as infants, rocking, and cradling them. So we wrapped him in a snuggly and we held him. And he screamed. And we held him longer.

The stress was overwhelming. The bar for adoption had been set so high we felt as though we had barely been approved as parents. Would they now take him away? We were failing. Our children were stressed. They all had eagerly anticipated this little brother. And he had rejected them completely. As a family we decided to make lists of what we were thankful for in him so we could yell them out in the midst of his yelling. He had an amazing giggle. He loved to help. He made us laugh. And when he disconnected from us these kept us holding on”.

Jennifer's experience is not uncommon for parents who adopt children that are older than infants.

We rightly recognize the value of biological motherhood and time together for biological parents and children as a worthwhile investment, but what about adoptive parents? They need their unique circumstances understood by those with a mandate to legislate, to know that their desire to parent is met with policies that support their choice to adopt.

It has been said “It takes a village to raise a child”. With thousands of children in foster care across Canada and children orphaned around the world through famine, natural disaster, civil unrest and wars, those among us able and willing to adopt are key to the well-being of these children and to the building of vibrant families and communities. A grateful society must do all it can to assist them in their parenthood journey.

I call on the House to support this motion to have the HUMA committee study the supports available to adoptive parents. Let it call witnesses to explore the challenges of adoptive parents. Let it examine both domestic and international adoptions. Let it compare what supports are offered in other jurisdictions like Quebec and B.C. Can we find a consensus around two or three issues that, no matter our partisan stripe, we can all support?

Maybe after hearing testimony, committee members will agree with me that it is time for a flexible EI adoption transition leave of comparable length to maternity benefits. Colleagues, I have a vision of a Canada big enough and loving enough to affirm the value of all children. Join with me and vote yes on Motion No. 386.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to my colleague from Essex for bringing this forward. It obviously comes from deep inside him and from his experience in life as both a child and a parent. I think this emotion is well worth looking at to see what we can do to help adoptive parents. I have a few comments on that, that I will make shortly.

He mentioned specifically at the end of his comments one measure that we might look at. Are there a couple of specific ideas that he thinks might come out of this study that he would provide to the committee? Would he give the human resources committee a heads up on one or two things that it might look at when it does its deliberations?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the way for his collegiality. He has been very generous in terms of his time spent with me and in his understanding of where I am coming from on this particular issue.

I do have a couple of ideas. I do not want to overly inform. Obviously, I respect that committees are masters of their own destiny. However, there are a couple of things that I think stand out in the research around the experiences of adoptive parents.

First, the process of adoption is very costly. Second, there is a need for time to be spent; part of it is transitional. There is some of the chaos that we talked about, the difficult circumstances when entering into adoption, as well as the additional time necessary for the bonding and the attachment between an adoptive parent and the adopted child.

We need to take those two factors into consideration and agree to start with the principle that there is equal value for parenting, whether it is adoptive or biological. It is of equal value for the children, whether it is biological or adopted. I mentioned this idea of transitional leave through the EI program. It would help with some of that.

We may want to look at a measure that would tackle some of the costs. I know that we already have an income tax credit. Perhaps we could look at augmenting that tax credit to offset some of the additional costs. Those are a couple of ideas, but I think that there are also groups out there that will come before the committee and provide some very instructive ideas.

I am sincerely hoping that we will also generate a report that will be practical and implementable, not all over the place. I look forward to the work of the committee and my colleague opposite in leading the opposition's efforts over there.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that as we listened to my colleague from Essex's very informative speech, we could all reflect on our own childhoods and perhaps we were even thinking about our children and grandchildren.

The member for Essex did point out the very high success rate in terms of adoptive parent-child relationships, but he was also very clear in pointing out many of the obstacles. I think it is more than appropriate that this issue be referred to the HUMA committee.

We have talked about the tax credit that is available a number of times during this interchange. I wonder if the member could clarify what the current regime is in terms of the tax credit available for adoptive parents.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support in seconding the bill and for the support he has provided to me in this debate.

The current tax credit is $10,000. Of course, that is a non-refundable credit, so it is not for the full $10,000 in terms of the effective value of it. However, I think it takes a significant step forward toward addressing some of the cost. The committee may want to take a good look at whether or not that should be augmented.

There is still a fairly expensive process involved here and the committee could be able to weigh that out in its deliberations. Maybe it will come to the agreement that this is something that could be augmented. Maybe it could be doubled. I am not sure. We have to get a sense of how many adoptions we are talking about, what the fiscal impact could be, and whether that reaches far enough to help offset some of the cost at tax time for those going through the adoption process.

Again, I look forward to the study being undertaken and the witnesses that will come forward. I want to hear some more of the testimony. I have my own thoughts on it, but I would love to hear what comes out from Canadians from sea to sea as they begin to unpack this issue in front of Parliament.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Essex, for bringing this motion forward. It is obviously a motion that comes about from personal experience.

Adoption is an issue that affects so many Canadians in so many ways. No adoptions are easy. None of them are cheap. None of them are a short process. All of them take commitment and dedication.

In my own family, like many Canadians, I can look to people who have gone through the adoption process. My brother Patrick and his wife Constance adopted their second child from China. My sister Jane and her partner adopted two girls in Ontario, one of whom I am the proud godfather of.

Members of the House will probably all know about our colleague, the member for London North Centre and his adopted children, Abuk, Achen and Ater. It is one of the more remarkable stories of how he adopted those children in the course of the work that he did in many ways to make the world better. That one is an incredible story of love, commitment and perseverance, but it is also a story of combating long odds, the coordination of Canadian immigration with the provincial government and everything else, and is indicative of the dedication it takes to adopt children and provide a loving home.

We know issues of child trafficking have to be taken care of. We know that in the case of my colleague's process that there were certain things that needed to be done, but we need to salute the tenacity and the perseverance of people who do so much for others and for themselves, and to provide a loving family to receive love as well as to give it.

In the case of my sister and her partner who adopted girls in Ontario, they were the result of difficult births and they have given these children a wonderful upbringing.

In the case of my brother Patrick and his adoption of Ann from China, it was a typical foreign adoption. It took a long time. There was a lot of waiting, hoping and praying. When the time came, even after all that waiting, it came kind of suddenly. It is a complete commitment and a complete change of life going through the adoption process.

I had the chance a few weeks to meet a girl in my riding who is 20 years old, who was adopted at the age of five, who is Down syndrome non-verbal. Alisha requires the help of many people. It is a blessing to her family to have adopted Alisha, but when we look at the financial strain that they have not only when she was a child but throughout of her life because of her condition, that is a remarkable story as well.

Whenever individuals adopt children, it usually requires a huge amount of commitment, whether it is travel overseas or whether it is the process they go through here. In spite of much waiting, quite often when people are in the line to adopt a child, they suddenly get the call and they have to pick up and go. It is life changing in every sense of the word.

For local adoption, it is the same thing. There is a long and cumbersome process. Couples go through stages where their competence and their financial ability to raise a child are questioned and examined.

Before my wife and I were blessed with our own children, we had considered looking at the adoption route. We saw how long it was going to take in Nova Scotia. Then, as I say, we were blessed to have our own children.

There are attachment issues for people who adopt children, and significant emotional and spiritual investments of people who adopt children. In the case of my brother Patrick, he went to China to adopt his second child. He and his wife had their first child Sophie here in Canada. Because Sophie had a minor medical condition that they did not think could be dealt with in China my brother Patrick, the father, actually went to China with my other brother Barney to adopt a child and bring that child back. Two Canadian men adopting a child in China raised a few eyebrows. In fact, on that long flight back she became quite attached to Barney. When they came here, her mother then had to go through that process again which has all worked out very well.

Quite often we hear stories of people who go through this long process at great expense and it does not turn out as they wish. We have the case of Imagine, the organization that we all heard about, that went bankrupt when people were in line to receive children.

I want to again refer to my colleague from London North Centre, who posted on a blog or a website a reaction he had after he met with some of these people. I will quote it because he would never do so himself. It states:

I just came from a meeting with numerous families who have been in the process of adopting overseas children through the Imagine agency that recently filed for bankruptcy. They gathered in reflection and pain and confusion as to what to do next. Some have $30,000 invested in the process and they are hurting. My wife and I were asked to attend because of our own adoption of three children from Sudan and we respectfully accepted the invitation. Following an hour of venting their frustrations and developing plans of action, they asked that I address them as an MP.

Walking to the front, I felt humbled and just a little incapable. What could you say to a group of determined and dedicated families such as these? Yet as I turned to speak to them I saw faces full of longing. They were at sea, slightly lost, with a sense they might be experiencing the end of a dream. Emotion ran through me as I comprehended that they were looking to government to make it happen, to bring about a successful resolution to the difficulties. What followed was a heart-to-heart, like few times I've experienced in politics...

One can only imagine what it is like for people who have invested so much of their adult life to bring a child to Canada to give it the love and support that it needs. It is a difficult situation.

As we know, adoption in Canada is a provincial issue. Many provinces have their own policies and legislation, and it varies considerably. In almost every province there are private agencies that are licensed to assess applicants, to act as a go-between, between the birth parents and the adoptive parents.

It is difficult to know the data on waiting lists. It is hard to put a number on this issue. Provinces do not generally keep that. They will give a general ballpark of how long it takes to go through the adoption process. A report in Alberta indicated that the average wait is somewhere between six and thirty months, and in other provinces it is higher than that.

What support is available to adoptive parents now? My colleague from Essex indicated some of them. That is at the heart of the motion, what is available now? Some benefits are the same for birth or adoptive parents. Some of our social infrastructure recognizes the challenges of adoptive families. My colleague is asking that the human resources committee evaluate that, look at provincial jurisdictions, look at what services are available and look at what services are not available. Some provinces are going ahead. Some provinces have made some impact. In 2009 the Ontario Panel on Infertility and Adoption produced a report, and I will quote from that report. This is in Ontario:

Ontarians build their families in different ways. Many--including heterosexual couples, same-sex couples, and single people--use adoption and assisted reproduction services. But barriers like cost, lack of information, system weaknesses, location, work constraints and stigma, prevent many Ontarians from accessing these services and keep many children waiting to be adopted.

I would commend this report to members for their consideration. In the recommendations, it refers to some specific things that the province of Ontario recommends. A couple of those touch on the federal government, for the federal government to have a look to see how it could work with provinces to look at this situation.

It says in the report that one out of every six couples in Ontario have issues of infertility, and we can all speak to that. We all know people in our communities, in our families, who have trouble having children and look to the adoption process.

This is a big issue. It is in many ways a complex issue. It is an issue of importance to many Canadian families. It is an issue that touches on a whole level of jurisdictions, involves a lot of agencies and involves many people.

I can certainly see that the human resources committee has a lot of work ahead of it. We have our report on poverty study that we need to get finished. However, I support my colleague in his intent that we have a look at all the myriad of infrastructure that exists around supporting adoptive families to see if it is enough, to see if we can help and to see if we can continue to make Canada the best place on earth to raise all families.

[Josée Beaudin, Bloc, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us proposes that the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, examine current federal support measures that are available to adoptive parents and their adopted children.

I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of having the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities examine this important issue. Adoption is an extremely complex process, from an administrative but also and especially an emotional and psychoaffective standpoint, for both the adopted child and the parents.

In fact, adoption is nothing like it was in the 1970s, for example. Today, in Quebec at least, adopted children come from outside as well as inside Quebec, which means that in about 50% of cases, adoption is also a process of cultural adaptation as well as a source of much family upheaval, as my colleague said. Both the parents and the children can find themselves in situations that are very hard to manage. In other words, they need support.

I am glad to see that the motion seems to recognize that Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over adoption. Moreover, Quebec already has very clear, well-established policies on post-adoption services, which I will describe later. In 1999, the Department of Health and Social Services formed a committee to study post-adoption services, which made 11 recommendations in its report.

The committee developed some general guidelines that echoed throughout these 11 post-adoption support recommendations. There were six, and I will mention them briefly: focus on preparation, a step that is often forgotten; work from the premise that that adoption is never easy, either for the parents or the children; “normal” support is better than “marginalizing” support. One of the major challenges for parents and children is finding a way to form family ties that are as normal as possible. So that starts with the support they receive. It is also important to identify and focus specifically on certain key moments: waiting to be matched, the matching itself, the arrival of the child, the child going to school, the adolescent's search for identity, and so on. The support must also be as proactive as possible, meaning that insofar as possible it should be provided in a positive light, rather than as a means of addressing shortcomings. Lastly, it is important to use and improve the existing network of services, instead of developing marginal parallel networks. This means using the existing resources and knowledge, in order to normalize the support, as I mentioned earlier, but also to provide comprehensive multidisciplinary support.

That is why the department of health and social services gave the local community service centres, or the CLSCs, and the youth centres, the mandate of providing post-adoption support in a number of different forms, namely medical, psychological and psychosocial.

Beyond this direct assistance, the Government of Quebec also provides financial assistance to adoptive parents by way of parental leave identical to the leave biological parents receive, which, unfortunately is not the case for Canadians who currently do not have access to maternity leave benefits under the employment insurance system.

The Quebec government also gives a refundable tax credit equivalent to 50% of the adoption fees up to a maximum of $10,000 per child.

In other words, Quebec has developed, with great success I might add, adoption policies that focus on the well-being of the child. That means that any adoption has to give primary consideration to the needs, interests and rights of the child. What is more, the Government of Quebec is following the provisions of the Hague Convention of May 29, 1993, on the protection of children and cooperation in respect of inter-country adoption, by reporting to the countries of origin on the progress of the adopted child in his or her new environment, according to the criteria set out by the child's country of origin.

In summary, I completely agree with the need for comprehensive and structured supports so that parents and children can go through the adoption process with the least amount of turmoil possible. I cannot stress enough—and I am very pleased that this is stated in the motion—the need to respect the fact that adoption is an area under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and that federal interference in an area where Quebec has clearly developed its own practices is out of the question.

The passage of Bill C-14 in June 2007 eliminated the unacceptable distinction made between Canadian children born abroad and children adopted, while respecting Quebec jurisdictions.

We believe that the federal government's role in adoption is minimal and is limited to two things: offering income tax credits and, for the rest of Canada, administering parental and maternity benefits.

In general, the Bloc Québécois supports the principle underlying this motion, which states that it would be a good idea to study ways the federal government can improve its support for adoptive parents and adopted children.

From our point of view, the federal government's role should be to ensure that adoptive parents and adopted children receive the same benefits from the federal government as biological parents and their children.

According to an Adoption Council of Canada document:

For adoptions to succeed, families must have access to key post-adoption supports—adoption competent therapists, mental health specialists, and doctors; attachment and trauma experts; and parent-to-parent mentors....

In Canada, most adoptive parents lack access to such useful services.

In my speech, I have made it clear that this does not apply to Quebec cases at all. However, I want to emphasize that such inadequacies do not justify federal interference in this area, which comes under Quebec jurisdiction.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of Motion No. 386, a motion calling for the human resources committee to study the support measures available to adoptive parents and their children.

I, like many of my colleagues, have been touched by people who have dealt with the issue of adopting children. It is something that as parents and family members we all hold in trust. My grandmother, who I never had the pleasure of meeting because she passed away before I was born, told my mother, when she was raising us, that “children are not yours as property; they're yours to be entrusted”. It is important for us to note that when we become parents, be it through adoption or biologically, our children are human beings who have been entrusted to us for care and we should do everything we can to support them.

I am glad to see this motion. I would like to see it gain some strength and see some policies that we could adopt and pursue. I would have preferred the government to have provided us with some improvements to the system so that adoptive parents could see real results from this Parliament to support them.

However, this motion is a first step and, of course, we in the NDP will support it with the hope of getting more concrete improvements to the system as we go forward.

Constituents of mine have approached me regarding the unfair maternity leave provisions provided to adoptive parents. Susan Yungblut, on behalf of a group of adoptive parents, approached me on this issue and she outlined the problems with the EI benefits.

Currently, 35 weeks of EI benefits for parental leave are accessible to both birth and adoptive parents, and the member from Essex outlined that. The problem, however, is that the 15 weeks designated to the maternity benefit plan are not available to those who become parents through adoption rather than through birth. For Susan, as for many others, this is an issue of equity, and I share her concern.

Adoptive families pay into the EI fund at equivalent rates to birth families. Due to differential treatment in federal legislation, many Canadian employers provide differential salary top up benefits to birth and adoptive parents. However, birth parents and adoptive parents share the same emotional, social and psychological challenges when a child comes into their home. They are entrusted with the care and nurturing of that child that is so important in the early years, regardless of whether that child is a biological child or an adopted child.

The financial costs of adoption, as we heard, are significant, and the lack of an adoption benefit from both government and employers puts adoption out of reach for many families.

I did follow-up my meeting with Ms. Yungblut with a letter to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on this subject and asked whether the government would consider the creation of an EI benefit plan for adoptive families that would be financially equivalent to that which is offered to biological parents in the EI maternity benefit plan.

Unfortunately, the response I received was not quite favourable. The minister argued that the difference in treating biological versus adoptive mothers is embedded in the psychological demands of pregnancy and childbirth. Many of the adoptive mothers I talked to experienced the psychological demands of pregnancy and had similar needs. The letter was contrary to that experience of many adoptive parents.

According to the minister's point of view, for now, many biological mothers have experienced the psychological demands of pregnancy and also had the tragic experience and possibility of losing a child.

Surely, the emotional suffering of such an experience should be taken into account as we discuss these matters, and there should be acknowledgement. However, no prejudice should be placed upon one group of mothers over another when it comes to that particular leave component in the EI maternity benefit.

Today in the House, we have heard about issues that require action. I would hope a very simple one, this inequity within the maternity benefit system, will be examined at committee and action will be taken on it so there will be equity. I believe this is a positive step. What we have heard today from all members is that there is a willingness to find ways to support adoptive parents.

Personally, having an adopted sister and family members who are presently in the process of adopting, I am keenly aware of the importance of ensuring that adopted children have a sense of belonging, that they feel no different from any of the other members of the family or society. This is particularly acute when children are leaving the family to enter schools. There are things that can be done to bring teachers to understand the uniqueness of adopted children and to make sure when they go through school that their issues are understood so that there is no prejudice, perceived or otherwise, as these children are brought up through the school system.

When it comes to adopted children, we have made a lot of headway, but when we look at the issues in front of people as they look to become adoptive parents and the issues they have after they adopt, there is clearly a lot more to be done. I am glad to support the motion. I look forward to the concrete solutions that come out of the committee and look forward to the government pursuing some of the solutions. From this side of the House there will be support, not only for the motion, but for anything we can do to support adoptive parents, and also of course the children who are entrusted to them.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to the discussion on Motion No. 386, as introduced by my colleague, the member Essex. I commend him for his interest in this matter. We should always be interested in ways in which our government and our society are dealing with families, whether it be through law programs or tax treatment.

As we know, most aspects of adoption come under provincial jurisdiction, and my colleague's motion recognizes this fully. Our purpose here is not to intrude into areas of provincial competence, jurisdiction or responsibility. However, even given the province's jurisdiction over adoption, the federal government does have a number of support measures available to adoptive parents, and it is those supports that we propose to examine and evaluate in the study proposed by the motion. I look forward to the motion coming before the committee for study and I am sure we will examine it from the various perspectives, many of which have already been raised today.

I would like to discuss some of the supports that we already provide. Our Conservative government introduced and saw passed Bill C-14 two and a half years ago, which grants permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship to adopted children. I was part and parcel of the process when I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. What that bill does is make the process much quicker and easier. This measure was widely praised and it is an example of a job well done by our Conservative government.

Adoptive parents are also eligible for a range of supports that our government provides to families with children, including the adoption tax credit, which helps defray the costs of adoption at tax time.

An important consideration is the costs, both in terms of time and money, associated with adoption. I think we can return to this item and its broader considerations later in my remarks and in the study this motion provides itself.

Adoptive parents also receive the universal child care benefit, which was introduced by this government for each child under the age of six years.

Adoptive parents receive the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement for families at low and middle income levels and the child tax credit for parents of all children under the age of 18 years.

I can say that both those programs have had significant financial assistance for low and middle income families.

As I said, working adoptive parents are able to access, in great numbers, the most visible and well-known of these supports, which are parental benefits through the EI system.

Women's access to EI benefits, such as maternity and parental benefits, is very high. Ninety-seven per cent of women working full time have enough hours of work to qualify for special benefits. This is the same level of access as for men. Among women working part time, 62% have enough hours to qualify for special benefits.

So those are some of the specific benefits offered by the federal government.

I will say a bit more about them shortly but, before I do, I again want to emphasize that we believe the family is the basic building block of our society. Everything starts with the family. I have said on many occasions that as the family goes, so goes the nation. Helping families has been a key priority for this government since 2006.

In all of our actions to support families, this government has been guided by the principles of choice and opportunity. We believe that Canadian parents can be trusted to do what is best for their children. Our role is not to dictate their choices but to give them the resources that they need and let them make the decision. This is very fundamental to the programs that we have undertaken.

As a parent myself, I certainly appreciate the wisdom of our government in its approach.

One of the first things we did in 2006 was to begin getting child care funding into the hands of Canadian parents. The centrepiece of our universal child care plan is the universal child care benefit. This benefit, of course, was introduced by the Minister of Human Resources and has proven to be very popular with parents from coast to coast to coast.

The benefit of $100 a month is paid to parents for all children under six years of age. Parents can choose the child care option that best suits their needs, whether that is care from a parent at home, help from family, friends or neighbours, or some more formal child care arrangement.

Of course, the universal child care benefit may also be used to purchase other things equally as important to children and their well-being, such as early learning materials.

We are adamant that parents maintain this freedom over their households and the raising of their children.

As I and many of my colleagues have said, parents know best how to run their homes and how best to raise their children.

Continuing on the track of how parents could use the UCCB, as it is sometimes referred to, they may even wish to deposit all or part of that benefit in a registered education savings plan, which can prolong and enhance the value of the benefit many times over in the long term.

Through the UCCB, our government is providing about $2.5 billion each year to families and is helping about two million young children. We are also helping parents cover the cost of child care through the child care expense deduction. For the average family, the universal child care benefit, together with the child care expense deduction, offsets well over one-third of the cost of non-parental child care if that is the direction the parents wish or chose to go.

We know that many Canadian parents worry about finding good professional care for their children. The demand for child care services simply exceeds the supply. That is why the universal child care plan also provides for the creation of child care spaces.

Since 2007, the Government of Canada has transferred $250 million per year to the provinces and territories for this purpose. Tens of thousands of new spaces have been created across the country. The provinces are also using these funds to improve the quality and affordability of their child care services.

In 2007, our government also introduced a 25% investment tax credit for businesses that create new child care spaces for their employees.

It is important to remind the House that this funding is in addition to the extension of existing funding for agreements with the provinces and territories for early childhood development and early learning as well as child care. This funding totals $1.13 billion this year and will grow to $1.3 billion by 2013-14 under the renewed Canada social transfer.

Few things matter more than ensuring our children can get the best results for a best possible start in life. This means doing everything we can to reduce poverty and improve access to education so that every child has the opportunity for a full and rewarding life.

With the working income tax benefit, we are helping low- and modest-income Canadian families make it over the welfare wall by making work more profitable. The tax-free savings account introduced by our government in 2007 is a groundbreaking measure that allows Canadian families to shelter some of their hard-earned income. It is a powerful incentive for Canadians to save to buy their first house or to invest in their children's education.

In 2007, we also announced the child tax credit which provides families with tax savings of over $300 per year for each child under the age of 18 years. I am happy to confirm that the child tax credit has taken about 180,000 low-income Canadians off the tax rolls. We are providing $9.5 billion a year to families with children through the Canada child tax benefit, including over $3.7 billion to low-income families with children through the national child benefit supplement.

In hearings before the HUMA committee, many witnesses have indicated how beneficial these two programs are to low- and middle-income families. In Canada's economic action plan we raised the income level at which these two benefits start, providing additional support for low-income families.

We need to ensure that the coming generation can compete in the new global economy. That is why we are providing new opportunities for post-secondary education. We have improved the registered education savings plan, RESP as it is commonly known, to help parents save for their children's post-secondary education. We have eliminated the limit on annual RESP contributions and increased the lifetime limit.

Also as a result of changes made through Canada's economic action plan, more low- and middle-income families are now eligible for the national child benefit supplement, which in turn allows them to qualify for the Canada learning bond.

We also want to offer more choice and opportunity to aboriginal families. Working in collaboration with aboriginal communities and the provincial and territorial governments, we support child care, kindergarten and aboriginal headstart, as well as social and health promotion programs for aboriginal people.

In addition, under agreements with the provinces of Ontario and Alberta, we provide funding for on-reserve child care services comparable to services offered by those provinces to families living off-reserve.

Our government also works in cooperation with the provinces and territories through federal initiatives, such as the community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program.

These initiatives provide long-term funding to community groups for programs that address the health and development of children and families who are judged to be especially vulnerable.

If time permits, let me summarize what the government is doing for families with children.

As I have said, we are providing $5.9 billion in this fiscal year alone in support of early childhood development and child care through measures to the provinces and territories, direct support to families and tax relief for families. Let me recap. That is $1.13 billion to the provinces and territories to support early childhood development and child care, which will increase to almost $1.3 billion by 2013-14.

I would encourage all members of this House to engage proactively in the process when this motion comes before the committee. There are many angles and aspects to this motion that can be reviewed and pursued. The committee itself will look forward to the representations made by the various members of this House and the witnesses that appear before the committee.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that I am the one who is stopping everybody from getting out of here today, but I can assure them I will be using all my time, so everyone can just relax and sit tight.

I am honoured to speak to this motion. I enjoyed hearing my colleague from Essex talk about adoption. I appreciate the comments from the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and his response to adoption, and the comments as well from the Bloc and the NDP members.

Adoption is a very serious and important issue. In my past life, before I became a member of Parliament, I was on the board of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. As a matter of fact, I was one of the founding board members in this country. The Dave Thomas Foundation in the U.S. has done great work about awareness and trying to get people to understand the process, what goes on, how difficult it is to let people know children are out there and able to be adopted.

As my friend from Essex mentioned, the sad truth is it is a very complicated process. There are a lot of obstacles along the way. It is unfortunate that in this day and age some people find it much easier to go across the world to adopt children. While this is a great thing, the challenge is there are still thousands and thousands of children here in Canada who need to be adopted.

I fully support the essence of what the member is doing. I support the motion. The member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour talked about an important study that we are working on regarding poverty. I would venture to say that when we pass this motion, and I am assuming and hoping that all members will support this motion, we should spend an equal amount of time on a study about adoption because of how important I fundamentally believe this is, not only for our nation but for all those kids out there who really need a safe and secure family home in which to live.

Once again I thank the member for bringing this important issue forward. In previous Parliaments, the member for Prince George—Peace River, our government House leader, has talked about initiatives regarding adoption. As a country, there is so much more we could do for these kids and families, and that is why I support this motion.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion and how the federal government can best serve and support parents who adopt children. As I have said before, I applaud the member for Essex for seeking to help us gain a better understanding of families who have been brought together through adoption.

As any parent knows, the arrival of a child into a family is a joyous occasion marked by moments of fatigue and stress, all the more so for first-time parents. Biological parents encounter many natural and certainly trying circumstances and preparatory hurdles with which they must deal. As for parents who adopt a child, there are altogether different but no less challenging processes and issues to consider. The comparison of these issues among groups of parents would be a worthy area of study for our human resources committee.

A good question for us all here could be: How can we make things easier for parents and make our methods more effective?

I support the motion before us today which instructs the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the committee I chair, to examine current federal support measures available to adoptive parents and their adoptive children, because it may help us to understand this and other questions.

Such a study could provide an in-depth review of issues encountered by adoptive parents when they bring home their newly adopted child, issues such as how much time is needed to integrate the child into the family and what the parents must go through prior to adoption. Through this kind of analysis, the study could uncover evidence that points the way forward and shines a light on existing policies, including making suggestions related to the current support provided through the employment insurance program's special benefits.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but as he no doubt knows, the time for consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. However, the hon. member will have five and a half minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks when the matter is next before the House.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)