This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in October 2007.
Diane Finley Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to reduce the distinctions in eligibility for citizenship between adopted foreign children and children born abroad of Canadian parents.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Is it fair to say that this legislation and this amendment, as is, right now, would close some of those unforeseen consequences from Bill C-14 back in 2007?
Before Bill C-14 came into effect, a Canadian parent of an international adoptee needed to sponsor that international adoptee through the immigration route and then apply for a grant of citizenship. What Bill C-14 did was that it removed that requirement to go through the immigration sponsorship route and opened up instead access to a direct grant of citizenship for an international adoptee, thereby minimizing the distinction with the first-generation child born abroad to a Canadian.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I want to correct myself. I said that this letter was from Denise Mildner. Denise Mildner was the person the letter writer was connecting with. The actual letter writer is Marlyn Wall, the executive director of Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada. I want to give appropriate credit to the person who wrote this. I do read these. If anybody's wondering, I do read all of it.
In here, there is mention of what they consider the easiest solution, which is the elimination of the reference to paragraphs 3(1)(c.1) and 3(3)(a). Then they make a reference to another piece of legislation that I'm unfamiliar with, because a C-14 can happen in every Parliament. It says, “There is already Bill C-14 that is specifically for Internationally adopted children for direct grant of citizenship and this should preclude them from being lumped in with other forms of immigration”.
Can you explain to us Bill C-14 and which Parliament this might have been in, or is she in error?
From the perspective of the department, international adoptees, since Bill C-14's opening up of the direct grant of citizenship to international adoptees, are considered equal to children born abroad to a Canadian who are Canadians from birth, because those distinctions, any distinctions, are minimized to the extent possible.
As previously discussed, the benefit of this amendment, once again, is that it will extend an avenue out for international adoptees in the second generation and beyond. That may allay some of the concerns that the member is sharing on the part of the letter writer.
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I have a letter here, and I think all committee members had this sent to them. As we've been doing these hearings—and they've taken a few meetings—members of the public have sent us information. Some of it is very helpful because it comes from Immigration Canada, so it has some content information.
This one is from the executive director, Denise Mildner, who is from Saskatchewan, the Evermore Centre. It provides data on the back end. I want to read it into the record and make reference to it, because it feeds into my next question. It says:
The voices of many parents have gone unheard. Since 2010, 13,791 children were born abroad and adopted by Canadian parents since bills C-14...and C-37...were passed.
That's going as far back as 2007.
Of these, 63% or 8,632 children were adopted through the Citizenship Stream. Unknowingly, by choosing this route, however, these children do not have the same rights as other Canadians and cannot pass on their citizenship. Regardless of which route was chosen, there should not exist any discriminatory laws against an internationally adopted child.
Does this amendment fix this particular situation, or does it address a different issue of just passing it on and the treatment of the children as Canadian children for the first-generation limit?
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
I would appreciate that. Bill C-14 essentially makes it easier to acquire citizenship, but it is Bill C-35 that allows us to give our children our citizenship.
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
At the risk of having you repeat what you said, I want to check some information. There is the regular immigration process and there is the direct route to citizenship. Bill C-14 facilitated the direct route to citizenship for parents who adopt a child. Is that correct?
I am going back to some of the testimony we heard from parents who were very happy with Bill C-14 in the end and are not opting for the direct route to citizenship.
What is the benefit of going through the regular immigration process? Is this the additional option that they have and that you referred to earlier?
December 14th, 2010 / 9:05 a.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
In fact, the current act gives equal treatment to children born abroad to Canadian parents and children who are adopted abroad by Canadians and acquire citizenship directly. As well, children born in Canada to Canadians and children who are born abroad to Canadian citizens and naturalized are treated equally with regard to transmission of citizenship.
This is as a result of two fairly recent changes to the Citizenship Act. In 2007, Bill C-14 gave parents who adopt children abroad direct access to citizenship. Previously, there was a two-step process. Parents first had to sponsor a child for him to obtain permanent residence in Canada and then apply for citizenship. In response to calls from parents for faster, more direct access to citizenship, the law was changed to allow parents to apply for citizenship directly, without having to go through the permanent residence stage. When the law changed for the second time more recently, on April 17, 2009, the changes imposed a first-generation limit on children born or adopted abroad, once again to minimize the difference in treatment between children born abroad to Canadians and children adopted abroad by Canadians who access citizenship through the direct route.
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Putting aside those born abroad, the 800.... The only way to change that is really by changing the law. Is there any way that we could amend Bill C-14or the Citizenship Act? It really wouldn't have anything to do with whether the second-generation cut-off would change, right? Is there any way that we could get around this problem through the adoption law?
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Okay. Thank you.
About 80 parents in Canada chose the citizenship route, so their kids will have the second-generation cut-off. It's almost like cancelling Bill C-14, because Bill C-14 gave the parents a choice to bring their kids in as citizens rather than as landed immigrants, and that was because of a whole ten years of campaigning.
Am I correct that when we put in Bill C-14, it was fast-tracked here because the Canadian parents were saying that by coming as citizens you would have immediate health care, whereas for permanent residents it's three months before you can have health care? Am I correct?
I think the benefit is to arrive as a Canadian citizen. Maybe you can name some of those benefits.
December 13th, 2010 / 3:45 p.m.
Director, Legislation and Program Policy, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The explanation goes back to the amendments to the law that I described. These amendments were made in response to criticism from adoptive parents. Before the law was first amended in 2007, some parents were critical of the fact that they had to go through the immigration process and then the citizenship process. With Bill C-14, the comparable groups were children born abroad to Canadian parents and children adopted abroad. With the subsequent changes to the law, including the first-generation limit, the two groups were treated the same way. We continue to minimize the difference between these two groups of people born abroad. Moreover, I think that before the 2007 changes, the court had ruled that the two groups were comparable.
The problem with Bill C-14 is that it was supposed to make it equitable and faster to come home with your adopted child from another country and have the citizenship automatically. Some people are choosing not to go that route, and there are two reasons. One is that there's a possibility of not getting through. People stall in other countries for a long time in not being able to get the automatic citizenship. So some people would choose to adopt by the old way and go the permanent residency route instead. Some people are advising that people should go that way instead.
The second reason is that the automatic citizenship means that for internationally adopted children, if they live outside the country as adults and have children, their children won't be able to be Canadian citizens. This was something that totally caught everybody off guard when it happened. It was completely another issue and was entirely caught up in a different problem, and adopted children got caught in it. Our joy over Bill C-14 turned to dismay, although we were extremely happy over the deportation provision that it brought in so that criminality couldn't be a reason for sending them away afterwards.
First, regarding Bill C-14, as I alluded to in my opening remarks, there is an issue with it. We went through the Bill C-14 route when we adopted our son from South Africa last year. It was a wonderful experience, in that we came home with a Canadian passport. We came home with the shiny white temporary passport, and we appreciated that route.
The ability for him to carry on citizenship is an issue that came with that bill. As I alluded to, we have a biological son who is now almost four months old, and we have an adopted son who is three years old. If our biological son were outside of the country he could pass on citizenship, and that's great. If our adopted son, who is from South Africa, were outside the country, he could not pass on citizenship to his children. That is a substantive issue. The legal standing in Canada is different, and it should be remedied.
I may be unique in the fact that I did not experience a need for a substantive amount of post-adoption support. I know there are a lot of issues that come with adoption, especially of older children. I know you've heard a lot of stories. What I find to be a bigger issue with adoption, frankly, when you go internationally, is the upfront costs. International adoptions cost about, as I said, $20,000 to $50,000. For instance, to adopt from South Africa we had to spend almost a month in South Africa. It was a wonderful place to spend a month, but it was a month abroad. If you adopt from Russia, you have to fly there two or three times in the adoption process. That's expensive. To adopt internationally is cost-prohibitive.
As I said, there are 30,000 children, so it depends on what your calling is and on whether you feel you're called to adopt domestically or called to adopt internationally. That's a personal and individual choice.
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you for coming and welcome.
I am going to try to summarize the main needs. We've heard other witnesses before you. Am I wrong to say that your main challenges are especially post-adoption? Perhaps you disagree. We will come back to this and you can answer then.
I understood that you don't have support groups and that you need to network. You would like adoptive parents to get the same employment insurance benefits as biological parents.
I am speaking to those who have received the benefits: is a 55% benefit rate sufficient? I know that, in Quebec, the benefits go up to 70% of insurable earnings. There is even a maximum insurable salary of $62,500. At the federal level, the maximum salary is around $43,000. Could you also tell me whether this benefit rate was sufficient for you or if you needed more? That's probably the case.
My other question is for Ms. Ross. You talked about Bill C-14, which is meant to speed up the adoption and citizenship process. From listening to you, I get the impression that it has not quite been meeting its objective. I would have liked to hear you talk more about the bill.
Mr. Moore, I am listening to what you have to say about the main needs.
Three minutes is enough.
I have the same recommendations as the Adoption Council of Canada because of the lack of information: stats, publishing, and what not. But I have some new recommendations for you.
One is that the government support or preferably adopt Bill C-569 of MP John Rafferty, calling for a national strategy for FASD to commit the government to develop a national plan for treatment and prevention, which we don't have at the moment.
On citizenship, Bill C-14, from 2007, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, was applauded for bringing equality to adopted children. It did the opposite. Lawyers from the Canadian Bar Association recommended that adoptive parents use the permanent residency route instead of the direct citizenship route because the new faster route has no appeal. Now adoption advocates are recommending the permanent residency route again because the other creates a two-tier system. Now I have the same recommendation that the Adoption Council of Canada had: to amend the regulations accompanying Bill C-37 so internationally adopted children have the same legal status as children born in Canada and are permitted to transmit their citizenship by descent to children born abroad.
One thing that Bill C-14 did right was to ensure that adopted children can no longer be deported for criminality if their parents did not obtain their citizenship. Before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in June 2006, an official from CIC said "...to respond to charter concerns, all adopted persons would no longer be prevented from acquiring citizenship for any criminality...”. She said it was an equity matter.
In June 2008, the first of a number of adoptees who were under threat of deportation received their Canadian citizenship. A few of us protected Gilberto Currie, adopted from Brazil. We protected him for five years and kept him from being deported to Brazil until the bill was passed. We do not know how many adoptees could have been in the same position.
The fact that people are still choosing to adopt internationally by the permanent residency route leaves the possibility that parents may not obtain citizenship for their children, which can create great hardships if the adoption fails. Children who come to Canada to be adopted and whose adoptions break down before they obtain citizenship are still under threat of deportation today. This must be stopped. Canada must not bring children here in inter-country adoption only to send them back to a country they have not seen since childhood, where they know no one and do not speak the language.
Mario Perez came to Canada from Mexico to be adopted at the age of five and was deported to Mexico in 2006 at the age of 22. Efforts to prevent this failed, and he still wants to come back. We are now supporting Tina Desrosiers, who came to Canada—