Human Resources Committee on April 19th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Today is Monday, April 19, 2010 and this is the 11th meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Our agenda for today is as follows: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of the Federal Support Measures to Adoptive Parents.

I would like to point out an error in the French version of the document.

I will read the motion that was adopted and we can then get down to work. The motion reads as follows:

The following motion was adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities:

Extract from the Minutes of Proceedings

Meeting No. 04

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

It was agreed, —That the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development, and the Status of Persons with Disabilities 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.

The committee will now hear from Mr. Jeff Watson, MP for the riding of Essex, on the motion in question.

Mr. Watson, I think you have a proposition to make to us.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Go ahead, Mr. Savage.

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

With the indulgence of Mr. Watson, before he gets going, I just want to clear the agenda.

My understanding is that we have some committee business to deal with after we hear from Mr. Watson. Is that not the case now?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'm sorry, but I was told only a few minutes ago that I would chair. From what I understand from the clerk, the committee business will be third on the agenda. We will have Mr. Watson, followed by the Adoption Council of Canada, followed by committee business, Mr. Savage.

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

I see that, but we have scheduled 3:30 to 4:30 for Mr. Watson, and for 4:30 to 5:30... The committee ends at 5:30, right?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Yes.

Mr. Savage, from what I understand from the clerk, Mr. Watson will be our guest from 3:30 to 4:30. At 4:30 we will hear from the Adoption Council of Canada and the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, and then we'll go onto committee business.

[An hon. member]

When, though?

[An hon. member]

At what time?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Well, you're catching me because I've—

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

Mr. Watson wants to say something. He might have an idea.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

—just sat down in the chair, and I really don't have all the answers.

What was provided for—

What was organized was a 15-minute committee business session, before 5:30, of course.

Mr. Watson, did you want to say something on this?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes. Madam Vice-Chair, if it suits the committee's purposes, I don't mind giving testimony for only a 45-minute period, allowing the two witnesses subsequent to have an hour's worth of time. That would afford the committee 15 minutes to do their business. As well, they can do that on the front end, before I testify, if that suits them.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'd like to hear from committee members.

Mr. Watson has made a very generous offer.

Madam Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I'm here substituting for my colleague Tony Martin. I believe that he's quite interested in the committee's agenda. Mr. Watson's proposal sounds very good. Let's have him for 45 minutes, the Adoption Council and Children's Aid for an hour, and then 5:15 to 5:30 for the committee's agenda. That would be really good. I don't want to make a decision on behalf of Mr. Martin, because he believed that was coming later.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Okay.

Are there any other comments? Is that agreeable? I don't think we need to come to any kind of a vote. We're agreeing, then, that we will give Mr. Watson from 3:30 to 4:15? That's fine?

I think you have another matter you want to present to us, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes, Madam Vice-Chair. At some point I have to report back home on what I do as a member of Parliament. I don't know if it's possible for you to ask the committee for their consent as to whether or not one of my staffers could take a few pictures of me while I give my testimony. If not, that's fine.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I was asked by Mr. Watson about this. I felt that as vice-chair I could not make that decision myself and that I needed to ask the committee if the committee would agree to having photographs taken during the committee meeting.

Comments, please.

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

It's fine.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Savage is fine with it, and this side is as well.

The answer is yes, Mr. Watson, so let's get started right away.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Madam Vice-Chair.

Thank you to the committee, first of all for your patience in awaiting my testimony. As you may well know, last week I was ill to the point where I couldn't be in Ottawa, so I appreciate your patience and flexibility in accommodating my appearance here today.

I also want to thank the committee for in effect resurrecting my former motion, Motion 386, and for maintaining unanimity in doing so. I appreciate that the committee now owns the substance of the motion as its own, and I'm excited that we're able to move on and begin some of that study.

I have a few thoughts to share that hopefully will give some direction and I'll be pleased to take your questions afterward.

By now, of course, many of you will know my own story. In 1970 my biological mother came to Canada from Croatia four months pregnant with me. Because of some of the difficulties she faced being in a new country--language barriers and many other things--she made a choice, a difficult choice, to place me with what was then the Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society for adoption. I was adopted as an infant only a few weeks after my birth in 1971, so issues surrounding adoption certainly are very close to my heart on a personal level.

I have long had a dream, probably since childhood, that Canada would be a place that would welcome and affirm the worth of all children, particularly those who find themselves without parents, that is, children who are born in Canada, and children from countries all around the world who cannot be placed with families in their own countries.

As an observation on where we find ourselves today, I think the infrastructure, if you will, surrounding adoption in Canada was created for a mid-20th century reality, but not necessarily for 21st century realities. Just as one illustration, I think we are going to be faced—particularly with climate change producing more dramatic crises—with an increase in humanitarian challenges in the 21st century. The example around Haiti and the earthquake, while that may or may not be linked to climate change, showed us, however, that when governments are focused on removing obstacles, we can respond quickly to those who are already in the queue for adoption. But I ask the question: how do we create an infrastructure for adoption so that we don't have to react?

This raises, of course, a prime question for the committee in its study, one that I've grappled with as an individual member. I certainly respect, first of all, the privileges of a committee, but also the jurisdictions of both the federal and the provincial and territorial governments; that is, how do you examine federal supports in isolation without looking at the infrastructure of adoption in Canada? The infrastructure, if you will, the delivery of adoption, rests in provincial and territorial authority, so how does one square the circle?

After thinking about this for some time, I think it's appropriate for the committee to make a comprehensive study of the infrastructure of adoption and the supports around it, to make observations, but ultimately to make a recommendation to the federal government to make it part of an agenda, perhaps within 12 months of the report being issued, to sit down, either as a first ministers item or with the relevant federal minister and provincial and territorial counterparts, and to examine how the two levels together can renew the mid-20th century infrastructure of adoption to support 21st century realities.

Beyond that, there may be a few other areas. I'll mention them in brief for the committee to consider.

One, the committee may want to look at immigration policy for the federal government and whether we need to create, in order to respond to humanitarian challenges, an adoption class at the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It's an issue that I have recently brought to the attention of the minister and his policy people. I am personally interested in whether that can be functional.

Also, the committee may want to look at how we can encourage the adoption of older children. It's a particularly troubling trend that everybody wants a young child. Those who are older come with more challenges. How do we make it easier for families to take in older children? We may want to look at what supports we give adoptive parents to cope with the difficulties and challenges around adoption. I'm talking about post-adoption services and who funds them. Ultimately, how do we recognize the equivalency of parenting and child value with respect to special EI benefits?

Finally, as a broad encouragement to the committee, I encourage you to consider a landmark study. Think big, if for no other reason than to raise the profile of adoption throughout Canada and place the appropriate affirmation on the value of each and every human being. It is a rare opportunity to look at this topic. I encourage you to be bold, courageous, and thorough, but to ensure that government responds effectively, it is also important to keep recommendations focused and not so numerous that they become a recipe for ineffective action.

With that, I will thank the committee for letting me appear. I will answer what questions I can. I know that stakeholders who come after me will certainly have much greater statistical knowledge and will be able to respond, but I will do the best I can.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you very much, Mr. Watson.

We'll begin the five-minute round, starting with Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I may be sharing with Mr. Savage.

What you're saying brings back an interesting comment for me. I visited Bangladesh recently. One of the questions that came to me repeatedly when I was there, from media and from a couple of ministers, was whether Canada was prepared to accept climate-change refugees--families, as well as children.

I suspect that at some point if there were a crisis of some kind, like the tsunami or the earthquake in Haiti, there might be children who would need to be helped through adoptions and what have you. That brings in the element of immigration and refugees, so the Canadian government probably has a role to play in creating some sort of section to deal with climate change refugees or disaster situations for children and adults. Have you thought about that aspect of it and how the refugee angle would work?

You said it would require special EI benefits for these parents. Are you referring to something different from what exists now in EI for birth parents and adoptive parents, something that would require changes?

There are always major concerns by the countries from which these children come. When I was the Minister for International Cooperation and visited developing countries in Africa and other places, the major concern was that the developed countries were always keen to take children, but those countries didn't want lose their children. They didn't want them to be sent away en masse to other countries. They wanted to raise them. They wanted help to keep their children.

So that's another way of looking at it. There is a bit of an ethical issue that we really need to look at that is very real. I think we need to address that as well as the other.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thanks to the member for that series of questions. I'll try to do the best I can.

Obviously for humanitarian crises, we're not just talking about climate change. There may be other situations that arise: famine, natural disasters, or war. These, of course, are situations that produce a number of parentless children.

I think one of the important reasons for examining how we do adoption is to reconcile... I shouldn't say reconcile, probably, but renovate. It is to renovate, ultimately, how we do adoption here in Canada to accommodate the reality that these are increasing trends. Is the current system nimble enough, if you will, to respond, and are the supports sufficient to allow that to happen?

I encourage us to think proactively about these situations rather than reactively. I think we did a fair job with respect to Haiti, but that was responding to a situation. How do we look ahead now, knowing these situations will occur in the future? Can we create a system, together with our partners at the provincial and territorial level, that will allow us to respond nimbly?

The other issue, of course—and I think I made mention of it in my comments—is that obviously, as a priority, you want to see children placed with families in their own countries, but where that can't happen, can our system accommodate bringing them into families here who would like to adopt?

With respect to the other issue, I'm getting at an equivalent benefit to maternity. I think the government has made a step forward in the sense that the self-employed now have the opportunity to opt into parental maternity benefits. The next obvious question that has to be asked, both for the self-employed and for those who are not self-employed, is: should we be looking at some additional benefit that would, through special EI benefits, recognize that there are significant challenges to adoptive parents and children in forming attachment? They need sufficient time and means to do that, in my opinion.

I think that was an area that, as I heard in the speeches at second reading, there was a unanimous thought around. I suspect that will emerge as a recommendation from this committee in whatever report comes out, but there are real and significant challenges, both for parents and for children, in forming those attachments in a situation of adoption. For biological children, some of that attachment begins during the pregnancy, so you have—