Human Resources Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Pat Convery]

I think we need federal leadership to have policy that directs that every child who is a permanent ward of a province has to have permanency planning that is continuous. Many of those children aren't even being considered. So you need recruitment strategies for families. Resources need to be put in place to prepare families and find families and find permanency for those children.

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

If families are not found, at what age should they be aged out in terms of real support?

[Pat Convery]

Well, certainly we would recommend a higher age, and I think every province has talked about that being raised to the twenties, which is more reflective of youth in our society.

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

I see.

[François Levert]

I think in New Brunswick the act provides for up to age 21, actually, in certain circumstances.

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

It is 21. So they've already upped theirs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Is there anything else you want to add? If not....

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

You mentioned that there were 53 adoption agencies in Ontario. Is there no central agency for adoption in the province of Ontario?

[Pat Convery]

No. We have a portable system in that we have one adoption home study assessment tool that is used throughout the province in the private, public, and international systems and one training program. So we do have a fair bit of collaboration. Each individual agency is provincially funded.

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

There's not a provincial body that coordinates.

[Pat Convery]

Not that coordinates that.

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

I see. That's interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

When you talk about these 5,000 children who are 13 years old and older who are not being placed, some of them may have disabilities, such as fetal alcohol syndrome and other kinds of illnesses. Would it be correct to say that they grow up, they become adults who are disabled, who are living in poverty, and it definitely affects all of us and ends up under federal jurisdiction because of the consequences? Is that accurate?

[Pat Convery]

Yes.

[François Levert]

Yes, it is.

[Pat Convery]

Again, the expert panel report, as far as Ontario goes, really did a lot of work on highlighting that issue and giving information about that, which I think would be helpful.

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

Sorry, what was the expert panel report?

[Pat Convery]

Yes. It's Raising Expectations. This is the expert panel report on infertility and adoption.

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

Right, of course. I remember now. My apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, that's a good one, if we could get that one translated and brought to all of us.

[Pat Convery]

It's online in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

It is. Good.

All right, Mr. Vellacott, you have three minutes.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My questions will go mostly to Pat, and they're along the lines of claiming adoption expenses. In particular, I understand that in the domestic adoption scene, with the $10,909 allowable, in terms of the deduction.... It's under that, significantly under that, in terms of the domestic. It may be well over that for the international. That's my understanding. But it is under the $10,909, what people claim for a domestic adoption scenario.

I was wondering if in fact you had some kind of scenario where you allowed people, post-adoption.... If they have special needs, with fetal alcohol syndrome or attachment issues and those kinds of things, and they've had to travel for that and pay for that, and maybe go to the next province, as some of the witnesses said they did, would that be something we could look at seriously, at least up to that $10,909? Or maybe we want to do a separate file altogether? We could tweak it and adjust the regulations on that. Is that something that might be workable?

[Pat Convery]

I think so, particularly if it was something that could be claimed on a yearly basis. It would be expenses incurred in that year related to specific activities, and the example would be post-adoption where you have special needs. Children who come out of foster care, their special needs are identified. They're often identified prior to placement, so families know they're taking on these challenges. But there just aren't resources available. So that would be a huge benefit to adoptive families.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

So with adoption expenses, you're not just locked into those precise things, like “year of” once the sign-off is over. But it might allow a window of time, retroacting back a ways and going forward some, until you've either used up your $10,909 or we're into a separate envelope for this. But that's something the federal government is already involved in.

I'll just sign off my time. I want to pass it to our well-beloved, special adopted son, Jeff Watson. I know he has done a lot of research, and he knows this stuff first-hand. I affirm his discrimination comment, but I think we have to be careful. The judgments have been clear in the courts that it's some biological issues as opposed to the others, so I don't want to be calling it discrimination; I'd prefer other things. I would be supportive of some other kind of fund, using a different name.

Jeff?