Human Resources Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to call this meeting to order, meeting number 40 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, further to our study on the federal support measures to adoptive parents.

We are very pleased to have officials from four different departments with us this morning.

Ladies and gentlemen, you may have been following along some of our study. We've been looking at adoption. As we've been studying it and speaking to witnesses, a number of questions have come up that would pertain to your different departments. We wanted to invite you here today, not necessarily to bring us a statement but just really to answer our questions.

I do understand that there is one statement by Mr. Sarazin from CRA. I also want to introduce the other departments. We have representatives from the Canadian Revenue Agency, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Thank you all for being here.

We will begin with a brief statement by Mr. Sarazin, and then we'll go right into questions.

[Mickey Sarazin, Director General, Legislative Policy Directorate, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency]

Good morning, Madam Chairperson, and thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

My name is Mickey Sarazin. I'm a director general in the legislative policy directorate within the Canada Revenue Agency. I'm accompanied today by Nathalie Dumais, who is the director general of the individual returns processing directorate.

As we've tabled a longer version of the remarks for the committee's consideration, in the interest of time may I simply say that the CRA's mission is to administer tax benefits and related programs and to ensure compliance with tax laws on behalf of the governments across Canada.

In short, the CRA is responsible for administering the Income Tax Act as enacted by Parliament, and our comments today will be confined to the administration role.

The Department of Finance is responsible for policy direction and amendments to the Income Tax Act. We're prepared to discuss the adoption expense tax credit today contained within the Income Tax Act. And we would note that once a child is adopted, parents are entitled to claim all the other benefits that are available to all taxpayers with respect to children.

We're prepared to answer any and all questions this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We will begin with questions. I think what we'll do—we have a good amount of time—is have a seven-minute round. Then, if any of the members would like to share it with their colleagues, that's fine.

We'll begin with the Liberals. Mr. Savage, please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming.

This has turned into a very interesting piece of work that we've undertaken here. I hope some of you have had the chance to be following some of the testimony we've been receiving.

There are a whole number of questions that have come up about Canada's, specifically the federal government's, role in adoption. Some interesting points have come up. I want to get a sense of whether any work has been done by departments, not just in terms of what this committee's been hearing but about adoption overall in the last few years.

One of the issues that comes up a lot, and this would be for Mr. Paquette, perhaps, from Human Resources and Skills Development, is the whole issue of parental leave or adoptive leave in the EI system. One of the things that's come up is that it might make sense to have a whole new category instead of trying to emulate parental or adoptive leave. We might just want to have an adoptive leave, period, so that they would be equal, but it would be separate, as opposed to trying to gerrymander an existing system.

I wonder if you or your department have had a chance to have a look at that and any idea of what the implications might be.

[Jacques Paquette, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Income Security and Social Development Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

If you don't mind, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Beauséjour, to answer all the questions dealing with EI.

[Savage]

He's practically a member of the committee anyway. We have great faith in Mr. Beauséjour.

How are you, Louis? You heard the question?

[Louis Beauséjour, Acting Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Skills and Employment Branch, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Yes.

There was no direct study done on adding a new leave. We've been seized by the demand. I think there's a lot of demand to create a new leave in EI.

As you know right now, the EI program provides 35 weeks of EI parental benefits to all, accessible to parents of biological kids but also to parents who adopt new kids. There are also 15 weeks for maternity leave, which is only for the mother who gives birth. It's really for the mother to go through the physical change that she has to face when she gives birth.

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

This will, I suspect, be a recommendation that will come out of this committee.

Mr. Paquette, thank you for the information we received about the top ten annual adoption intakes into Canada. What strikes me first about this is that, for the first few years we have information on, Chinese adoptions accounted for well over half the total adoptions. In the last number of years, the number of adoptions from China has dropped considerably, while adoptions from other countries have risen. Is this a trend that will continue? What is this telling us?

[Rénald Gilbert, Director General, International Region, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

This is largely due to China itself. My last posting abroad was in China, and I dealt with a lot of adoption there. That trend started at least a decade ago. It has more to do with the number of children being put up for adoption in China than anything else. It's not a phenomenon unique to Canada—it is true of all adoption from different countries. Is it going to continue? It's hard to tell, actually.

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

Certainly it's gone from over half to about one-quarter.

[Rénald Gilbert]

When I was there about ten years ago, we were doing a thousand a year, and now I think it's more in the range of 500.

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

I don't know who can answer this question, but if there's one thing that we've heard consistently it's that it's easier to adopt from abroad than it is to adopt interprovincially in Canada. Is anybody able to tell us why that might be, and whether there might be something we can do about it?

[Jacques Paquette]

Adoption is clearly a provincial jurisdiction. The issue is how the provinces are working together to address that issue. I understand that they have had some discussion. In fact, they even have a provincial-territorial protocol for children and families moving between provinces and territories. There is some work being done to try to improve the situation, but there is no real role for the federal government, since this is clearly a provincial jurisdiction.

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

We heard from somebody from the States who said that the Americans have developed an interstate arrangement that has increased the number of adoptions. I'm not looking to infringe on provincial jurisdiction, seriously. But I want to know if there's a way to improve matters. There are 30,000 children who would be considered adoption-ready. I just wonder if there's anything we should be looking at to alleviate what seems to be a problem in interprovincial adoptions.

[Jacques Paquette]

I think the solution resides with the provinces. In the protocol the provinces have agreed on, there's a section called “Adoption and Post-Adoption Services”. I think part of this protocol was meant to facilitate the work between the provinces.

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

We have somebody from CRA, correct? Mr. Sarazin, thank you.

You may not have time to answer this question. We've heard that the cost of adoptions, and the ability to get the tax write-off on costs, limits the number of people who adopt children with FASD and other problems. Has any work been done to look at what the costs might be if we were to increase the allowable deductions for adoptions?

[Mickey Sarazin]

No, the agency has not studied adoption. This is a question of tax policy that might be looked at by the Department of Finance, which would consider the amounts that are contained within the Income Tax Act. Those are the limits that will appear within our system. The reality is that if a family adopts, all they have to do is claim the credit on their tax return, and it gets processed. That's the extent of CRA involvement.

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

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard, please.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here this morning to provide us with more information. We met most of you recently. In light of the testimony we heard, there might be some specific issues we could discuss, particularly regarding the special needs of adopted children.

When it comes to special needs, one situation that is often used as an example is fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The people who testified often found they did not have much support, especially financial support.

There is a child disability tax credit. Can it apply to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder?

[Mickey Sarazin]

Under our tax system in Canada, if a physician can say that the child is ill and has a long-term illness, the existing benefits in the system are available for the child.

CRA and the Department of Finance do not determine whether the child has needs. We leave it up to a qualified physician to do that. Once that is done, all the benefits are available.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

So that means that it is medically recognized as a disability in the child, because there are permanent consequences.

[Mickey Sarazin]

As far as we are concerned, there do not have to be permanent consequences. If the illness lasts a year, that is enough. Once again, it is up to the physician to determine whether the child has a chronic illness.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

The effects of ethyl alcohol, for example, of alcoholism, can be considered the cause of a disability.

[Mickey Sarazin]

Exactly.