It would seem to me that it would be easier to make that justification for those who you know are a security risk and have criminality issues when they're adults than those who are not. That is the issue I was getting at.
I'd like to go back to another question that was posed by members opposite. It was the fact that, as we now have it, those going through the regular channels and applying for permanent residence before adoption would actually have the ability to an appeal de novo, where they would actually have a hearing and a decision, whereas those applying under the act would go through a judicial process that is very different. It's more technical, it's procedural, but it's not substantive.
So what we have here is a group, essentially, a parent who might be prompted to go both ways: going through the other process in case they want an avenue of appeal de novo, and at the same time going under this act because it may be a quicker way to go. Isn't that creating a distinction between those who proceed in the normal fashion, which they still can, and those who don't? The distinction is quite severely different because of the fact of the trial de novo, notwithstanding that it has some differences with the rest of the act. Isn't that a legitimate concern?