Thank you very much, and I thank you for the opportunity.
The intent of the bill is to unite Canadian families as quickly as possible following the adoption by a Canadian parent of a child from a foreign country. This result is achieved by granting citizenship to the adopted child upon the finalization of an adoption, thereby eliminating the process of a Canadian citizen having to sponsor that child, and then as soon as that child comes to Canada, having the child be immediately--quite candidly, that day--able to apply for a grant of citizenship.
The CBA section supports the bill’s intention to streamline the system by having the system put in place. Steps need to be taken to correct the difference in treatment between adopted children and natural-born children in the present Citizenship Act. The bill, however, is not in keeping with the legislative safeguards in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the immigration and refugee protection regulations that protect the interests of foreign children adopted by Canadian parents, including compliance with the Hague Convention.
Under the current law, as you've heard from some of the previous witnesses, a person must be sponsored to come to Canada if they are adopted, and then they apply through the present Citizenship Act to be granted their citizenship. The bill eliminates this. But we wish to comment on some of the problems or shortfalls we see with respect to this bill.
First is non-compliance with IRPA and the regulations. The contents of Bill C-14 were originally drafted many years ago, when the governing legislation with respect to immigration was the Immigration Act and those regulations, the legislation that preceded the current Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The old Immigration Act defines what “adopted” means, and you'll see how similar the present bill is with respect to that old law. It states:
"Adopted" means a person who is adopted in accordance with the laws of a province or of a country other than Canada or any political subdivision thereof, where the adoption creates a genuine relationship of parent and child, but does not include a person who is adopted for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada...
So you see that they've taken the old act and put the words in the present bill.
IRPA and the regulations expanded the definition of the family class to include a child whom the sponsor intends to adopt in Canada. Regulations make it clear that in a foreign child adoption they must look at the best interests of the child. That is done by regulation. I would just mention some of these regulations...and it's interesting to see which is silent.
We heard from one of the other witnesses that the Citizenship Act has a lot of meat. I don't think there's so much meat in this particular amendment, and you'll see why.
The regulations dealing with IRPA define best interests of the child, all the way through paragraphs 117(3)(a) to (g). Some of those include: before the adoption, the child's parents give their free and informed consent to the child's adoption--that's what best interest is about; the adoption creates a parent-child relationship; the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place; the adoption was in accordance with the laws of the sponsor's place of residence; if the sponsor resides in Canada at the time the adoption takes place, the competent authority of the child's province of intended destination must have stated in writing that it does not object; and it goes on.
So how much meat is there really in this new bill?
Assessing whether an adoption is in the best interests of the child has a legitimate purpose, for protecting against child trafficking--and we are all concerned about that--and adoptions of convenience.
The immigration and refugee protection regulations talk about the role of the provinces and how important it is. There's silence here. The rights and interests of the provinces and territories must be respected in any federal legislation that deals with subject matter that is intended to be within the purview of the provinces and territories. That being said, in our previous submissions in 2002 that dealt with Bill C-18, we discussed how the layering of the province's involvement can be quite confusing for many adopting parents.
Notwithstanding the above problems with respect to the provinces, we have to deal with IRPA and the regulations, and the provinces are involved. The lack of consistency between this bill and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and regulations is, in our submission, not appropriate. We cannot have this, and it is our submission that to avoid this problem we have to really look at the regulations. The regulations are important.
Just as in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, there is a provision when we are dealing with regulations under this act that they go before a committee like this. It is our submission and recommendation that a provision similar to subsection 5(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act should be included in Bill C-14 to ensure that any regulations implemented under Bill C-14 are brought before the appropriate committee for further consultation and discussion and to ensure consistency with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regulations and those of the provinces and territories.
Without that, we will have confusion. This will protect. One of your members stated, before the committee had looked at this, how important appeal rights are. I would submit also that this is extremely important, because we need to know the meat, and I think the meat should come before this particular committee.
Our next concern is loss of appeal rights. Canadian adoptive parents who sponsor their children for permanent residence, if that application is refused, have the right to go to the immigration appeal division of the board. The immigration appeal division has the right to have a full trial de novo.
They can hear everything. They can hear from the adoptive parents; they can hear from the natural parents; they can hear about custom and usage. And it's so important—I have appeared many a time before the board—to talk about customs in adoptions. You have to get that before people to fully understand it.
So this appeal is a full appeal, but under the proposal, that is gone. Under Bill C-14, the application is for grant of citizenship to adopt a child. If this application is refused, the Canadian will only have one resort for judicial review. Other members have commented to say it is a very limited review. It is a review based on paper, on affidavits from both the people who are appealing and from the visa office abroad.
Then the question becomes that if you are successful at your appeal in the Federal Court, the matter is referred back to a different visa officer, unlike the situation with the appeal board, which has the right to say, “I grant you your adoption. Your adoption is valid in law, and we're going to give you permanent resident status.” It is not so with the Federal Court. It goes back, and we go through this process.
What we would submit is that if someone were considering this process, they would do both in order to protect their appeal rights: they would file an application for citizenship and file a sponsorship, protecting their rights. It's double the workup for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. It's not double the cost, because a grant of citizenship, I believe, is $100, and to do a sponsorship it's $150. That's what we see would be happening, and there would be a tremendous waste of resources.
So the CBA section recommends that parents have a right of appeal from a decision to refuse a grant of citizenship to adopt. This may be accomplished in two ways, we submit: amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to expand the jurisdiction of that board to include reviews of refusals to grant citizenship to adopted children of citizens; or in the alternative, amending Bill C-14 to state that a refusal of citizenship under proposed section 5.1 is deemed to be a refusal of a visa, entitling that person to go before the board.
It is this board that is expert in this matter. They have been doing it for years.
Those are our submissions with respect to the bill.