Evidence of meeting #22 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was child.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Ken Neal  As an Individual
Don Chapman  Lost Canadian Organization
Marcel Gélinas  As an Individual
Naeem  Nick) Noorani (Founder/Publisher, Canadian Immigrant Magazine
Jacqueline Scott  As an Individual
Dorinda Cavanaugh  Director, Terre des hommes - Pour les enfants et Terre des hommes Ontario
Allan Nichols  Executive Director, Concerned Group Representative, Canadian Expat Association
Sandra Forbes  Executive Director, Children's Bridge
Sarah Pedersen  Acting Executive Director, Adoption Council of Canada
Andrew Bilski  Concerned adoptive parent, As an Individual

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Yes.

9:55 a.m.

Naeem (Nick) Noorani

I know Don Chapman personally. I think he's a great guy. I think he has a lot of information and I believe we can work together with Don Chapman in clearing up some of these points. I am not at any point trying to portray myself as a bigger expert than Don, and I concede to his expertise on this.

I believe we have to work on the enactment in such a way that it's fair to all. At the same time, we have to at every point in time remember that we have to look at what's good for the country and remember the words of Louis LaFontaine.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Thank you.

Ms. Scott, I'm really trying to understand the struggle you face. Let me tell you, I do feel concern for where you are in terms of trying to establish your citizenship. Have you been able to undertake with your member of Parliament the ability to pursue this and have him or her as a representative to assist?

9:55 a.m.

As an Individual

Jacqueline Scott

I have worked with a member of Parliament. At this point, there is no resolution.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Okay. Under normal circumstances we don't have folks come to committee like this, in terms of not being able to work through their individual issues, so it's obviously a big enough and a passionate enough issue when we're talking about our Canadian citizenship for you to have the ability to come here. So I do want to thank all of you for doing that.

I want to note that the reason we're trying to work through these two meetings and hold these hearings is to improve your situation and to try to deal with the issues. The intent of the bill is to make sure that if you are justifiably a Canadian, you receive your citizenship. I can assure you that those of us on this side of the House are going to do everything to make sure that you do.

9:55 a.m.

As an Individual

Jacqueline Scott

Thank you very much.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Ms. Jennings, you have a very, very brief time.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

I have two very brief questions.

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

No, Ms. Jennings, one, please. That's all you can have.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

To Mr. Noorani, who is on the telephone, do you have a position on the issue of women who come to Canada for the sole reason of giving birth to their children and who then leave, because Canadian citizenship law confers automatic Canadian citizenship on those children?

My second question--

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

No, let's finish there.

9:55 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

How much time do I have, sir?

9:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

There is no time, I'm sorry. I've done you a favour; don't wreck it.

9:55 a.m.

Naeem (Nick) Noorani

Okay, let me try to answer briefly.

I believe all airlines have limitations in place, an international limitation, on the term at which pregnant women can travel. I am personally against any kind of abuse, and that would include women who come here to have their babies. That's the short answer.

10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you very much, Mr. Noorani, and to all of you who are before us, for taking the time and giving your comments to the committee.

On behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for coming and telling your stories. This meeting is suspended for a few minutes.

10:02 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We will reconvene the meeting. We have a number of witnesses before us for the next hour.

From the Canadian Expat Association, we have Allan Nichols, executive director, concerned group representative.

From Terre des hommes pour les enfants and Terre des hommes Ontario, we have Dorinda Cavanaugh, director.

From Children's Bridge we have Sandra Forbes, executive director.

We have the Adoption Council of Canada, represented by Sarah Pedersen, acting executive director.

As an individual, we have Andrew Bilski.

I need some order, please, ladies and gentlemen. I'm going to have to ask for some assistance.

I'd like to welcome you on behalf of the committee. You each have up to five minutes to make a brief presentation, after which members of the committee will ask you questions.

We'll start with Ms. Cavanaugh.

Thank you for coming.

10:02 a.m.

Dorinda Cavanaugh Director, Terre des hommes - Pour les enfants et Terre des hommes Ontario

I am the director of TDH pour les enfants Quebec and TDH Ontario. I'm a clinical psychologist, and I've worked in adoption since 1974. I've personally supervised about 2,000 adoptions in that time. My husband and I have five children, four of whom are adopted, two of them internationally. I've seen a number of changes to the immigration process over these years.

Some years ago, removal of the restriction that adopted children were subject to medical screening in the same way as other immigrants was a recognition at least that these children had similar status to birth children. But the adoption community was still acutely aware that there was a huge difference between the way adopted children were perceived in terms of immigration practice and the way that their natural-born counterparts were. If a Canadian parent gave birth to a child overseas, that child was immediately recognized as a Canadian citizen, but a child adopted by Canadian parents overseas had to follow much the same procedure that any immigrant would follow, except that the application was fast-tracked so it was not so long.

In the eyes of the adoptive parents, the process that they had to go through meant that Canada still considered their adopted children to be less than fully their children. Still, our adopted children were expected to become Canadian citizens and live productive civic lives to the benefit of themselves, their families, and Canadian society in general. Recently, the Citizenship Act of 2007 resolved the long-standing issue of felt injustice for adoptive parents. The process that they had to undergo in order to obtain Canadian citizenship for their child was now closer to the automatic citizenship granted to children born to Canadian parents overseas by the introduction of the process of what now is called the direct citizenship route.

Thus it was with great enthusiasm that we welcomed this law that came into effect in December 2007, which at last recognized the equality of adopted children to birth children and gave them the right to apply for immediate citizenship. The prerequisites were simple. One of the parents needed to be a Canadian citizen, and the adoption had to be a legal adoption recognized by the Canadian province in which they were resident. The process was eagerly embraced by parents, and to date we as an agency have had some 100 children come to Canada under the new direct citizenship route, and perhaps 200 others in application for the process.

It came as a great shock and disappointment to learn that within months after the coming into force of this welcome new law, a bill was introduced, passed, and received royal assent, a bill that would take away the full privilege granted by the law of 2007 and create two tiers of citizenship. Any adopted child whose parents would follow the direct citizenship route would lose the right to pass on that citizenship under circumstances that were not extraordinary: giving birth to or adopting a child outside of Canada.

The unexpected attack on these children by the new legislation has somewhat stunned us. We feel that we have been misled and betrayed by the government, that our adoptive children are being unjustly and unfairly discriminated against. We firmly believe that these current prescriptions of the law are contrary to the rights of their parents as Canadian citizens. The recently implemented changes to the immigration legislation were made under circumstances that tend to make it more difficult to note, much less interpret, their far-reaching implications for adopted parents and children.

Thus, I am here to request that the Canadian Parliament rectify what we all hope was an inadvertent negative effect on the rights of adopted Canadians. The purported reason for this new law was in part to prevent generationally passing on Canadian citizenship to those who had no significant investment in the economic, cultural, and social life of this country. But in the case of adopted children, this is far from the truth. Such a child may come to Canada as an infant and a Canadian citizen, spend his or her childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood in Canada, and then for any number of reasons that could affect any of us, this young Canadian has a child outside of Canada and finds that this child is not to be considered a Canadian citizen, or worse, may find that the child is stateless. This is not only unjust, it is disrespectful and even cruel treatment of these children who have grown up as Canadian citizens trusting in fair treatment from their government. It makes them second-class citizens.

The impact of the new legislation is to threaten and restrict the activity of adopted children who will be in the active workforce within the next two decades. Under this new legislation, it would be ill-advised for children adopted by Canadian parents since April 17 to take jobs in Canadian corporations, universities, and educational institutions, NGOs, international organizations such as the UN, and other positions of significance in the world. Yet exceptions are made for diplomatic and military positions. If any of these people dare to take jobs overseas, move there temporarily, and either have or adopt a child while in that foreign country, their child will be deprived of his or her full citizenship rights. That is unfair, discriminatory, and arguably contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The new legislation creates two-tier citizenship in Canada, a concept that is repugnant to most Canadians.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Ms. Cavanaugh.

Mr. Nichols, you have up to five minutes.

10:05 a.m.

Allan Nichols Executive Director, Concerned Group Representative, Canadian Expat Association

Good morning.

My name is Allan Nichols. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Expat Association. I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear before you to speak about Bill C-37.

To place my comments in the proper context, I'd like to briefly tell you a bit about the Canadian Expat Association.

The association is a non-governmental, not-for-profit community linking all Canadians living abroad. Canadians can now connect through the association, regardless of where they work and live, wherever they are in the world. Since opening its doors in the summer of 2007, the Canadian Expat Association has offered opportunities for members, in both French and English, to play a key role in representing Canadian expats, who until now have had no collective voice.

The association provides a platform for Canadians so that they can have access to and network with established Canadian clubs and business organizations around the world. It provides Canadians with useful information and analysis to ease the transition when they move and live abroad or when they return home. It assists Canadian business organizations and NGOs in promoting their activities to Canadians around the world. It acts as an advocate, working in partnership with businesses, NGOs, and federal, provincial, and territorial governments to promote the value of Canadian expats and to highlight their cultural and economic contributions. The association works to develop and foster relationships and to build partnerships with these various actors.

The goal is to internationally promote Canada and its most valuable resource: its people. The association currently represents approximately 1,000 people and a number of leading Canadian businesses. Efforts are under way to actively build its membership and to expand its profile overseas and across Canada.

An estimated 2.7 million Canadians are living and working abroad, nearly 9% of the total population of Canada. In fact, billions of dollars in bilateral trade can be directly and indirectly attributed to these Canadian expats who are involved in businesses around the world. Canadian expats are recognized as being in some of the most successful and influential networks, and as a direct result of their efforts, Canada is benefiting economically, culturally, and politically.

Canadians living and working abroad are linguistically adept, culturally articulate, and internationally mobile. They represent all regions of Canada, and most still identify Canada as their home. The experiences, knowledge, and networks of contacts these Canadians bring back have great value and have a profound impact on the country and on the economy.

I would like to now focus my comments on Bill C-37. While the intention of the bill is to limit the granting of Canadian citizenship to those who may not have ties to this country, we feel that the bill can be improved upon so that Canadians with significant connections will still be recognized. Let me explain.

It is our understanding that the current bill potentially limits the freedom of Canadian citizens to pass on their heritage. As members of this committee are well aware, we live in a highly mobile world. Canadians are seeking and finding opportunities around the globe and are returning with significant skills and investment. However, these achievements could be limited if there were a possibility that future generations would not be eligible to claim their Canadian heritage.

Canadians who have children abroad now have to contend with the possibility that their grandchildren might not meet the requirements of Canadian citizenship. Let me give you an example. A person decides to work abroad and begins a new stage of life by starting a family. This person then returns and raises children in Canada. Those children grow up and are active individuals who contribute to Canadian society. However, the opportunities for those children could now be limited if they want to start their own families. The children, if born abroad, will not be granted Canadian citizenship.

While we agree with the intention of Bill C-37 to protect the value of Canadian citizenship, the example I have outlined is an unfortunate and unintended consequence. When approximately 2.7 million Canadians are living and working abroad and providing tangible benefits to Canada, it does not make economic or cultural sense to put a limit on the opportunities for future generations.

We would recommend as the solution what other countries have worked out. For instance, the United States and Australia have faced the same dilemma. Their solution was to establish a residency provision for those children born abroad. In essence, such provisions recognize de facto their established citizenship and do not take their birthplace into account when it comes to their own children. A solution such as this would satisfy the notion that these people have meaningful ties to Canada.

Once again, thank you for inviting me to Ottawa. I'd be glad to now answer any questions you may have.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Nichols.

We'll go to Ms. Forbes.

10:10 a.m.

Sandra Forbes Executive Director, Children's Bridge

I'll begin by saying that Children's Bridge is the largest international adoption agency in Canada. Our members were very encouraged when Bill C-14 was introduced, as it allowed their children to become Canadian citizens once the adoption was finalized. The majority of adoptees from abroad are under the age of three years old, and, as one father says, “My daughters are no longer Chinese citizens. Canadians are who they are.” Clearly they are not people who are Canadians of convenience.

At this point in time, the Children's Bridge has received the following expressions of concern from its members. There are different rules depending on how one became a citizen—in other words, there is a two-tiered citizenship process in Canada. Children born overseas who come to Canada through the citizenship route will not be able to pass their citizenship onto their children if their children are born outside of Canada. If these same children came to Canada via the sponsorship immigration process, they would be able to pass along their citizenship. A person born in Canada is able to pass on Canadian citizenship. It is understood that if one of the parents of a child born outside of Canada were a natural-born Canadian or a naturalized Canadian, then the child would be a citizen. These rules constitute discrimination and are a human rights issue. They thus will justify a constitutional challenge.

The idea of a two-tiered citizenship process is confirmed by the writing of the rules, which specifically identify adopted persons. This is a clear targeting of a specific group and grants fewer rights to this group than to other Canadians. It is difficult to see how specifying this group serves any intended purpose.

Some children could find themselves stateless if they were born in a country where citizenship was not granted to those born in a country to parents of a different nationality. Some examples are Switzerland and the Bahamas.

A few examples of the types of struggles our families are facing are below: Our family travels to Switzerland on business and it is real for our family that our grandchildren could become stateless.

Should I switch from the citizenship route for adoption to immigration? I phoned immigration and they told me they have never heard of this themselves.

Our children already face discrimination. They already need to integrate into a mixed race family and culture. When they grow up they will then find out that in fact their children do not have the same rights to citizenship as their nieces and nephews whose parents were born here.

We have two levels of citizenship in our own home. Some family members who were born in Canada and/or adopted domestically and other family members whose children could potentially become stateless or who may need to sponsor their own children to become Canadians.

The impact this is having on the adoption process is that families are not taking advantage of Bill C-14, although it was a very welcome piece of legislation when it was introduced. They're opting more often to go the sponsorship route. This route has much faster processing times and will allow their grandchildren, no matter where they are born or who the other birth parent is, to be Canadian citizens.

One may argue that the number of people affected in the future will be small. Within the adoption community, we have families who travel or who have homes overseas. Their children may be involved with trips back to their birth countries; these children may ultimately work outside of Canada; there are many scenarios. It is not at all inconceivable that they would marry someone not born in Canada or that they would not give birth outside of Canada, even though their ties to Canada are very strong and it remains their home.

The federal government has a responsibility to all its citizens. In trying to right a wrong, our children's children pay a sacred price: they could be stateless. We need to speak for our children, who are not old enough to speak for themselves. We also need to be a voice for families who are very concerned and confused at a time in their lives that's already stressful and full of anxiety as they prepare for international adoption.

For the adopted persons who come to Canada through the programs where adoptions are finalized in-country, we need to be assured by our government that their children and grandchildren will have the same rights to citizenship as their brothers and sisters who were born in Canada.

Thank you.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you very much, Ms. Forbes.

Ms. Pedersen, you have up to five minutes.

10:15 a.m.

Sarah Pedersen Acting Executive Director, Adoption Council of Canada

Let me start by saying that the Adoption Council of Canada is the only national organization representing the voices of adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive families across the country. We're thankful to have been invited today and to have been asked to share our concerns about how Bill C-37 affects the citizenship rights of adoptees.

We're concerned with the unanticipated impact of Bill C-37 as set out in the regulations. The new law that came into effect on April 17, 2009, limits Canadian citizenship to the first generation born to Canadian parents living outside of Canada. This law was supposed to streamline and simplify the citizenship process for internationally adopted children. Instead, this legislation takes away citizenship rights for some of these children. Adoptive parents across Canada are concerned that these regulations create two types of citizens with different rights, those who are adopted being relegated to an inferior class of citizenship under the bill.

The law was originally drafted to prevent Canadians of convenience--i.e., families who pass on citizenship over several generations without ever living in Canada. However, in attempting to solve this problem the government has created regulations that are confusing and create inequities for internationally adopted children.

Douglas Chalk, executive director of the Sunrise Adoption Centre and member of the Adoption Council of Canada states, and I quote:

...the government has reduced the citizenship rights of some internationally adopted children, and effectively created a lesser class of citizenship for them. Was this really necessary? It feels like a sledgehammer was used to kill a flea.

Sandra Scarth, president of the Adoption Council of Canada, also notes, and I quote, that “the original intent of the legislation as we understood it was to simplify the citizenship process to treat children adopted abroad more equitably” rather than create yet another inequity.

What upsets adopting parents most is the notion that their children will have a lesser class of citizenship. In effect, this law discriminates against children adopted internationally. Adoptive parents do not want to feel that their children are second-class citizens. Adoptive parents in Canada are losing their tolerance for being discriminated against. Resentment at the inherent discrimination against adopting families, which is built into the EI legislation, has been simmering for the past decade. Now these families face a new law that discriminates against their children.

The Adoption Council of Canada is dismayed that the provisions of the Citizenship Act, which came into effect in April, create two-tiered citizenship. Our adopted children, Canadian citizens who will have lived almost their entire lives in Canada, will not have the same rights as other citizens born in Canada, even those in their very own family. They will not be able to pass on their Canadian citizenship to any of their children who may be born abroad.

The Adoption Council of Canada urges the government to rethink these provisions and find a solution that does not limit the rights of citizenship for internationally adopted children.

Thank you.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Ms. Pedersen, for your presentation.

Mr. Bilski, you have up to five minutes.

June 11th, 2009 / 10:20 a.m.

Andrew Bilski Concerned adoptive parent, As an Individual

Good morning.

I'm an adoptive parent and a past board member of the Children's Bridge Foundation, which is the charitable arm of Children's Bridge.

I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak here today on a subject that's very important to me, my family, and thousands of other Canadian families with adopted children from other countries.

Canada, of course, is a nation of immigrants. Haitian-born Michaëlle Jean came here as a child refugee some 40 years ago, and now serves as Canada's 27th Governor General. Countless other immigrants, whether famous or not, have made significant contributions to their adopted country. They've served in Parliament, started companies, taught in schools, created art, policed our streets, grown our food and infrastructure, and raised civic-minded families.

I too immigrated here from the United States in 1976. To me, Canada represented multiculturalism, equality, justice, multi-party democracy, progressive social policy, and a voice of reason in an increasingly hostile world. I worked as a journalist here for nearly 30 years, and in that time I have never regretted my decision to become part of this great country. But lately I have been troubled by some aspects of Bill C-37, which ostensibly and laudably restores citizenship rights to so-called lost Canadians, but also perhaps unintentionally creates two-tiered Canadian citizenship.

My Canadian-born wife, Pamela, and I have two daughters. Bridget, born in Toronto in 1990, who will be entering her second year at the University of Western Ontario this September, and Nina, born in Zhangjiagang, China, in 1998, who is a grade five student at Clinton Street Junior Public School in Toronto. Nina, thankfully, is not subject to Bill C-37, and has the same citizenship rights as her Canadian-born sister.

I'm here today to speak for the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of other children who will not be so fortunate.

When Canadians adopt internationally, they give their children their surname, their love, their emotional and financial support, and their citizenship. With the passage of Bill C-37, however, thousands of foreign adopted children become second-class citizens. Unlike their Canadian-born siblings and friends, they've been stripped of the right to pass on Canadian citizenship to their own children born or adopted abroad.

To make matters worse, this deplorable situation seems to hinge on the mere method by which these foreign adopted children acquire Canadian citizenship in the first place. One group of children who come to Canada on a permanent resident visa and subsequently obtain citizenship through naturalization are not subject to Bill C-37. In other words, they're considered first-class citizens with the rights that most of us here enjoy. However, a second group that acquires citizenship by grant through direct route, the most popular method since December 2007, are subject to Bill C-37. In other words, they become second-class citizens with no right to pass on their Canadian citizenship to future generations born or adopted abroad.

My question is, why? What possible reason could the framers of this bill have to distinguish between these two groups of adopted children? Commenting on the intent of the bill, Canada's Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, Jason Kenney, has stated that the government wants to limit the right of citizenship to “those people who have some kind of enduring presence or commitment to Canada”.

If so, what's the evidence that the second group of children, the foreign adopted ones who acquired citizenship through the direct route, will not have an enduring presence or commitment to Canada? Are they more likely than other Canadians, such as Liberal Party of Canada Leader Michael Ignatieff, to live abroad for vast periods of their lives? Are they less likely than other Canadians, such as the 40% or so who don't even both to vote in federal elections, to be committed to this country?

I'd like to remind the committee that many countries, including China, revoke the citizenship of a child upon foreign adoption. If these adopted children are not Canadian, then what are they? Their only national allegiance is to their adopted country.

I've come here today to respectfully ask you to right this injustice. In attempting to bolster the value of Canadian citizenship, Bill C-37 diminishes the rights of many foreign-adopted children. In so doing, it tarnishes Canada's international reputation as a champion of human rights.