We didn't hear.... I wasn't on the committee listening to it last time, but it has come up in various provisions. I haven't heard any testimony from either the minister or other witnesses to date suggesting that this is needed. I'm going to assume that the minister didn't include it in the revised draft due to advice. I guess I want to ask a couple more questions with regard to what my colleague said.
As members of Parliament, we all have casework that comes into our offices, and the most difficult cases are often adoptions. They're often.... I've had a couple in my tenure as an MP in which I've had a couple who have gone abroad to adopt a child. They've worked through what they considered to be legitimate agencies. They've gone through all the processes, and then there are questions about the child's parentage and whether the child is who they say they are or has been, for lack of a better term, trafficked. Those are the most heart-breaking cases because they hurt everybody. In those cases, it's very difficult for the minister or for the Canadian government to intervene because, on one hand, you have a couple who have formed an attachment to a child and, on the other hand, you have a family who's had their child trafficked. In the middle, you have a child.
What I worry about if we move this with no testimony—the minister hasn't said that this is needed—and essentially outside of the advice of the department is that we're going to create a potential situation where a child who could be human-trafficked might automatically get Canadian citizenship, which creates a very difficult diplomatic situation. Would that be a concern that we would be correct to worry about?