Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-16, particularly as we begin the debate on the motions in Group No. 1.
First of all, I deplore the fact that we are here debating this bill at report stage while the minister is appearing before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. There is something rather odd about that. But, as parliamentarians, we must be flexible and we will adapt to these realities.
Several members of this Parliament, like my colleagues on the committee, will remember the battle I led in committee with regard to clause 8, particularly on April 11, 12 and 13. Those who read the minutes of proceedings from the committee will notice that I raised a number of concerns about clause 8, which deals with international adoption.
Legal counsels for the Department of Immigration were present at the time. They had the opportunity to provide their interpretation of the impact of clause 8, but I expressed a number of reservations.
Why so many reservations when it comes to international adoption? There are, basically, two reasons, three even. The first is that it must be kept in mind that this is primarily a provincial area of jurisdiction, particularly in Quebec. The entire issue of international adoption comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec. I had indicated at that time in connection with this that, as long as there was no amendment to confirm Quebec's jurisdiction, it was clear that we would be bringing in amendments to clause 8.
At that time I said that I was concerned enough to think twice about supporting Bill C-16. On April 12, I raised my first question and expressed my first concern.
The second concern I expressed to the Immigration Canada legal adviser involved the specific nature of Quebec and one of the things that distinguishes it, namely the Civil Code, which is not, unfortunately, taken into consideration in Bill C-16, particularly in clause 8. I therefore expressed a second concern: the fact that the bill did not take the Civil Code into consideration.
My third area of concern was the discrimination I feel will affect Quebec children, and of course Quebec parents, during the processing of the adoption.
I must point out first of all that, under its legislation, Quebec is responsible for adoption, which is allowed only once the process is complete. The process is complete when the child arrives here in Canada, and more specifically on the territory of Quebec, and when a Quebec court hands down a decision. That is part of the system, of the reality and of the distinct nature of Quebec.
However, the bill, as it is worded, states that the adoption will be complete once the following criterion has been met, that the adoption “was in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen”.
Clause 8 of the bill has a direct effect, because we think it discriminates to some extent against the children and the parents of Quebec. We also feel that there is some loss of benefits for the children and the parents. It is clear, moreover, that Quebec parents will not benefit, as will parents in the rest of Canada who decide to adopt abroad, from the same rights and benefits.
This amendment is fair, because I had already made the committee aware of it, on April 13. The deputy minister was in attendance at the hearings, and I was assured there would be bilateral negotiations, that Quebec's views, the Civil Code and Quebec's jurisdiction in the area of international adoptions would be respected.
The department's legal counsel went even further addressing this issue of bilateral work. It was not new. I remind the House that the international adoption secretariat, especially for Quebec, had made requests. It had indicated that it hoped bilateral work would be undertaken so that Quebec would be consulted in the various stages of the process, before the federal government granted citizenship.
It is not new. The minister woke up and her officials woke up two weeks before the passage of this bill, when the Bloc Quebecois said in committee that there was a problem. So things had to be activated and negotiations initiated.
Quebec gave negotiations a chance. As late as yesterday, the deputy ministers were talking. They wanted amendments to be made, they wanted the government to respond to the wishes expressed by the Government of Quebec so that Bill C-16 could conform to the Quebec Civil Code and the Quebec reality.
Now, close to 12 hours after these negotiations have failed, we have no other option. In committee, I told the minister that I would be patient and that I would not propose amendments. I said we would give bilateral negotiations a chance.
As members know, it is sometimes better to have a negotiated solution than direct proposals. Today, we have no alternative but to present this motion at report stage. That motion, which seeks to amend clause 8, reads as follows:
For greater certainty, the Province of Quebec shall continue to have full jurisdiction in respect of international adoptions, including the acceptance of any psychosocial assessment of adoptive parents and the issue of a letter of no objection to the adoption of a child.
We also proposed the following:
The Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a minor child adopted outside Canada by a citizen domiciled or ordinarily resident in Quebec, although the adoption procedure has not yet been completed in accordance with the laws of Quebec, if a ) the adoption is not intended to circumvent the requirements under any enactment for admission to Canada or citizenship; and b ) the adoption proposal has been approved by the administrative authority designated for that purpose by the minister of the government of Quebec responsible for international adoptions.
The amendment that we are proposing has already been submitted to the deputy minister. It was also communicated to the Minister of Immigration very recently, on May 9, in a letter from Minister Robert Perreault.
It is our hope that, even though negotiations have failed, the government will support this amendment, which only seeks to ensure respect of Quebec's Civil Code.