L055b - Wed 4 Nov 1998 / Mer 4 Nov 1998 1
INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE
The House met at 1832.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE
Mr Klees, on behalf of Mrs Ecker, moved second reading of Bill 72, An Act to govern intercountry adoptions and to implement the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in order to further the best interests of children / Projet de loi 72, Loi visant à régir les adoptions internationales et à mettre en oeuvre la Convention sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale afin de favoriser l'intérêt véritable des enfants.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'd like to share my time with the members for Wentworth North and Lincoln.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.
Mr Klees: I'm pleased to open debate on Bill 72. This legislation has two purposes: It provides a framework for safeguarding the rights and best interests of children and families involved in intercountry adoptions and it implements the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption in Ontario.
I know that all members will agree there is nothing more important to a child than a permanent loving family. For many children, that family can only be found through adoption. Increasingly in Ontario, many of these adoptions are from other countries. In 1996, Ontario had 588 intercountry adoptions, which was roughly 30% of the Canadian total for that year.
While many intercountry adoptions proceed smoothly, the process is often complex and frustrating for those involved. Experience over the years has shown that intercountry adoption presents opportunities for exploitation of both children and families. These include the kidnapping of children, illegal payments to buy children and the falsification of birth parent consents and other adoption documents.
Children adopted from other countries are often particularly vulnerable because of other challenges. Many are under the age of five years or have had a difficult early history of institutional care. Some have been orphaned at an early age and have spent time in refugee camps or have special medical or emotional needs. Other children often experience culture shock when moving from one country to another.
All these concerns led Canada and 65 other countries in 1993 to negotiate and endorse the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. This is an international framework for co-operation between countries. It prevents underground market activity and protects children, their families and adoptive families from being exploited in the intercountry adoption process.
While Canada signed the convention in 1993, it is necessary for each province and territory to pass legislation to implement the treaty within their respective jurisdictions. To date, nine provinces and territories have either implemented the convention or plan to do so by the end of the year.
Other countries are also moving to implement the convention. Twenty-five of 66 signatory countries have completed this step and there's a growing likelihood that some of those countries could stop allowing adoptions by Ontario residents until Ontario also implements the convention.
For example, a number of Ontario families experienced delays in completing the adoption of Romanian children earlier this year when Romania changed its adoption laws. Romania will not permit any further adoptions by Ontario residents until Ontario implements the convention.
I know a number of members in the House received calls from families who were very anxious about being able to proceed with their adoption process. There were a number of families who expressed their great concern because the fact that Ontario was not party to the convention was standing in the way. We were able at that time to ensure that at least those adoptions were proceeded with. We are now addressing the underlying problem by addressing this piece of legislation.
There's a second compelling reason for this legislation. The Child and Family Services Act currently applies only to adoptions that are completed in Ontario through an Ontario court. This means that at present we do not have the authority to safeguard the rights and best interests of children and of families if the adoption is completed outside of Ontario.
There's another important factor that we've taken into account in drafting this legislation. In 1997, over 80% of the intercountry adoptions by Ontario residents involved children from countries that have not yet implemented the convention. I'm pleased to advise members that Bill 72 addresses both of these issues. First, it would establish provincial requirements for all intercountry adoptions completed in other countries, whether those countries have implemented the convention or not. Second, it would implement the Hague convention on intercountry adoption in Ontario.
I'd like to outline a number of important advantages provided by this legislation.
The first is the protection of children. Ontario is not able to dictate or limit adoption laws in other countries, but when the safety, security and well-being of children is at stake, we can, indeed we must, establish the legal requirements that must be met at least within this province's jurisdiction.
The proposed legislation would enable Ontario to comply with the Hague convention and establish the requirements then that must be met in Ontario. For example, under the proposed requirements families seeking to adopt a child from another country would need to submit an application, prove their eligibility and suitability and obtain the approval of both countries for the proposed adoption. Under the proposed legislation, these provisions would apply to all intercountry adoptions to ensure that children, birth families and the adoptive parents are not being exploited.
Let me give an example of the kind of problem that this act will address. Currently, a number of countries will approve adoptions without ensuring that an assessment of the adoptive parents is completed in Ontario. The Child and Family Services Act does not give us the authority in Ontario to review such cases. Sometimes, however, problems come to light following the adoption. I have an example that I believe focuses on the need for the quick passage of the legislation before us today.
An Ontario couple who wished to adopt two children from Mexico was refused a letter of recommendation from the Ontario government because of a number of concerns about the suitability of the adoptive parents. For one thing, it was learned that one of the applicants had been fired from their job for mistreating children. The adoption went ahead anyway, and several years later the children were removed from that home by the local children's aid society because of abuse by the adoptive parents. Today the children are wards of the crown and are in the foster care of this government.
That's one sad example of what can happen, the implication for the children and society in general when we don't have the protections in place. Bill 72 would make it an offence for adoptive parents to complete an adoption abroad without approval of their eligibility and suitability to adopt.
1840
The second advantage of Bill 72 is that it would enable us to extend regulation to private intercountry adoption facilitators. Again, the current Child and Family Services Act does not provide authorization to license, monitor or regulate these individuals or organizations.
While many of these individuals and organizations are competent, we have received a number of complaints about some facilitators who do not appear to operate in an ethical manner. These complaints include unfamiliarity with the adoption laws of the child's country, failure to deliver on promised services, charging exorbitant fees and making illegal payments, and falsification of parental consents and other key documents.
In one specific incident, an Ontario adoption facilitator arranged for a couple to adopt a child from Russia. The facilitator told the couple that the child had club feet, although Russian medical reports were not provided. The couple understood that club feet could be a minor medical issue, corrected through simple surgery. In fact, the child had major medical problems and required more than 20 operations. The child will never walk again.
Fortunately, the child's adoptive parents are fully committed to him. Nonetheless, they believe that Russian medical reports may have been withheld so that the adoption would proceed. This is the kind of protection that this legislation will address, to ensure that there is full disclosure around the adoption process. These parents may never know the truth of the matter, since the facilitator left Canada with money owing to a number of prospective adoptive parents.
The adoption process is a difficult one at the best of times. It creates tremendous emotional turmoil for the adoptive parents, and I believe that we in this province owe it to prospective adoptive parents to ensure that, as they go through the process of adoption, they are protected and also that the process can be made as smooth as possible, with as little red tape as possible, so that the child as well as the adoptive parents can get on with their lives.
I'd like to give you another example of what can go wrong under the current circumstances when we don't have the appropriate legislation in place. An Ontario-based, unlicensed adoption facilitator obtained over US$25,000 from a couple with the promise that they could adopt a baby from Croatia. Working with the RCMP and Interpol, MCSS staff determined that pregnant women from several impoverished eastern European countries were being paid to travel to Croatia to have their babies. The infants would then be adopted by childless couples in North America, at considerable profit.
Partly based on information supplied by Ontario, Croatian authorities made arrests and the adoption ring was broken up. However, some of the children were smuggled into Hungary. The Ontario adoption facilitator persuaded the prospective adoptive mother to travel to Hungary, where she cared for the baby for a number of weeks and became attached to him before he was apprehended by Hungarian child welfare authorities for return to his birth family. The facilitator could not be held accountable for involvement in this baby-selling ring. The Ontario family lost their money and the child. Other Ontario families lost large amounts of money as well.
The new Intercountry Adoption Act would require that all intercountry adoption facilitators be licensed and that they meet a number of criteria regarding their competence, experience and training. Licensees will also be monitored by the province to ensure compliance with the legislation and regulation. Upon implementation of the legislation before us, the kind of circumstances that I described can no longer happen. It will put us in control and will ensure that there are safeguards in place, as I indicated earlier, both for the adoptive parents and the child.
The proposed legislation would provide authorization to set specific criteria requiring private adoption facilitators to be competent, experienced and knowledgeable and for their activities to be monitored on an ongoing basis. These provisions should significantly reduce the incidence of these abuses and ensure that they do not contribute to delays in the process through lack of knowledge of the adoption process or requirements of other countries.
There are additional safeguards included in Bill 72 related to services for which a fee can be charged or paid. Intercountry adoption facilitators will not be permitted to charge, nor adoption applicants to pay, for services that are not listed in the regulations under the act. At the same time, there will be no prohibition against payments within the child's country as long as such payments are legal in that jurisdiction.
Finally, this legislation will enable us to respond more quickly to evolving adoption requirements in other countries. These often change while intercountry adoption is underway, leading to delays and frustration for all concerned.
This government believes that Ontario residents who open their hearts and their homes to intercountry adoptions deserve support and encouragement. The legislation we are considering today does just that. It provides comprehensive solutions to the challenges presented by intercountry adoptions. It enshrines the principle of the child's best interests in all intercountry adoptions, whether they involve convention or non-convention countries. It would introduce a fair, consistent and standardized system for all intercountry adoptions.
By implementing the Hague convention on intercountry adoption, Ontario is removing the future possibility of Ontario residents being denied adoptions from countries that have signed the convention. The proposed act protects children and supports families involved in intercountry adoptions. It would provide a framework for safeguarding the rights of children, birth parents and adoptive parents.
Last week the Minister of Community and Social Services, Janet Ecker, introduced two new pieces of legislation: the Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Child Welfare Reform), 1998, and the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, 1998. Those acts, combined with the Intercountry Adoption Act, represent three important additions to our step-by-step approach to protecting vulnerable children and supporting the families of this province.
In the course of leading up to the introduction of this legislation, I know, as I mentioned earlier, that all members of the House have heard from people across the province. I have had a number of meetings with representatives from various agencies who have urged the government to move forward. I believe that there is generally all-party support for the initiative that we're bringing forward to the House today. We want to express our appreciation to all members of the House who have supported the intention of the government to bring this forward, and I believe we can have quick passage of this bill.
I want to pay tribute as well to the many residents of Ontario who have taken a personal interest in this issue. I have had occasion to meet with many individuals who, in most cases through their own personal experience of going through the adoption process, have become actively involved in trying to ensure that the process will be a much easier one and a much more reliable one for others; to make it better for others than perhaps the experience they themselves have had.
1850
One individual to whom I owe a great deal for bringing me a great deal of information and knowledge on this issue is Allison Pentland-Folk, who has been fighting for changes to Ontario's legislation for some five years. She and her husband have gone through the process; I believe they adopted children from Romania. I'm encouraged by her reaction to the tabling of this legislation. She recently said in an interview that she believes that the step the government is taking with regard to presenting this legislation is a very positive one, it will serve the community very well - that is, the adoption community - it will provide the kind of guidance that is necessary.
She made reference to the kinds of circumstances that can happen. She described an example of several Canadian families who were adopting last year from Sierra Leone. As you know, there was a coup there. The children who were involved in that process were not officially adopted, so the parents couldn't bring those children home. The province didn't know under those circumstances, because we didn't have a framework, what to do. It's those kinds of circumstances that this legislation will clarify. We will avoid the kind of frustration that many parents have experienced over the last number of years.
I'd like to take this opportunity to address the issue of adoption. I do not believe that enough is being done in this province to make the option of adoption available or to raise the issue of adoption as an option for young women who find themselves pregnant and would prefer to find homes for those children. Adoption is an option that I believe young women in this province would perhaps choose. I think we as a province have a responsibility to ensure that our young people are fully aware of the advantages of adoption, are fully aware of what they need to do and where they can go in this province to seek out counselling with regard to the adoption option.
I appreciate having had an opportunity to speak to this issue, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues as they address this issue as well.
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I as well have the privilege of speaking to this legislation. I'd like to start with a quote from the Minister of Community and Social Services. It's from a press release. Often when you see this type of quote it's rhetoric, but in this case I know for sure that the minister, through her actions with me personally, which I'll allude to in a minute, means this. Words, in politics especially, are cheap, but actions are quite different. Through her actions, Minister Ecker has proved to me, and I hope to prove to the members of the Legislature and the public at large, that she really means what she says in this instance. She was quoted in the press release as saying:
"With this legislation we would be able to make sure that the best interests of the child are our first priority during adoptions. The Intercountry Adoption Act is part of the government's step-by-step approach to protect children from harm and to support families."
I had a personal instance where a constituent in my area had adopted a number of Romanian children. When they were over here, after a period of time they discovered through a facilitator from Romania that there was another child, a brother, in another orphanage whom somehow no one seemed to know anything about. They were assured that this was a bona fide brother and a sibling of the children they had adopted. This caused them great concern and they wanted to complete the family and adopt this boy as well, but they found, as they proceeded, that they were met with one roadblock after another. Some came from Romania and some came from the internal bureaucracy.
When the parents would run into what they saw to be an impassable roadblock, they would approach me and indicate that they felt this could not happen. I would approach the minister and indicate to her the development, and she immediately on each and every occasion - and this must have happened perhaps a dozen times in the last year. Again, some of the problems were with the bureaucracy in Romania and some were here, but each time she intervened and made sure that the roadblock the parents were facing was removed. They have now all been removed and just today, shortly before I stood up to speak, I spoke with the father, He is immensely pleased with the fact that he's going to Romania in early December, next month, to adopt the remaining member of their family and is very grateful to the minister for her actions and indicated to me that he felt that without her interest this would not have happened.
The minister, through her actions, has shown that she means exactly what she says when she says that the interests of the child are paramount and that the interest of both herself and the government is to protect children and families as far as can possibly be done.
I would like to talk about some of the background to this act. If I could refer to some statistics, in 1996 Citizenship and Immigration Canada indicated that there were about 588 international adoptions involving Ontario residents. That was about 30% of the Canadian total. The Hague convention, which has been referred to by my friend from York, indicates that a co-operative framework was developed and finalized on May 20, 1993. Here we are almost in 1999 and no legislative action has been taken. It's clear that it's long past due that the government of the day acts. Again, I'm appreciative to Minister Ecker for her actions in this regard and for bringing this legislation into reality.
The Hague convention establishes a co-operative framework between countries of origin of children available for adoption and the receiving countries of those children in order to protect children, birth and adoptive parents from abuse and exploitation. For example, a black market has developed in many countries with reference to adoption and to the selling of children in a slavery market.
As of August 1998, 25 countries have implemented the convention, including Canada. Seven provinces in Canada have implemented the convention that we're joining and I believe we're now the ninth province to have done so.
The Child and Family Services Act currently recognizes that adoptions completed according to the laws of another jurisdiction have the same effect in Ontario as an adoption completed here. However, the act does not currently give the ministry the authority to license or regulate adoption services provided in connection with an adoption completed in another jurisdiction. Ontario therefore is unable to implement a number of provisions of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption.
As Minister Ecker alluded to in her press release, the Hague convention, while it's important and outlines a number of important rules with reference to and provides a framework for intercountry adoption of children, does not apply in most intercountry adoptions currently taking place in Ontario. About 80% of intercountry adoptions by Ontario residents currently involve countries which have not implemented the convention. The government therefore wants to establish safeguards that ensure the best interests of all children, regardless of whether the countries involved are signatories to the Hague convention or not.
The bill is going to accomplish the objective of providing a better framework for adoptions by doing a number of things. It's going to establish provincial requirements for all intercountry adoptions completed in other countries, regardless again, as I've indicated, of whether they have implemented the Hague convention on intercountry adoption or not. Also, it implements the Hague convention on intercountry adoption in this province.
1900
My friend and colleague from York-Mackenzie indicated that there were a number of problems worldwide with reference to adoptions and he referred to a couple of examples, and I have a couple as well that I would like to refer to. These examples illustrate and underline the need for this type of legislation and the fact that it's long overdue.
The first example I'd like to refer to is an Ontario example of a couple working to try to adopt two siblings from Russia. An Ontario-based adoption facilitator with no background in child development or social work was retained by the couple. They arranged for the couple to adopt two siblings from Russia. Due to the limitations of the current Ontario law, the ministry was not involved in approving the match and had no knowledge of the children proposed for adoption.
It was reported that the facilitator told the family the children had been institutionalized for only a short time and were well adjusted. In fact, these children came from abusive backgrounds and were quite disturbed. The adoptions broke down within a year and the children became crown wards. The new legislation would help to alleviate this type of situation by ensuring that facilitators are licensed and qualified to provide services and advice.
Another example I'd like to refer to involved an Ontario individual with no knowledge of adoption, child development or social work. This person set up an agency specializing in adoptions from China. The individual made claims about connections in China and made claims about his abilities to obtain younger and healthier children faster than other facilitators. These claims had no basis in fact. Several dozen Ontario families paid the facilitator to help them to adopt children from China. The facilitator has since disappeared along with the funds that were provided to him. The families had to switch to other facilitators and had to start the process all over again. The new Intercountry Adoption Act would require that all persons facilitating intercountry adoptions be licensed and monitored.
I'd just like to give an outline of the act and refer to some of the provisions in the overall skeleton framework of the act itself.
The act, as has been previously mentioned by myself and my colleague from York-Mackenzie, will implement the Hague convention, which was agreed to by a number of countries in 1993. The sections will indicate that the Hague convention will have the force of law in this province. The provisions that implement the convention will also address a number of other matters and will include the notification of other countries and the Ontario public of the implementation of the convention in Ontario; the date upon which the convention becomes law in Ontario; the application of the laws of Ontario and the convention; and the designation of the central authority for Ontario.
This will mean that families who are trying to adopt will have an easier time doing so from countries such as Romania and others internationally.
The act goes on that before leaving Ontario for the purpose of an intercountry adoption or finalizing an intercountry adoption, a person must make an application, obtain an adoption home study assessing their eligibility and suitability to adopt, and obtain approval based on the home study report. This is obviously designed to reassure the country where the child is based that it is going to a good home in Ontario and that, once the child is adopted, it will be in a safe and comforting atmosphere.
With reference to the approval of the proposed adoption, when requested by the child's country of origin the proposed adoption will be reviewed by the ministry and approved with conditions or refused. There's an appeal procedure provided by the act and it indicates that the applicant has a right to appeal a decision regarding the proposed adoption to the Child and Family Services Review Board. There are provisions in the act then to make sure that the child is going to a safe, comforting home. As well, it has safeguard provisions. In case an individual here feels they're aggrieved, they can appeal to get the approval they're seeking.
The act will also confer authority to share relevant information concerning an application, a home study or a proposed adoption with reference to a number of matters. They include the authorities responsible for adoption matters, child welfare, justice and law enforcement, and the child's country of origin. The information that will be shared will be information available to the government of Canada and its agencies and contained there, information available to and contained in the governments of other Canadian provinces and by persons prescribed in the regulations of the act.
The act also outlines a procedure for licensing and hearings. This section would establish that no person, except the director or a licensee, can facilitate an intercountry adoption and would set out the licensing process and requirements. This obviously then would seriously hamper scam artists who would seek to profit by being involved in outright fraud, such as the examples I alluded to earlier where money was taken from families by facilitators who were unlicensed and really had no expertise and then would disappear afterwards. That's out-and-out fraud. It also goes further to provide an outline of the type of application process or requirement that a facilitator would have to go through so that the public could be assured that a facilitator has the expertise and also the credibility and is an honest person who will do what he says.
The provisions for licensing and hearings would address the application process, the requirements for a facilitator, the procedure for issuing and renewing a licence, the grounds for refusing or revoking a licence and suspension of a licence. There's also an appeal process involved in case somebody has a licence that's refused or revoked.
There are a number of offences that are outlined in the act. Certain activities are punishable by fine and/or incarceration. They include the giving or receiving of payments or rewards in connection with an intercountry adoption or proposed intercountry adoption. Another activity which is punishable on conviction by fine or incarceration would be to leave the country for the purposes of pursuing or finalizing an intercountry adoption without an application, a home study or approval of the person's eligibility and suitability to adopt. Providing false information on an application for a licence or a report would attract a fine and probably an incarceration in many instances. There are a number of other offences outlined as well.
The act has some general provisions involving the freedom of information and provides for regulations to come into force and to be approved by cabinet.
In conclusion, this act provides safeguards for both the child in another country that is proposed to be adopted and also potential families that wish to adopt overseas. It provides them with safeguards and procedures that they can go to if they wish to adopt children.
As I indicated from my own personal experience, there was no regulatory framework. The family I dealt with was just beside themselves with frustration at times. If it hadn't been for the diligence and the caring of the minister, they're convinced that they would never have been able to adopt the boy they found out was a member of their family in Romania. As I indicated, that boy is coming over here in December. The family is very appreciative of the minister for her caring, for her very vigilant actions when being informed there was a problem. This act will ensure that there is a regulatory procedure that will assist future families who find themselves in similar difficulties.
In conclusion, I am proud to speak on behalf of this legislation. I just wish to underline again the appreciation that my constituents wish to forward to the members of the House and to the minister in particular for her actions and for her caring in bringing a member of their family over to Canada and enriching the quality of both that boy's life and the family's life.
1910
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): My first contact with the problem of intercountry adoptions occurred when a friend of mine named Bill Smiley gave me a call and outlined the problem his daughter was experiencing. She had adopted a child from Romania in 1994 and it was such a successful arrangement that they put out for another adoption, at which point in time the bureaucratic process came full front and centre. Ontario's failure to adopt the Hague convention brought the whole adoption process to a screaming halt.
I'd like to talk for a few minutes about my friend Bill Smiley, who had a lifetime of experience with the family and children's services. Bill was a lifelong resident of St Catharines. He was born in the old town of Port Dalhousie. He went to the local schools and graduated from St Catharines Collegiate Institute and Vocational School.
He trained as a chartered accountant under the old style, no college degrees; he just went right from high school into the apprenticeship program with the old firm of Pollock, Little and Co. After he had completed his studies, he learned the bureaucratic side of the tax process by working for Revenue Canada. It took us a while to overcome that but we forgave him for that. He formed a partnership with a high school friend, Ron Scott, and that evolved into a partnership which ultimately was called Smiley, Scott and Ralph, which went through successive mergers through Touche Ross and KPMG.
He was a lifelong member of Henley Aquatic and Rowing and a great supporter of that organization. He was a member of St John's Anglican Church in Port Dalhousie and also a member of the Anglican Diocese of Niagara's finance committee for over 24 years.
As I said earlier, he served on the family and children's services for over 28 years and served many terms as president with considerable distinction. He was a long-time member of the St Catharines Old Boys' Hockey League, and a pretty good curler, if I recall. In fact, he was an all-round good athlete.
He retired at age 65, about eight years ago, after a bout with cancer. Just to demonstrate his indomitable spirit, after he got through with all the treatment, he took up downhill skiing and tennis, and Angus Verge, his long-time friend, said he was pretty good at it.
He was known as an independent thinker. He stuck to his principles, and notwithstanding that, he was still able to make the compromises that were necessary to make life in St Catharines a little easier.
I've known Bill and Ron Scott for over 35 years. In fact, they were my father's accountants for most of his life. There's a rather funny story about my father, who was a big, gruff old Irishman. He needed some advice and Smiley was away on a holiday. He called and they said, "Perhaps Mr Scott can help you," and he said: "Oh, I don't think so. I don't think he'd be able to handle this." My father was a small businessman and very few things would be that damned hard to handle.
Bill died two weeks ago, very tragically. He was doing his own work around the house, fell off a ladder while he was cleaning a trough, landed on the patio, and after about two days they thought it was time to let him go. He is survived by his wife of 48 years, Hazel, three children and four grandchildren, two of whom are adopted.
I have to congratulate Minister Ecker for what she has done because, like the member for Wentworth North, Minister Ecker was the facilitator in Smiley's daughter's second adoption. She helped smooth out the road and make the thing work. It took a lot of time, a lot of effort, and I think the biggest thing the minister has done is to bring forward this bill.
The bill does an excellent job in setting out the problem and describing in detail how this thing is going to work out. The member from York did an outstanding job, I thought, on detailing it, as did Mr Skarica. But some points that were missed were that it had to be consistent and fair and standardize the procedures. It describes what was meant by "suitability and eligibility to adopt" and who would determine it. MCSS has developed guidelines for the assessment of the adoption applicants pursuing private and domestic adoptions. They assess the overall readiness and the ability of parents to adopt a child. Home study assists in making the adoption placement that is in the best interests of the child.
I've raised seven children, and assessing the skills and the abilities and the acceptance level, whether or not to accept the child, is important. These guidelines are based on many years of experience in the adoption process. Some of the criteria that are fundamental, I guess, include a criminal check, medical reports and health information on each applicant, the spousal relationship, if there is one, motivation for adoption and preparation for adoption parenting, acceptance of the biological and genetic history of the child, an individual's and/or couple's strengths and weaknesses.
Social workers prepare the home study report to make these recommendations regarding eligibility and suitability. If the minister refuses to approve the eligibility and suitability of the adoption or adoption match proposed by another country, the ministry has provisions for adapting to that. If implemented, the Intercountry Adoption Act will introduce common sets of adoption requirements and systems regulating and monitoring the delivery of the intercountry adoption services.
Intercountry adoptions that are already in progress will not be affected by this when the bill comes into effect. Intercountry adoptions which would not have to comply with the new act are applications to adopt that have been made to the child's country of origin, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the National Adoption Desk. The child is then placed with the adoptive parents when the consents and approvals necessary for the adoption have been given.
Will the implementation of the Intercountry Adoption Act result in delays? We don't think so, because we've anticipated the implementation of the convention and it should reduce the number of days that people have to wait.
Will the legislation affect the operation of intercountry adoption facilitators? Yes, I guess it will because currently they're not regulated. Under this legislation the facilitator will require a licence to provide those intercountry adoption services which will be outlined in the regulations. These include taking the adoption application, assisting with the approval of a proposed adoption match and assisting with the process of arranging the child's entry into Canada. We're not proposing licensing requirements for persons or organizations providing services not directly related to adoption.
I have to congratulate the members of the opposition because they have readily accepted the necessity for and the merits of this bill. I think that's an important thing. I heartily support this bill and I recommend it for your consideration.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): This is a good day for the province of Ontario, for those parents and those men and women who are interested in adopting a child, particularly from a foreign country.
I must admit, though, that I'm a little bit disturbed by the fact that no credit has been given to the member for Lawrence, who this year first introduced a private bill back in May to try to get the province to accept the Hague convention, and then went further, on October 1, with a private member's bill requesting the same thing.
I know that sometimes it's difficult to give other members credit in this House for actually coming up with an idea, but I think it was his persistence and perseverance that caused the minister to change her mind and now bring forward exactly what he has been talking about for the last eight or nine months. Indeed, there may have been others in the House as well. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and certainly the member for Lawrence deserves an awful lot of credit for bringing this to the attention of the House and bringing the matter to debate in the House, during both the public and private members' sessions that we've had on this.
I think the member ought to be given an awful lot of credit for in effect changing the mind of the Minister of Community and Social Services on this matter, because when he spoke about it last October 1 it was indicated that although the government accepted it in principle, they were not prepared to move ahead with it since it would only affect something like 20% of the intercountry adoptions. I'm glad the government has changed its mind on that, so it can make the lives of so many other Ontarians happier by their ability to adopt from across the world.
1920
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I listened to the members of the Conservative Party in their presentations and I want to say that, frankly, I don't think this is the time for claiming credit around the House. All members of the House, I hope, certainly members of all three parties, are in support of this legislation. That's because all of us recognize that this is a growing trend, that there can be serious difficulties involved in intercountry adoptions, that there needs to be regulation, that regulation can in fact help people. As long as there are adequate resources provided to the ministry to implement the regulations once the legislation is in place, there should not be increased bureaucracy but rather it should protect the children and the prospective adoptive families.
I think the reason most members of the House will support this legislation is because it is not a partisan issue. This is a matter that responds to a perceived and important need of a certain segment of the population. It makes it possible for children who might not otherwise have had the opportunity to grow up in a loving family relationship, an opportunity that many of their other friends and relatives in their own countries probably will envy a great deal. The reason we all support it is, I hope, because all of us care about the children, want to protect them and care about the families who want to adopt them.
Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): I'd like to congratulate all those who have participated in the debate so far tonight. We've heard examples from some of these members who have spoken tonight about some of the problems that have arisen as a result of the lack of proper regulation or licensing or whatever. Adoptions of any kind, of course, should always be a happy occasion. They should be happy not only for the children but also for the adoptive parents. As Mr Wildman has said, it should be a matter of happiness, for love and family.
I can't help but say that this piece of legislation is long overdue. I'm very proud to be a part of this House tonight, where we can help some children in the world, and indeed help those who will adopt them and welcome them.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): One of the things I've noticed about the change in rules is that it doesn't even allow enough time for the government members to say everything they'd like to, because if they had the time, they would have been offering their congratulations to the members of the Liberal caucus, specifically the member for Lawrence, Joe Cordiano, who on two occasions has placed legislation before this House and had it debated just a short time ago, prompting the minister to take the action that she has.
I know the only reason they didn't want to share with the New Democrats who played a role in it and the Liberals who played a role in it was that there wasn't enough time. I've come to that conclusion. I know they're big enough on the other side of the House to extend to the opposition parties the courtesy of recognizing that they were the ones who prompted the government at long last to take this action, so I will plead again to have the amount of time extended so they can continue to do so. We have now a consensus that has developed. Occasionally we see this in the House, where representatives of the three parties see a problem that exists and try to each in their own way work towards the resolution of the problems that confront us in that field, and this has been one of those cases.
I noted as well that they didn't have time - I thought the member for York-Mackenzie would mention the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and the need to keep the Hotel Dieu Hospital open, because we have three representatives who were on the steps of the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines pleading for it to stay open. I know the member for York-Mackenzie would want to join us in that particular effort, now that the Premier has admitted that he doesn't intend to keep his promise not to close hospitals in the province.
The Acting Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie, you have two minutes.
Mr Klees: I know even with a piece of legislation like this the Liberals simply cannot help themselves from making this into a partisan discussion. We recognize full well that the member for Lawrence brought forward the private member's bill. Unfortunately, his bill only encompassed fewer than 20% of intercountry adoptions, because it only covered the Hague convention. We voted in favour of that in principle, but I wish that this evening members opposite in the Liberal Party could have withheld for once their political bent and come together on a non-partisan basis to celebrate this legislation.
What I will do, however, is give a great deal of credit to the member for Algoma, who as a member of the Legislature advocated for precisely this kind of legislation that was all-encompassing. I didn't hear him stand up and call for accolades this evening, because I believe he knows that he did in his place as a member of the Legislature what needed to be done to forward this very important piece of legislation.
I say to the people of this province, we are here today to pass a piece of legislation that is truly in the best interests of children and families in the province of Ontario. For once we will come together and do the right thing, and we will accept that members of the Liberal Party simply cannot resist making even the purest piece of legislation into a political bandwagon. It's unfortunate.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very happy to speak on this issue, a very important piece of legislation that is before us that, yes, I have advocated for. I'm glad to have this opportunity, because I want to talk about some of the things that members have been alluding to with respect to this legislation going further than the Hague convention. In fact, let me start by congratulating all members of the House, because this is one of those times when all of us can take some pride in the fact that we've all worked together on it. I want to congratulate the minister - yes, I'll do that, on one of the rare occasions that is possible - to say that she has brought forward a piece of legislation that we can all support. I want to also thank and congratulate the member for Algoma for his part, and all members for participating in the drafting of this legislation.
Do you know what I want to say? I know the members opposite will say this is partisan, but it's not. There are some very critical factors that led to this legislation being written the way it was. I also want to point out that the minister, notwithstanding that this legislation has come forward at this time, which I fully support, has also not fully stated what I think are the facts in this case, and the members opposite haven't done so. This legislation, or in fact the legislation that I proposed, the stand-alone legislation, could have been passed some many months ago when I first introduced this. This should have been done a lot sooner than that.
1930
I want to talk about the Hague convention. The Hague convention, as everyone has pointed out, is in the interests of protecting children. It attempts to implement provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sixty-six states have participated in the drafting of this convention and to date over 33 countries have signed it and 25 have ratified it, and the numbers keep growing as we speak.
I also want to inform members that Canada signed the convention back in 1994 and ratified it in 1996. By the way, six provinces and one territory have passed the implementing legislation for the Hague convention on intercountry adoption. It remained for Ontario to do so. Being the largest, most populous province in the country, we should have shown leadership on this because it affected many adoptions.
What I have a problem with and what I kept telling the minister was that you waited too long to implement the Hague convention. It was non-contentious. The minister kept dragging her feet. So what we have before us today, and I want to get to this, is something that I think is certainly worthy of support but does not change the fact that the Hague convention could have been ratified and adopted by this House some time ago, so that those families that were caught in the web of bureaucratic tape would not have had to go through the ordeals they've gone through. I want to talk about those families in just a moment, later on in my remarks.
The minister liked to point out that there were two reasons she was not able to move more quickly on this when I first introduced private member's legislation.
The first was that she had concerns about my legislation being stand-alone legislation. She said she could not ratify this because it was stand-alone legislation and that what was required, at a minimum, were some other reforms to the Child and Family Services Act. Therefore the stand-alone legislation could not be brought into the House and passed.
What do we have today? We have what amounts to stand-alone legislation, the very thing that the minister, back in the spring of this year, said she could not bring into this House by way of my private member's bill. It didn't matter whether the minister herself said, "I am going to introduce this bill in my name," because at the time she said: "If legally we can have a stand-alone piece of legislation, I don't care if it's a government bill or a Liberal bill or an NDP bill. If we can do it with all-party agreement, I'm fully prepared to recommend that to the House."
The minister had that opportunity back in the spring and failed to exercise it. Again I say to you that her first argument, her first line of reasoning why she could not bring in that piece of legislation, was that it was stand-alone and that a whole bunch of changes had to be made to the Child and Family Services Act. I say to you again that what we have before us today is a stand-alone piece of legislation without any requirement to make changes to the Child and Family Services Act. That argument is null and void.
The other argument that the minister used for delaying and for waiting this long to bring in legislation was that her legislation would go further than the Hague. I applaud the efforts to include licensing in our province, as is required in the legislation, but this piece of legislation that the minister has introduced does not go beyond the Hague; in fact, it uses the Hague convention standards. All of the standards that are in the minister's legislation that we are discussing today are contained in the Hague convention. That's where the minister has gotten the format or the framework for her legislation. It's all the same. It doesn't achieve a higher standard. It doesn't go beyond the Hague. It simply uses the Hague convention for this legislation.
I know members want to listen to this, those who have debated our party and myself personally for being too partisan. There are some good reasons why we would want to suggest to the members that there was a delay. That's the only quibble we have with what the minister has done: She could have done this before.
At the end of the day, the Hague convention requires that certain standards are met for the protection of the children. But the fallacy with this is that the legislation we are presenting today will not extend to the countries of adoption. The members opposite of the governing party have suggested that the Hague convention only covered 20% of all adoptions. I must remind them that Ontario has no jurisdiction in those other countries. We can't enforce our legislation on any of those agents acting in those foreign countries on behalf of families wishing to adopt. Yes, they will work through facilitators here in Ontario, but in the country of adoption those agents are free to act according to the laws and dictates of those countries. They will not have to comply with Ontario law.
Therefore this is why I suggested to the minister that it was important to have the Hague convention ratified, because Ontario needed to lead, along with the other countries that have ratified the Hague convention. We need to get a greater consensus internationally. It's not good enough to simply say we in Ontario are going to require licensing, we're going to deal with all these corrupt practices, because most of those practices took place in the countries where the adoptions were taking place, not here in Ontario. There are a few cases of that, but by and large the problems will continue in those countries where the adoptions are taking place. We have no jurisdiction there. The principle of territorial sovereignty does not allow Ontario to go back to those countries and enforce our rules, our laws. At the end of the day, there is value in having licensing requirements here in Ontario. Some of the other provisions of the legislation which, I repeat, are contained in the Hague convention were contained in the private member's legislation that I introduced.
When I talked to the minister about this it was back in March. I remember my colleague Mr Duncan, the member for Windsor-Walkerville, and I had a press conference. There were a number of families that had approached us and I want to talk about some of those families, in particular the Evangelista family in my own riding who were facing a great deal of difficulty in their efforts to adopt their child from Romania.
This is again a story that is bittersweet. In the end, they were able to bring their daughter here from Romania, but not without a lot of pain and suffering, and not without a year's delay. It took a year away from this family. There is something to be said about that. When all is said and done, there is something that this family had to sacrifice - that precious year, that precious time that they lost with their child - which I don't think was necessary. I think the minister's delay resulted in the loss of that time for the Evangelistas as well as many other families who were looking to adopt. It was really a bureaucratic nightmare that these families faced.
1940
The member for Windsor-Walkerville and I held that press conference on behalf of these families. The government was pressed into action because of the assistance of the federal government and the Honourable Herb Gray, who intervened and got a memorandum of understanding signed between Canada and Romania. That is because we as a province did not ratify the Hague convention. Romania said, "We won't deal with you because you have not ratified this convention." That's plain and simple. It took that kind of initiative, it took the intervention, to cut through the bureaucratic red tape.
Otherwise, the Evangelistas would not have had the opportunity - and I remind members that this was an adoption where they had seen their daughter previous to that. They had made the selection, and there was a bonding that took place. I think we should put ourselves in the shoes of those parents. They had made that bond with that child. This was their child. It was their child who was being prevented from coming home. I can't imagine what that might feel like, having to be separated from your own children. That's the way these people felt about that adopted child, a child they had gone to see, a child they thought they had adopted.
It was virtually a nightmare story, because they also faced additional costs. They were taken for a ride. It wasn't a pleasant thing they went through. There were problems over in Romania. There were additional dollars requested of this family.
The Hague convention would apply to all of those countries. The same standards would apply to those countries, and those countries that have not signed on with the Hague convention will still have those difficulties. Whether we in Ontario have this legislation in place will make not one bit of difference over there in those countries where the adoptions take place, not unless we get involved, along with the federal government, and I know they have, and other countries. This is why it was important to ratify the Hague convention a year ago.
Again, I applaud the government for bringing this forward, but don't think for a moment that having gone this much further is going to rectify the problems in those countries where the adoptions take place. It won't wipe the slate clean and it won't make everything go smoothly in the future. I think there will continue to be some problems. Yes, we can alleviate the problems that exist here in Ontario, and hopefully, as more countries sign the Hague convention, you will see an international commitment to the protection of children, because that's what this is all about.
Again, the other family involved was the Lecours family of Windsor. They went though exactly the same thing. I can remember how overwrought they were, both families, and how emotional this experience was for them. I want to re-emphasize for members of the House that this was an ordeal that these people went through; it was very painful for them. I want to say here in this House that the time they have lost is time they cannot regain. Those are very valuable years with children. For the life of me, at the time I couldn't understand why the minister would want to delay the introduction of what was virtually a non-contentious issue, a non-contentious piece of legislation.
At the end of the day, yes, I will say the government has done a good thing, as it ought to have done, and the members of this House have supported that. I think that is as it should be. But let's keep in mind that there was a price that some people had to pay in order for this to take place. Let's keep in mind that the delays caused a great many problems for those families. There was an emotional price they paid. They were separated from a member of their own family, and at the end of the day that's very important for members to appreciate.
I think sometimes in this House we forget that what we do has an impact on people's real lives or that the things we fail to do have an impact on real people and real lives. That's what this legislation is about. So when we stand here today and approve this legislation, you will remember those families. We should all remember those families.
We should all remember that there are many hundreds of thousands of people who wish to adopt. I'm hopeful that many of these people will now feel able to come forward, confident in moving ahead with these adoptions which benefit all of us. They enrich our lives, they enrich the life of the province, and I think it does wonderful things for those families and those children.
I would like to say thank you very much to all the members who participated. I felt a real connection to this on a personal level and I think everyone here ought to be applauded and commended.
Mr Gerretsen: I would just like to reiterate one comment that the member for Lawrence made, and that is that the mere fact that we adopt this particular law does not necessarily give Ontario couples the protection they're looking for if they're adopting in those countries where the Hague convention does not operate. This will really only work with respect to those countries that also have adopted the Hague convention.
I thought it would be interesting to look at the Hague convention and see what it actually says in a number of pertinent sections as to what should be done both in the originating country and in the adopting country and what couples can anticipate when they want to go through an adoption procedure with respect to foreigners.
I know, both from within my own family and from having been involved in my legal practice in years gone by with some adoptions, the tremendous, rewarding experience it can be for anyone who is involved in the adoption process, particularly for those parents who, for one reason or another, have not been able to conceive their own child. This quite often gives them the thrill of a lifetime, adopting a child who becomes an integral part of their lives. They're obviously doing themselves a big service in the sense that it gives fulfilment to their life, but they're also bestowing a tremendous benefit on the child who is being adopted, quite often a child, whether from in-country or out-of-country, who does not live in the kind of conditions that all children should be living in.
I took a look at the Hague convention and it is interesting. It was adopted in 1993, and as my colleague from Lawrence has already indicated, some 33 countries currently have adopted the Hague convention. Here in Canada, as he has also stated, it's necessary for the provinces to adopt it as well because adoption comes within the provincial jurisdiction. It's interesting that only six other provinces have so far adopted it. I certainly hope the other provinces will quickly come into line as well.
The first interesting section that I found was article 4 of the Hague convention. There are about 48 articles, but I think the ones we're interested in, or the ones that couples who are interested in adopting may be interested in, start with article 4.
Section 5 of the bill states:
"(1) No person who is...resident in Ontario shall leave Ontario for the purpose of an intercountry adoption... without first,
"(a) making an application to a licensee,
"(b) obtaining an adoption home study to assess the person's eligibility and suitability to adopt..., and
"(c) obtaining the director's approval on the basis of the adoption home study."
1950
I think what's interesting about that is that, under the new rules and regulations as set out in the proposed act, a person cannot even adopt a child from a jurisdiction that is not a member of the Hague convention without being approved by way of a home study locally here in Canada first. What that really means is that at the same time that somebody starts the process in the foreign country of looking for a child they may wish to adopt, it's also extremely necessary that the home study takes place in Ontario, right here and now, as well.
I think that's a good thing. It gives protection to those youngsters coming into Ontario from foreign countries whom those foreign countries may not be all that interested in for a variety of reasons, maybe because of economic circumstances. Their attention may not be focused on whether the child will really benefit from coming to Ontario. This gives us some level of comfort as a society that a person cannot even adopt a child from a foreign country, whether it's got the Hague convention or not, without having a home study done. I think that's the kind of protection we would want for all of those children who reside in Ontario. It talks about licensing and who will be the director, which obviously will be an official within the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The next section that is interesting is what happens in the country where the child comes from. Article 4 of the Hague convention deals with that particular matter. It states:
"4. An adoption within the scope of the convention shall take place only if the competent authorities of the state of origin" - in other words, in the state where the child is located -
"(a) have established that the child is adoptable;
"(b) have determined, after possibilities for placement of the child within the state of origin have been given due consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in the child's best interests."
It places an emphasis on the foreign jurisdiction, to make sure that it's in the child's best interests that the child leave that jurisdiction because its best interests cannot be fulfilled within that country.
"(c) have ensured that
"(1) the persons...whose consent is necessary for adoption" - which I suppose in most cases would be the natural parents of the child - "have been counselled as may be necessary and duly informed of the effects of their consent...of the relationship between the child and his or her family of origin."
In any adoption situation, whether it's an in-province adoption or a foreign adoption, it is extremely important, I believe, that the consent of the natural parents of the child be obtained. This article in the Hague convention places an emphasis on the state of origin to make sure that that happens.
"(2) such persons...have given their consent freely... evidenced in writing."
It isn't just a situation where somebody says years later, "Yes, consent was given," when in actual fact there may be a dispute if they have merely given oral consent. What's intended here is notice in writing. Yes, it's in a foreign language perhaps, but at least there's some evidence later on that the parents really and truly meant to give up the child for adoption.
"(3) the consents have not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind and have not been withdrawn."
I think that's important. We obviously would never want to get involved in a situation where children are being bought and sold for pecuniary consideration. This part of the Hague convention clearly deals with that. There's no compensation involved.
Next it goes on to state:
"(4) the consent of the mother, where required, has been given only after the birth of the child."
I think that is very important too. I know that years ago what happened sometimes was the consent was given before the child was born and this raised all sorts of problems afterwards, where the mother of the child, once the child was born, had a change of heart. This clearly states that in accordance with the Hague convention, the consent of the mother is obtained after the child is born. That's a necessity under the Hague convention.
Next it goes on to say:
"(d) have ensured, having regard to the age and degree of maturity of the child, that
"(1) he or she has been counselled" - obviously this will only happen with older children, children who know what's going on, rather than with babies, and I suppose most of the foreign adoptions that take place are babies, although not all of them - "and duly informed of the effects of adoption and of his or her consent to the adoption...
"(2) consideration has been given to the child's wishes and opinions," particularly when the child is older. It's extremely important that the child, once that child has reached the age of knowledge and wisdom, consents to the adoption. I suppose it's conceivable to have a situation where the adopting parents really want to adopt a child and the natural parents are ready to place the child up for adoption but there's a possibility the child himself or herself doesn't want to be adopted. If the child is of the age of consent, the consent of the child has to be obtained as well, and "such consent has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind."
The Hague convention is quite explicit. It sets all the safeguards in place, as much as is possible by way of legislation, that a child and the parents of that child who are ready to give that child up for adoption aren't induced by untoward actions. That has to take place within the state where the child is located.
Article 16 of the convention is also very interesting. It states that:
"1. If the central authority of the state of origin is satisfied that the child is adoptable, it shall:
"(a) prepare a report including information about his or her identity, adoptability, background, social environment, family history, medical history including that of the child's family, and any special needs of the child."
I suppose that is more and more required nowadays. We all hear of situations where children who have been adopted want to know many years later what their origins were, whether there were any specific illnesses in their families or any hereditary medical problems etc. So I think article 16 is important, that as much information be given of the child to the adopting parents as may be possible to obtain. The article makes it quite clear that that's a necessity.
It also says:
"(b) give due consideration" - the report from the state where the child was born - "to the child's upbringing and to his or her ethnic, religious and cultural background;
"(c) ensure that consents have been obtained; and
"(d) determine, on the basis in particular of the reports relating to the child and prospective adoptive parents, whether the envisaged placement is in the best interests of the child."
That's certainly an area that all the principles in our family law are centred around, particularly dealing with juveniles and children, that what is in the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration. It wasn't always that way. In years gone by what was in the best interests of the child was not the paramount consideration in many aspects of family law. We have adopted this in Ontario in a number of different pieces of legislation, and it's very encouraging to see that this is in the Hague convention as well.
2000
Those are the main articles that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. I share the concerns of the member for Lawrence that I don't think we want to give adopting parents in Ontario who are thinking of adopting a foreign child any false sense of security that this piece of legislation can rule all adoptions as far as where the child is from. Yes, we can set a framework in place whereby home studies are done here, whereby parents are adjudicated upon with respect to their suitability for adoption etc, but we cannot give any assurances of what kind of studies or what kind of work is being done in foreign jurisdictions that do not abide by the Hague convention.
I certainly agree with the member for Lawrence that it is high time we did this, because we certainly hear more and more about intercountry adoptions. You may be interested to know - I obtained this information from the individuals at the ministry who gave us a briefing today - that in 1996 in Ontario 588 intercountry adoptions took place, as far as the ministry knows. There may be others. What the legislation will do is presumably ensure that everyone who gets involved in an intercountry adoption will now have to be registered, and home studies and the other studies that we're talking about have to be done.
Presumably the statistics that the ministry is able to obtain in the years to come will be more accurate. But 588 in one year in the province of Ontario is a significant number. Those are 588 situations, at least, where families have been given joy by bringing a child into the family, where obviously that child is much-needed and much-awaited, and also 588 children have been given the hope of a better future that we all want for ourselves and our own children in this country.
As has already been stated, it's interesting that nowadays most of the foreign adoptions, the intercountry adoptions, take place from China, Russia and Guatemala, which may surprise some people. I wasn't aware of the fact that there were that many intercountry adoptions taking place from Guatemala. Obviously, in all these cases the economic circumstances that people find themselves in play a significant role in these adoptions. Certainly all the people who are involved in these adoptions, all the couples, are to be congratulated.
Undoubtedly, we all know there are difficulties sometimes in bringing up our own natural children. Some parents succeed more than other parents. But we all know the kinds of difficulties that can sometimes arise in families. Intercountry adoptions, where perhaps a child of a different racial origin is introduced into a family, may, in the years to come, produce certain strains within the family, on the child etc, but I'm absolutely convinced in my own mind that all those can be overcome in a loving and caring environment. I certainly applaud anyone who is even interested in contemplating any action like that.
As I indicated before in my earlier comments in response to the parliamentary assistant, I think this is a good day for the province as far as this kind of activity is concerned. It shows that the parties in the Legislature can work together. We're doing something that a significant number of people in Ontario would like us to do, and we've done it on a very non-partisan basis. I would like to congratulate all of those members for taking part in this debate today. Let's hope that we can give this bill speedy second reading and speedy third reading and proclamation as well so that at that point in time it will be easier for the people of Ontario who may be interested in intercountry adoption to actually do that.
I now turn the balance of our time over to the member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: I want to begin by again commending my colleague the member for Lawrence, Joe Cordiano, who took the initiative in this House to introduce legislation which would accomplish a significant portion of what is contemplated in this bill. It is in the spirit of the three political parties which have had a concern about this matter and have tried to resolve it. As has been mentioned, the member for Algoma is an individual who has expressed as well his concern about the problems that are confronted by those who wish to adopt children from overseas, from countries outside of Canada, by and large, and many of them from countries where there have been economic and social difficulties and there has been disruption. Many of the children have been left virtually without parents and sometimes even without people who are close in the family. Canadians and residents of Ontario have taken up the cause by adopting these children to provide for them the kind of home that would allow them to grow up and enjoy life, in this case in a new country.
There have been those roadblocks and we wanted to see those roadblocks overcome. That's why the member for Lawrence some time ago introduced his legislation which would in fact prompt this to happen. We have that legislation before us tonight. I predict you will see a unanimous vote in this House on this. It's not a particularly daring prognostication to say that, but you will see a unanimous vote, as you do whenever there is a consensus that develops on issues. That is why this kind of debate takes a smaller amount of time than other debates. I've always thought that if our rules were flexible enough on matters of great contention, we would have some rather substantial and lengthy debates in the House on those matters and much less debate on these.
We get a significant amount of our news, particularly that which tugs at our emotional strings, from television. As we see, for instance, children in other countries who have been left in, for want of a better word, orphanages in those countries and who have lost parents due to war or other reasons, or in some cases are in a situation where their parents have simply abandoned them for one reason or another, when we see this circumstance it certainly evokes in us a good deal of emotion and a desire to help. Very often we as a society feel helpless about it. We are inclined from time to time to turn the television channel simply not to face those problems which exist. But there have been sufficient numbers of people who have said that they're going to do something about that and who have had a desire at the same time to add children to their family or perhaps have a child introduced into their family and have the resources, the main resources being the love and care needed for children of this kind. I think it speaks well of those who have that concern for others, particularly for children in our society.
The children are probably the most vulnerable people in our society. They have very little experience in life. They are often unable to advocate for themselves; they always require someone else advocating for them. They are often without the kind of allies they would need, the kind of networks they would need, to bring their problems to the attention of others. For this reason it is particularly compelling on us to meet the needs of those children and to make it easier, though not without some regulation, of course, for people in our province to be able to adopt children from other countries. This legislation, which grows out of the efforts of the members of the three political parties to find a solution to this, will enable us at last to do it.
2010
If I were being mildly critical, I would say that it has taken some additional time, more time than I would have liked, to have the legislation come before us. The government has an agenda. It is very quick to bring forward legislation which the Premier feels is of the utmost importance, and unfortunately when that happens, when the government's main agenda is before us consistently, some of the issues where there is consensus, some of the bills where there would be all-party support, simply do not appear before us for consideration until somewhat late in a session, which this is.
My hope would be - I say this with all new legislation - that this will not be an excuse for the government to launch yet another advertising campaign. The member for Burlington South perks up as I mention the thought of a -
Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): Oh, I am. Remember "A Clean Sweep"?
Mr Bradley: I think it would be mighty difficult. There are some safe ridings so I don't think a clean sweep is quite possible. The member suggests there might be a clean sweep.
I look at the government advertising - $4 million for health care, for instance - and I hope that the government will abandon these advertising campaigns that the government has going at the present time and devote the resources that are used for all of these advertising campaigns to implementing this piece of legislation. I think the member for Algoma, when he stood up to respond to the government, said he hoped that there would be resources available, as did my colleague from Lawrence: the regulations which we all believe would be necessary, plus the resources to implement the provisions of this piece of legislation. If the government is spending millions of dollars on advertising, then of course it won't be able to spend as much as it should on this particular resource.
If these children were to come to St Catharines and to need hospitals, we know that they would want to have available to them the Hotel Dieu Hospital. That's what we look forward to. When people come to our country, when children come to our country and grow up in our country, we say, what we have we got to offer? They of course have a lot to offer to us. You ask what we have to offer and we would like to say that we have the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines to offer to them.
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): At least you can say you have an MRI.
Mr Bradley: We now have approval for a magnetic resonance imager, thanks to the member for Beaches-Woodbine - it has been reannounced; she would know that - who made that announcement. I don't know if there was any money in the budget for it, but she did make the announcement and I'm sure there was going to be money had she had more time to place it in the budget. I'm absolutely convinced of that. But we do have that approval now. Of course, as you know, Mr Speaker, none of that is paid for by the provincial government; that is, the capital cost of it. It is raised fully in our community and we have had a major fundraising campaign in St Catharines and in the other parts of the Niagara region to raise money for our hospitals.
The magnetic resonance imager is planned to be in the St Catharines General Hospital, one of the many hospitals that we would like to have available to children who are adopted into Canada from other countries, because you would know from some of the debate that has taken place in this House that were the children to need kidney dialysis for some reason or other sometime in their lives, we have an outstanding kidney dialysis unit in the Hotel Dieu Hospital.
The commission which was pronouncing on this matter - I refer to it as Darth Vader coming to town - made some assessments about the need for kidney dialysis in St Catharines and the Niagara region. According to some medical experts in the field of kidney dialysis - I can't pronounce the name they have for it but it involves kidney dialysis. Dr Brodsky, for instance, mentioned that the assumptions which were made as to growth were rather significantly out of kilter. I know that if adopted children were to come to St Catharines, grow up in St Catharines and ever have the need for kidney dialysis, they would want to have it available at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, which for over 50 years now has delivered the highest quality of health care services but has been ordered closed in the initial report of the hospital services restructuring commission or, as I refer to it, perhaps unfairly, the hospital destruction commission.
I did hear the Premier say today - he's perhaps listened to my speeches in the House for some period of time where I have quoted on several occasions, "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." The Premier took a pre-emptive strike today and -
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Speaker: I wonder if you could confirm whether the member realizes which bill is before the House for debate, because certainly I haven't heard anything about the bill that I thought we were debating for some time.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Debating on the bill before the House is certainly a point of order. I've been listening to the member for St Catharines for some time and I don't see that his arguments are not within the scope of the bill.
Mr Bradley: Once again, Mr Speaker, you have indicated your knowledge of the entire issue we deal with, and that issue includes what services might be available in terms of medical needs for adopted children in our communities.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: I know my colleague the member for Lincoln may well be annoyed with you for trying to stifle debate on anything that would affect the Hotel Dieu Hospital because he has been quoted colourfully in the local newspaper -
Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Speaker: Is it in order for the member put words in my mouth which I may have a problem accepting?
The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.
Mr Bradley: I must concede that I have not consulted previously on this specific address with my friend from Lincoln, but I have heard him speak in colourful terms, as he always does, about his initial reaction to the possibility of the Hotel Dieu Hospital closing. I will not actually try to paraphrase him even in that, but he certainly expressed it in the most colourful of language and there would be no doubt where he stood in that regard.
I'm simply talking about health care services that might be available to adopted children were they to settle in the Niagara Peninsula. If they would require the services of an oncology unit, we have an outstanding oncology unit which administers chemotherapy to those who are suffering from cancer. This is a unit which has grown and expanded and provided outstanding service to people in our community, including some young people, unfortunately, as well who have been afflicted.
If they were to live to be a very old age, they would need perhaps the palliative care unit which is available at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, an outstanding service under the leadership of Dr Kerley, who has spoken out about need for this unit.
If they have diabetes, because sometimes children have that disease, or as they grow older they get diabetes, they would be able to go to the Hotel Dieu Hospital to have their needs met in an ancillary building.
If they had to be transported by helicopter in an emergency circumstance, they would know that there would be a heliport, a landing place, for the helicopter at the Hotel Dieu Hospital, because children sometimes have to be transported to various places.
There is a spiritual component to Hotel Dieu Hospital as well. Should they wish to take advantage of that spiritual component, which has been offered by the Sisters of St Joseph, the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph, that as well would be available.
I am pleased to see that you recognize, as you always seem to, Mr Speaker, how these remarks relate to the bill that is before us this evening.
2020
I heard my friend from Lincoln mention Mr Verge earlier in his speech when he was speaking and certainly Mr Smiley. We have lost Mr Smiley very recently, as he mentioned. He had made a contribution to our community at large which was very significant.
I should inform members of the House that, speaking of Hotel Dieu Hospital, Mr Jack Leake, who was a long-time dialysis patient, unfortunately passed away today, or yesterday. He passed away very recently. It was in our newspaper today that he had passed away. He had been one of the real fighters for the Hotel Dieu Hospital. In fact, I think either the member for Beaches-Woodbine or the former member from Lakeshore, Ruth Grier, would have been in receipt of letters from Mr Leake, who had fought so very hard to maintain the services that are available at the Hotel Dieu Hospital. His passing will mean that one of the genuine allies of the hospital will not be with us as this fight continues, but we will certainly remember his contribution, his courage, his persistence and his commitment to assisting not himself but others who are afflicted with kidney problems, as he was.
I look at this legislation and say that all of us believe this is good legislation. The lead speaker, Joe Cordiano, mentioned a specific instance, a specific family, in his case that he dealt with, the Evangelista family, and their story. He said that's how he had become personally involved in this issue when he was approached by some constituents who were adopting from Romania.
We saw it for some period of time, those children from Romania, just to isolate one place, who had been virtually abandoned. It certainly would tear at the heartstrings of anyone to see these children and the circumstances they faced without parents or family to look after them, with a staff which was obviously overwhelmed and overworked, with a staff which had few resources and perhaps not even the kind of necessary training to deal with these children. To see these children in just dire circumstances was certainly very sad for most of us.
That is why I am so very happy and heartened to see residents of Ontario who have wanted to adopt those children. There are plans, as we know, through various service and volunteer organizations, where one can adopt a child through paying money and the child stays in another country and is assisted through our financial assistance. But this is an opportunity for them to come to our country and this bill enables them to do so. It is most encouraging to see that this bill would enable them to come to our province of Ontario.
It does imply regulations, and I know very often this government has said that it doesn't like regulations, that it wishes to deregulate in many areas. But I know in this specific area, as we had the other night, we have a consensus that regulation would be very helpful to ensure that the families to which the children are coming are going to provide them with the very best care and love and meet their needs emotionally, spiritually and in terms of their physical needs.
When we have legislation of this kind, it is a happy day in this House. Even though some of us may be solemn at the circumstances facing some of these children, we are happy as a group that we have been able to come together to bring forward a piece of legislation which, by the way, will not take a long time. I believe this will be completed this evening. If necessary, there will be some committee time for people to comment. I would not contemplate a significant third reading debate, if any third reading debate, because we have this consensus.
I know that my colleague from Lawrence and the member for Algoma are both happy that we're seeing this legislation before us tonight. It's something that we all consider to be very positive. I can't speak for those independent members of the House, but certainly the three political parties have indicated their support for this. I suspect the two independents would be supportive of this legislation as well. I look forward not only to its passage in the second reading this evening and, if necessary, some time in committee to have hearings - I note that it is necessary when we have canvassed individuals who are interested - but also the actual implementation and having the resources available within, I presume, the Minister of Community and Social Services, to implement this legislation.
I don't think we contemplate that there would have to be significant and expanded expenditures to be able to implement this, but we do want to ensure that those resources are available to those children who would be adopted and to the parents who have the concern and have taken the time to adopt these children and give them a life and give them a home in which they can be comfortable, feel happy and contented, and go on to live wonderful lives in Ontario.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: I'll just speak very briefly and congratulate in particular the member for Lawrence on his initiative in trying to respond particularly to the prospective parents who are going to be adopting from Romania and for the effort he made to introduce first a private bill and then subsequently a private member's bill, which was debated in this House, which would have implemented the Hague convention in Ontario so as to resolve the problems facing families who had wanted to adopt from Romania and who faced very long delays and serious difficulties in bringing those adoptions to completion.
I just want to say that I supported his efforts and spoke on behalf of his bill when it was debated in the House, and I'm pleased now that the government has responded and is bringing in legislation which not only implements the Hague convention but also applies similar regulation to international adoptions in the many countries that are not now signatories to the Hague convention and will help to regularize the processes here in Ontario for those adoptions.
Hon Mr Jackson: I would first of all like to commend all members of the House who have participated in the debate and who have through their years, whether they be short- or long-term, expressed an interest in strengthening and improving adoption procedures both domestically and abroad. So to all members of the House who have participated, I commend them.
I was, however, interested in the comments made by my colleague from St Catharines and could not resist his open invitation to somehow tie adoption services to government advertising. He did make a reference to Clean Sweep and I know that he'll want to correct the record, but I do recall a very famous advertising program while he was in his capacity as Minister of the Environment, a program allegedly touting a lottery system that never really did happen but had a price tag of about $2 million worth of government advertising.
My major concern is his consistent reference to the Hotel Dieu Hospital. I really think that, to be fair, we should get a clear, unequivocal statement from every single Liberal member of this House. If they are that committed to these hospitals, let them stand in this House and declare that they're going to reopen every one of these hospitals across Ontario.
The truth is that at the time of the last election, we had no idea that we were going to have to respond to the restructuring requirements of this province. We didn't have a plan at the time. We do have a plan today and we vigorously defend that, but what wasn't apparent was when Lyn McLeod said that $17.4 billion was enough and no more money was required in our health care system, and Mike Harris has responded by increasing that to $18.7 billion. The truth is, Dalton McGuinty does not have a plan and he won't be honest and fess up and say whether he'll keep these hospitals open in Ontario.
2030
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): We've seen a great amount of agreement around the bill at hand this evening. It's unfortunate that we should have to listen to such partisan comments as we just listened to from the member for Burlington South when we're here on agreement on a very important issue.
We talk about international adoption and making families in Ontario happy. We must think about the children who are finding happiness as well through legislation such as this in terms of their coming into a province which we quite often refer to as the best place in the world to bring up a family and for children; again, a bill that is moving forward with the agreement of the entire House and one that will bring much happiness not only to families in the province, but to many children who are involved in this adoption as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments or questions?
The member for Lawrence has two minutes to respond.
Mr Cordiano: I just want to say in conclusion that I again thank all the members for being involved in this debate and for the support and consensus we've built around this issue.
Two things come to mind. First, and the member for St Catharines had mentioned this earlier, the ministry needs to devote enough resources to ensure that this bill is implementable in our own jurisdiction. Further to that, the ministry, because of its contacts and the dealings it will have and has had with other jurisdictions, should be encouraging the adoption and the ratification of the Hague convention in other countries. I think you can work with other countries to ensure that happens. By the way, the standards that are being proposed in this piece of legislation that was brought forward by the minister for Ontario are contained within the Hague convention. It's very important to recognize that.
I want to also thank my colleague the member for St Catharines, who mentioned some very important reminders for all of us. It is important to have a health care system that we can work with, because those children, you're right, in the future will be dependent on those health care services. So it's important. I remind the minister, the member for Burlington South, that the Premier today did reverse his position. He had to do an about-face and admit that he did not live up to his commitment that he would not close hospitals. I think they're beginning to feel some heat on this. By the minister's own admission, this is important, and we want to continue to be proud of this Ontario of ours so we can say to the rest of the world, "This is a great place to come to live," and we can continue with those adoptions.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms Lankin: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate, and I will be sharing the leadoff time with the member for Algoma.
I might begin by commenting on the fact, as has been acknowledged by other speakers here, that there is all-party agreement with respect to this bill. There may be a couple of areas of concern that various organizations who are familiar with and work in this field of intercountry adoption have. We have made arrangements with the government for technical briefing for these organizations and, if necessary, for a couple of days of committee hearings so those concerns might be dealt with. But the support in principle for the bill at second reading and through the course of hearings, if necessary, and third reading, final support for the bill, is assured by all members of the three parties.
It speaks to the importance of the topic when we're talking about children, children who are subject to potential conditions of abuse and exploitation, and desperate families who wish to adopt who can be subject to potential abuse and exploitation. Where we know there has been international agreement arrived at that can bring an end to that, it only makes sense that there would be both agreement and interest in facilitating quick passage of this legislation.
The member for York-Mackenzie touched on a number of aspects of the bill in his presentation. It was a very thorough presentation, and I appreciate the effort that went into that. I'm not going to proceed to repeat various aspects of the bill. I think he did a very good job.
I will respond to a couple of points that he raised in particular, but before I do that, I want to also comment on the remarks from the member for Lawrence, who spoke about the fact that we could have proceeded at some earlier point with a stand-alone bill implementing the Hague convention, and I want to acknowledge that in fact that was a possibility.
The member for Wentworth North raised the case of a constituent family who suffered through various delays and a tremendous amount of bureaucracy in attempting to adopt a brother of children they had already adopted from Romania, and he talked about the need to ask the minister to intervene.
I just want to again underline the reason those problems existed. The reason there were delays and there were problems was that Romania was one of the countries that was a signatory to the Hague convention, and Ontario wasn't. That was the cause of the problem. While we could have moved ahead and done that, at this point in time the bill that is brought forward has additional measures in it which will help to a certain degree in dealing with countries that are non-signatories to the Hague convention, and I'm fully in support of that. But the member is quite right that these two aspects could have been dealt with at separate times.
The member for York-Mackenzie in his comments did talk about this bill as being one that would bring about the protections that are necessary with - I'm not sure, but I think his words were "minimal red tape." I have to tease him a little bit and say that ideology always seems to get in the way. This is not a bill that reduces red tape. I'm sorry. I know you would like to characterize it as that. This is a bill that puts in place some pretty stringent regulations, and ones which I agree with completely. You could actually admit -
Mr Klees: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just think it's important that we clarify that red tape is bad regulation; we're talking about good regulation here.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Chair recognizes the member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms Lankin: OK, so we're dealing with a green tape bill here, which is good regulation. However you want to colour it, the fact is that in some fields of public policy and of good governance and government administration, regulation is sometimes important. I noticed that earlier today we were dealing with a fuel tax bill that dealt with regulation of the temperature of gas and how it is taxed, so, you know, folks, let's not take the rhetoric on reducing red tape too far.
I do want to comment on a couple of issues which will largely be dealt with in regulation and/or in policy and practice - these are things that I know the member for York-Mackenzie and all members of the House will agree with, but I just want to put them on the record as issues of concern - that the members of the community who have been involved in intercountry adoption will want to be assured of.
2040
Firstly, and I think very importantly, there has to be a commitment to resourcing the adoption branch if this piece of legislation is to mean anything. One of the problems we have seen in families that have attempted to work through the ministry with respect to intercountry adoptions - they may be dealing with a country that's a non-Hague signatory but one which itself has very stringent rules in terms of protecting families and protecting children who might be adopted from their country to a country such as Canada. China is a very good example of that. They're not a Hague convention signatory, but they have in place very stringent rules. I'm sure my friend from Algoma will speak to that point.
One of the problems in dealing with the bureaucracy through the ministry has been not an unwillingness or a lack of knowledge on the part of the ministry of how to deal with these provisions or how to be of assistance, but simply a huge workload issue and the problem of time, and time delays are a crucial concern to families. In introducing more stringent regulations and introducing controls which have at their centre the need of a director of the branch providing the approvals for adoption, you introduce a workload issue that must be recognized and must be resourced. I'm sure the member for York-Mackenzie, from my discussions with him, both agrees with that and feels confident that issue will be addressed, but people in the intercountry adoption community will want to be assured of that and they'll want to see some money where the words are. Too often promises are made and the resources don't follow, so that's an issue that I want to now stress and will continue to stress.
The regulation and licensing of organizations: Again, we're assured by the ministry officials who briefed us today that there is every intent that organizations that are competent in this field - they might be not-for-profit organizations or they may be organizations that involve legal firms - will be licensed. We want to be assured that there won't be professional requirements to be met in order for a group or an agency to be licensed. In other words, not only social workers or lawyers could be facilitators in this field, because organizations like Children's Bridge and many others out there who have done excellent work in this field, who know the needs of families, who know and have the connections in other countries, are organizations that we will want to continue to be involved in this. We have been assured by the ministry that there is no intention to impose in regulation professional requirements, but there will be, of course, a competency requirement, and with that we agree wholeheartedly.
Of course, one of the other concerns they have will be the licensing fee and that it not be set at a level that is prohibitive to not-for-profit organizations. If it is the intent of the ministry to adopt fee schedules current to those schedules in place for domestic adoption, I think the concerns will be addressed very quickly.
These are issues that I think groups out there have questions about and that they will bring forward.
I want to address one other issue with respect to adoption. I guess it was brought to mind by the comments of the member for York-Mackenzie, who highlighted his concern that there needs to be more information available about adoption as an option both to an individual parent or parents who might look for an option of giving a child up for adoption, that that information be available to them, and of course help and support to families who are seeking to become adoptive parents.
I think we all know that the huge increase in the number of families who are seeking to participate in intercountry adoption is largely because they're not finding the opportunity here at home in Canada. Sometimes there are individual choices. Sometimes it is a humanitarian response to conditions in other countries. Those are all very important and valid reasons as well, but often it is also because families who wish to adopt a young child are unable to find an adoption option here for them, as the member referred to.
One of the things I want to raise is the concerns I have with respect to another piece of legislation that is before this House, and that's the amendments to the Child and Family Services Act.
Within the current act, the provisions for adoption are largely set out. There had been an expectation that when amendments to that act were brought forward, and in this case these are very important amendments the minister has brought forward to deal with child protection issues, when that act was opened up, there would be a number of provisions dealing with adoptions in the province as well, and people have been waiting for the opportunity. Those deal with things such as adoption disclosure but also with a very important issue with respect to the adoption of crown wards, children who have been taken into protection and, through a series of decisions that have been made about permanency planning for that child, the decision has been made in the child's best interests not to return the child to their birth parents in that situation or to the family they were removed from that was bringing them up.
One of the problems the current laws have is that there is a possibility for access orders to be provided, where the family has the right of access to visit with the child; the child may be in foster care or in care of some sort as a crown ward but there is a right of access. The current law doesn't allow crown wards who have access orders - adoption is not a consideration; the law does not allow them to be adopted. They are not available to be adopted.
The expert review that came forward dealing with child protection issues, the Hatton recommendations, included a recommendation that talked about easing this situation. More specifically, it talked about having the possibility of crown wards who have access orders also being able to be adopted. In the case where there were wishful adoptive parents or even foster parents who wanted to adopt at that point in time, that would be possible coexisting with the access order.
It is an issue on which there is not a well-developed consensus, and I will acknowledge that. I will also acknowledge that the ministry tried to respond in a certain way to the concerns that underlay that recommendation. In the legislation, they have provided for a new and more stringent set of requirements with respect to access orders, which have a review, so that essentially children are not left in limbo for a long time when it may be that the very real and best interests of the child would be served by having that access order removed and having the child able to be adopted and move to a permanent home.
Those new changes will come into place, but they're not retroactive with respect to the crown wards with access orders now, today. So we will have a situation, first of all, where there will be a dual status, we could say, and we will have a situation where only if there is cause to review the access order of one of the existing crown wards will there be a possibility for the new, more stringent application of access orders to come into place.
There could be some easy solutions to this, I think. One of the things the ministry has suggested is that children's aid societies could bring forward those access orders back to court for review. I would argue at this point in time, where the front-line workers in the children's aid societies are dealing with caseloads 36% higher than the appropriate level, and where we are implementing a grand number of changes through this legislation, through the new risk assessment tool, through the new technology that's coming in place to link CASs in information-sharing - all of which are things I support, but they put tremendous stress on the front lines, and the resources are not in place, as we speak today, for them to be able to do their job appropriately.
I believe it is fair comment to say that the review of access orders for crown wards, unfortunately, will be left on a back burner. I don't believe it would be a priority and would be addressed; I don't believe it could be. In comparison to the urgent need for child protection action and the things we are dealing with in terms of new definitions and including neglect in the definition, the urgency of all legislators and people in the field is to ensure that the front-line protection services are there.
How could we facilitate this? One suggestion I have made is that as part of the legislation there be a mandated review and that that be resourced as well. Similar to my comments earlier, it would be necessary for that to be resourced, but a mandated review from the legislation which would ensure that all of those cases could be updated and could be brought in under the purview of the legislation.
2050
There may be another legal solution to this, and I look forward to response from the ministry. I have indicated to the ministry staff and the minister's staff, who were very helpful in the presentation, that this is an issue I wish to pursue. I also think you will hear from people, just in general with respect to adoption, about the need for some measures on adoption disclosure and others to be done at this time and not to wait for another five years for a review of the legislation. All of us know that when a piece of legislation is opened up, it is a golden opportunity for changes to be made, because it doesn't come around often, unless it has to do with municipal property taxes, that a bill will be opened on successive opportunities.
Mr Wildman: If at first you don't succeed.
Ms Lankin: That's right.
I raise those as issues of concern but also issues that address to some degree comments that were made by the member for York-Mackenzie.
I'm not going to prolong my remarks. I am in very significant support of this legislation. I think it will certainly, in the first order, implement the Hague convention, which will resolve problems in dealing with countries that are signatories to the Hague convention that have been reluctant to deal with Ontario because we have not up until this time become signatories to that. It will to a certain degree allow us, through regulation of our home community involved in this and through stringent regulation that wishful adoptive parents must submit themselves to in terms of the application - the home visit and approval process and the involvement of the director - in that those things must be done before travelling to another country and there are offences set out in the legislation, if someone is involved with an operator who is unsavoury, shall we say - and I think all of us have heard of, and the member for York-Mackenzie raised the issues of, illegal adoption rings that exist - it will to some degree allow us to deal with that.
Where we can raise our voices to the federal government and ask them on an international basis to seek to have more countries join with us in signing the Hague convention, all the better, because that is a more secure assurance for us that these sorts of measures will spread to deal with the problem in a number of countries and that there will be fewer cases of abuse of wishful adoptive families and of children from those countries.
I will turn the rest of my time over to the member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: I am very proud to participate in this debate this evening. I want to congratulate the government for moving forward in this regard and, as I've said before this evening, express appreciation to all of the members of the House who have participated in the debate and expressed support for the initiative brought forward by the Minister of Community and Social Services.
I say I'm proud because frankly this is one of those rare occasions where the Legislature actually works: a matter is brought forward which is of significant public concern, proposals and suggestions are made by members on all sides, there is discussion and debate, correspondence, advocacy, and the minister and ministry staff respond and bring forward legislation that then can be debated and supported by members on all sides of the Legislature. This really is one of those rare occasions, and I'm very proud to be part of that.
I'm also proud of it because of my family's experience and the fact that we have been very fortunate in that we are one of those families in Ontario who have had the opportunity to adopt from overseas. Our little girl, Tiantian, which is her Chinese name, which in Mandarin means "double sweet" and she is indeed - her Canadian name is Tiana - is a wonderful addition to our family and has been a joy to all of us, her mother and myself as well as her three older brothers and three sisters-in-law, and now one niece and one nephew. She has become part of a growing family and has been a really significant addition to our lives. We are very proud of her, and I think she is of us as well. I know she is, because she often tells people that mummy and daddy went to China and she adopted them. That, I think, is an indication of how well she has become involved in our family and how well she understands the process. She's quite right: She did adopt us and we have become captives to her wonderful personality ever since.
I think I should tell you a little bit about my experience and explain why I'm in support of this legislation. Since we became interested in international adoption, we've become involved with an organization called Canadopt, which is an umbrella organization representing parents who have adopted from many different countries overseas. There are Canadopt chapters across Canada and throughout Ontario. The one in Sault Ste Marie is a virtual mini-United Nations.
The Canadopt organization has functions throughout the year for the children, and there are children from every part of the world. There are many from China, but there are also children from Russia, Romania and other parts of eastern Europe, the Caribbean, Latin America and Korea and other parts of south Asia. It's a wonderful organization, a wonderful group of people who are committed to assisting one another and helping with the problems that some of these families inevitably face. The experiences these families have had range from very, very good experiences like ours, in terms of the process of adoption, to some very difficult ones that have involved serious delays and significant cost.
My wife, Anne, and I were very fortunate when we decided that we were interested in international adoption in that we got information from groups involved with Canadopt about adoption from China and were introduced to an organization like many other organizations that are involved in international adoptions that facilitate adoptions overseas for parents who wish to participate. That organization for us was an organization called Children's Bridge, which is headquartered near Ottawa and operates throughout Ontario and across Canada in assisting parents to adopt from China.
Their assistance was invaluable because they had the contacts in China; they understood the adoption process in Ontario and they understood the adoption process in China. They knew all of the regulations, all the hoops that the family had to go through, and they also understood how to help make even the travel arrangements. I don't think it's improper of me to mention that in that particular instance Canadian Airlines gives a half-price fare to parents who are going to China to adopt, as part of their corporate contribution to facilitating the process. It can be a very expensive process just to travel and going through all the bureaucratic processes, so that is a significant part of it.
Children's Bridge, because they have the experience and the contacts, know which organizations to deal with, which individuals within those organizations, both the government organizations and otherwise, to contact when there are problems and to smooth out the bumps along the road.
2100
We initially decided we were going to proceed with an adoption from China, I think it was in late January or early February of the year. We arranged for a home visit by a private practice social worker in Sault Ste Marie who came to visit us a number of times and then visited friends and acquaintances who could tell her about what they knew about us as parents and about our family and our experiences. Because of the previous experience in our family, which I won't go into here, the social worker had some concern about our motives and whether we were ready to adopt. I guess that's the best way to express it.
She did a very thorough job and those of you who know me might not be surprised when I got a little frustrated with the process and thought that it was taking a little longer than it might have. But she was very thorough and we really do appreciate the work she did.
She did the home study, then made the report to the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario here. They reviewed it, gave approval. That was then submitted to the adoption desk in Ottawa, which then contacted - Children's Bridge was facilitating this all along the way; they made sure that it followed all the hoops. The adoption desk in Ottawa submitted that to the Chinese government, and the Chinese government then had to go through the whole process.
Children's Bridge told us what we had to do. We had to send a photo of ourselves, a photo of the outside of our house, a bank statement indicating that we had the funds to be able not only to raise the child but to ensure that the child could get post-secondary education. The Chinese believe that there should not be tuition but that post-secondary education should be free. They know it's not free in North America and therefore they want to ensure that families have the money to educate the children properly.
That all had to be sent to China. Then we waited and waited. Children's Bridge indicated to us that when the Chinese finally approved it, it would come back to Canada and we would have to be ready to go on a moment's notice, and they have arrangements with Canadian Airlines to ensure that's possible. So we were all packed and ready. My wife had made arrangements with her employer that she would be able to leave and so on.
We found out from Children's Bridge that the other couples - there were 12 couples altogether in this group - had gotten approval and we hadn't heard anything. We wondered why this was happening, so Children's Bridge got in touch with their contact in the Chinese ministry, who was not in China at the time but rather was touring the United States visiting other agencies similar to Children's Bridge that participate in and facilitate adoptions from China to the United States for American couples. They finally tracked her down in Philadelphia and asked her why - her name was Madam Lee - it was that the Wildmans hadn't received any correspondence when all the other couples in this group had. Madam Lee informed her that the Wildmans' bank account wasn't good enough. The reason for that - this may be changing in China - is the Chinese do not participate, or didn't at that time I guess, in things like RRSPs, stocks and bonds and so on. They just wanted bank statements. Frankly, what we had to do was to redeem a number of RRSPs and put the money in the bank - and paid some tax on it as a result. We got a second bank statement submitted, and we were approved. Madam Lee concluded that we did indeed have enough money to properly raise the child and to educate her. For those of my constituents who wonder, you can now understand that I am indeed a poor man.
At any rate, then we waited again, and what happened was that all of a sudden we received a letter from an orphanage, and that's an important role of the facilitator, in this case Children's Bridge. They knew the orphanages. They knew which ones were really good orphanages that looked after the children well, which ones to deal with and which ones, unfortunately, they did not wish to deal with. We received a letter from the orphanage. Enclosed in the letter was a picture of the baby, whose head was shaved, which was a little disconcerting, but Children's Bridge had warned us about that, and a medical examination statement explaining the medical condition of the child, saying how old she was, what her name was and did we accept this child. Children's Bridge had already told us how to word the letter back. It was to explain why we wanted to adopt, did we accept her - yes, we did, of course - the reason we wanted to adopt and so on.
We wrote back and again we waited. Then suddenly we received notice that in the next week we should go, and we went. We arrived in Beijing first and flew from there to Nanjing, a two-hour jet ride, to the south of China, and were met there by the representatives of the orphanage and a young man named Bush Jong, who on a voluntary basis was acting as the interpreter because he wanted to improve his English and also wanted to help the children. He happened to be wearing - I can't believe this - a baseball cap with "Goulais Fire and Rescue" on the top of the cap. Goulais is a community in my constituency, and here I am in south central China meeting a man who's wearing a baseball cap from my constituency. I looked at him and said, "Where did you get that cap?" and he looked at me like there was something wrong with wearing this cap. I said, "No, it's just I'm surprised." He said, "A couple came from Sault Ste Marie last year and gave me this cap." A couple came from Sault Ste Marie to adopt a girl from China. He said, "Goulais, that's near Toronto, isn't it?" and I said, "It's a hell of a lot closer to Toronto than Nanjing is."
We went then to Yangzhou, which is 70 kilometres from Nanjing, stayed in a motel there, unfortunately were not able to visit the orphanage because of recent reports on the BBC about the orphanages in China that the Chinese did not like, and so they wouldn't allow us to go, whereas previous groups had gone to the orphanage. Instead, the representatives of the orphanage came to meet us at the motel. We had to go through a whole process of getting approvals in China. All the approvals had already been given but we had to go through it again. The bureaucracy in China tends to be a little bit bigger than even here. Then, when we got approval, suddenly one day we were told - this was about two days later - that the babies would be delivered, and I can tell you, without going into detail, that it was one of the most emotional experiences of our lives. To see all the couples receive their children and to see the caring and love of the children by the nannies and nurses from the orphanage and the genuine concern of the Chinese for the families and for the children was really heart-warming. There was a tremendous bonding immediately.
The next day when the people from the orphanage came to say goodbye, our little girl, Tiantian, Tiana, refused to leave my arms to say goodbye to them, which was quite amazing. We found out subsequently that the orphanage, because she was a little older than the infants - she wasn't an infant like most of them - had been spending the previous two weeks with our pictures, telling them that this was baba and mama. Baba means daddy, and mama. So she knew from the pictures what we looked like.
2110
We returned to Beijing and had to arrange with the Canadian embassy and wait for five days to have landed immigrant status and then flew back to Canada, and there it is. It was a wonderful experience and the beginning of an experience for all of us that, for those people who wish to adopt, I can only say is something they should look at seriously, and if they get the opportunity they should. But without the assistance of the facilitator, in this case Children's Bridge, it would have been much more difficult for us and for the other couples. Their role is very important.
I support the legislation which says that facilitators such as this organization should be licensed. They do as well. They are concerned about what criteria might be used, and I hope that the technical briefing that is going to be given to them will allay those concerns. I suspect it will and they will be able to move forward.
I said that the other groups in Canadopt, some of the other families, didn't have the same positive experiences we had. I have a very good friend in Sault Ste Marie who has three adopted children. One is an aboriginal child from Canada and the other two are from Central America. One of the experiences they had was anything but positive, except the result, which was positive. They were dealing with private individuals, in this case lawyers and doctors who were facilitating private adoptions. In one of the two cases, she went to - I won't mention the country - the Central American country, and while they had been told all the paperwork and all the approvals were done, when she got there she found out that very little of it had been done. They had spent a great deal of money.
Where some might have become discouraged and come home and would not have achieved the adoption, she decided to say there and stayed for a total of three months, ensuring that all the steps were followed through, and then finalized the adoption. The adoption was finalized and they returned home and they have a wonderful little boy as a result, but it was a tremendous expense and tremendous inconvenience. You can imagine the emotional highs and lows the family went through. Hopefully, by passing this legislation and ensuring that there are proper procedures followed in Ontario and that there's a central authority in Ontario dealing with a central authority in the host country, those kinds of problems can be resolved.
I don't believe, as some members have said tonight, that we can be assured there will not be any problems in the future, but surely by passing this legislation and requiring proper licensing of facilitators, by ensuring there is proper regulation and the proper steps are followed here in Ontario, and that there is a central authority here dealing with a central authority in the host country, these kinds of difficulties will be minimized and families who want to adopt will not go through the tremendous expense that some have in the past, and the emotional commitment, and then find that they don't in fact get an adoption, which I think would be tragic. I hope that doesn't happen in the future.
I am very much in support of licensing adoption agencies. This is an important step. Not only will it ensure that the agencies are competent to do the facilitation, but that some of the negative perception around the kinds of things the member for York-Mackenzie mentioned will not happen. The experience in Hungary and Croatia is a terrible one that I was aware of before. He delineated what was essentially a private business, an illegal business, of selling babies. That has produced a tremendously unfortunate perception of facilitators which, for most of them who are genuinely interested in helping children and families, is completely unwarranted.
Also I think that by passing this legislation we'll be ensuring greater uniformity in the process and among agencies. Right now I think there are some agencies or people who put themselves forward as facilitators whose motivation is quite questionable, and that can certainly be regulated by a proper licensing process.
As my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine mentioned, I hope that the licence fee is not prohibitive to prevent not-for-profit volunteer organizations from continuing to do the kind of facilitation that Children's Bridge did for us. I'm assured by the staff of the ministry that that's not likely and I'm hopeful that will ensure they will be able to continue their work.
In the past, some people have been asked to pay large sums of money to agencies, usually up front, and then when problems occurred, there were breakdowns and they were subsequently asked for more money.
The question of the central authority under the Hague convention: That's quite clear. I hope that countries that are not signatories to the Hague convention will set up organizations or agencies that will act as central authorities, similar to the way the Chinese government does, that will ensure an effective government-to-government relationship. However, in some countries things are not as sophisticated as they are in countries like Canada and China. There are situations where many people can be subject to favouritism or bribery, even including some of the people who are officers of the court in some countries. Hopefully, as we have more countries sign the Hague convention, this kind of situation will be rectified.
I am quite happy with the assistance that has been given, and I think the provincial bureaucrats would agree with this, to families who wish to adopt to Canada by the Canadian embassy and the people who work for immigration for the Canadian government in these countries. They play a very important role and I know that the proposed legislation recognizes the role of the National Adoption Desk.
I want to finish by emphasizing what my friend from Beaches-Woodbine and others have mentioned, and that is the need to ensure proper resourcing for the ministry staff - staffing as well as resourcing. We don't want to have a situation where we are attempting to improve the regulation result in a situation where there are delays in approvals by the director, by the central authority here. I think there is a commitment on the part of the government to provide additional resources and additional staff to be able to implement this legislation. I believe sincerely the commitment of the minister and her parliamentary assistant to ensuring that this legislation is implemented well. It would be tragic if we were to do this to improve situations and find that we are adding to delay.
2120
I want to again congratulate the member for Lawrence for his initiative and to say I am very pleased that the Minister of Community and Social Services has responded to the concerns that many members have raised in this House about the needs of international adoption families. I believe she genuinely wanted to respond. She recognized the importance of implementing the Hague convention, but also recognized, as I indicated to her on a number of occasions, both in writing and personally in meeting with her, the need to deal with the 80% of children who are adopted in Ontario who are from countries that are not signatories to that convention. China is of course the one I know most about and it is one of the largest countries that has children adopted into Canada. Russia is another.
Those countries, particularly China which I know more about, have very effective systems, but many other countries where there are adoptions into Canada do not have as effective systems. Hopefully, by passing this legislation here, we will ensure that in Ontario we're doing all we can to facilitate and regulate the adoption of children from abroad, and to assist families to bring young people like Tiana into their lives and to enrich their lives through that experience.
One of the reasons that I think this is so important is that there are so many children around the world who are institutionalized in orphanages or who are living on the street and just surviving as best they can. We have enormous wealth in this country. There are many families, many couples, in this country who want to have children and who have had difficulty in having their own children, or who for whatever reason wish to add to a family they already have. Whatever we can do to bring those two together, the children and the prospective parents, we should be doing. That's why this legislation is so important.
Some would say, "It's only a few kids - 580-some children in Ontario last year - when you consider the millions of children around the world who need assistance." There are other ways of helping children and many of us participate in those ways through aid agencies and so on. Not all of us can adopt or would want to adopt from abroad, but for those who do and can we should be doing everything possible to ensure that they are protected and their children are protected.
Again, I'm very, very pleased and proud to participate in this debate in the passage of this legislation. I congratulate the government and the minister and I appreciate the efforts of so many members in this House. I just hope there will be many more families who will be able to have a child say to them, "My mummy and daddy came to China" - Guatemala, Venezuela, Romania, Russia - "and I adopted them."
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I want to congratulate the member for Algoma, to say that I enjoyed his discussion a great deal. It's always interesting to hear perspectives on families and how they're built and how they work together. I know that in Huron county my husband and I have a number of friends who have gone through this same process, and I want to say that along with having enormous wealth in this province, we also have parents who have enormous love to give to kids. I find in almost all the cases I've seen that these kids are substantially better off than they would have been in other places, so I think it's a very important thing that is happening in the Legislature today.
One of the things that I thought was interesting that the member has recognized and that we have seen in our own friends and family is the difficulty people have had when they've got to different lands to adopt their children. We've seen delays in approval. We've also seen facilitators who have had very questionable motives, and that when parents have got there and are all excited and in a land where they don't speak the same language, things start to dissipate for them and all of a sudden what should have been a beautiful experience and a wonderful bonding experience becomes some traumatic thing in their hearts. By entering into the Hague convention today, and by everyone in this House expressing the interest that we all have in helping families and children, I think we are just a little richer as a province today.
Mr Bradley: I want to thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Algoma for their contributions to this debate. It was very positive and it was very informative.
The experience that the member for Algoma has gone through is an extremely valuable one for him to share with members of the House because he knows on a first-hand basis the challenges which face parents who wish to adopt children from other lands and how to overcome some of those roadblocks and how to maintain the kind of patience, which is difficult to maintain I'm sure, on many of those occasions the member mentioned. We would not be surprised that he would show some impatience, as he does from time to time in the House, when he believes that matters aren't unfolding as they might. I know he would be very anxious in regard to the adoption possibility and I can understand his angst at the time and his perhaps mild annoyance that things were not proceeding as quickly as they should. His experience that he has shared with members of the House and through the Ontario Legislative Assembly television network, that he has shared with the people who are watching, and indeed with any who might read Hansard and with those who might simply talk to others about his speech, has been an extremely valuable contribution to this debate.
I want to commend him for taking his initiative. He and his wife have certainly taken on an initiative which many might be reluctant to do. Their motivations of course are of the very highest that we look for. They set a good example for others who are looking to adopt children from other countries. Let us just hope that this legislation will assist us in meeting the needs of those children and of the parents who wish to adopt them.
Mr Klees: I thank the member for Algoma for his recounting and allowing us to share with him what he experienced in going through that process.
I thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine for her contribution to the debate. She made some very important points regarding resources, and I couldn't agree more that it would be inappropriate for us to take this important step without also ensuring that the resources are there to ensure that this process works smoothly.
My wife, Jaine, and I 16 years ago went through this process as well domestically, not intercountry adoption. I know what it is to wait with great anticipation. I know also what it is to be frustrated that it doesn't happen, and the joy that's there at the end of the day when this important process helps to create a family unit.
On behalf of the minister, I want to thank all members who participated in the debate this evening and I want to thank all members for their support for this most important piece of legislation. What we need to remember is that while this legislation represents a framework under which this process can take place, at the end of the day it really speaks to the heart that men and women throughout this province have for each other and for children. Truly this will make the province much stronger. We welcome those children from the far parts of the world as they create, together with their parents, the true fabric of this province. We look forward to this legislation becoming law.
Mr Miclash: It was quite touching this evening to learn first-hand the experiences of a fellow member here in the Legislature when it came to adoption. I've had the opportunity to actually meet his daughter at one point here in the Legislature and have been able to witness for myself how important it was for this family to have gone through with what was a very important move in their lives, I'm sure.
When we take a look at the whole process that we've discussed this evening, we're certainly looking at putting kids first and allowing for them to have an opportunity in what I consider to be the greatest country in the world and probably the greatest province in that country. Again, some very important legislation and a very educational evening for all of us who agree that this is important for us to get our comments on the record, and I too would like to congratulate all members who contributed to this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Algoma has two minutes to respond.
Mr Wildman: I won't use the full two minutes. I want to thank the members for Huron, St Catharines, York-Mackenzie and Kenora. I would just say that in recounting my experience, I wasn't doing that to say that somehow our family was special. I was just trying to give the experience for members, because so many families have taken the opportunity to adopt abroad. I'm just here along with other members because we want to facilitate that.
I want to thank the members for their comments and to say that the delay that occurred for me was not that long. We were first involved in it in late January and we had our little girl home just before Christmas, in December, so it wasn't very long. My impatience is just part of my makeup.
Certainly, for us as a family and for all of Ontario these kinds of adoptions, as the member for Huron said, enrich all of us.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there another member who wishes to participate in the debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.
Mr Klees: I want to, on behalf of the government, thank all members for their contributions. We look forward to this matter coming to a vote without any further delay.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Klees has moved second reading of Bill 72.
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Mr Klees: Mr Speaker, I ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on social development.
The Deputy Speaker: So ordered.
It being after 9:30, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 2133.