Bill C-14 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 15, 2006
- Debated in principleJune 13, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 1, 2007
- Passed the second chamberJune 20, 2007
- Became lawJune 22, 2007
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Consiglio Di NinoSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Monte SolbergMinister moves the bill and presents it as fulfilling a platform commitment to support adoptive families.
- Bill SiksayHe states that New Democrats strongly support this legislation and hope to see its passage.
- Yvan LoubierHe calls the bill fantastic and important for thousands of parents seeking equal status for adopted children.
- Meili FailleShe states that the measure has always been supported and promoted by her party.
- Larry BagnellSpeaker expresses delight at the bill's return and calls it a matter of fairness that should pass.
- Andrew TelegdiHe endorses the legislation and notes its long history of support across parties.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
How it changed on the way
84% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (594 words introduced, 694 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
Parliament added a new section requiring proposed regulations on citizenship to be laid before both Houses and referred to committees before being made. It also replaced the open-ended coming-into-force clause with a fixed six-month deadline after royal assent.
- Added parliamentary oversight procedure for proposed regulations.
After: “3.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 27: 27.1 (1) The Minister shall cause a copy of each regulation proposed to be made under paragraph 27(d.1) to be laid before each House of Parliament, and each House shall refer the proposed regulation to the appropriate Commit”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets fixed dates, ages, and a mandatory grant of citizenship once listed conditions are met, but relies on subjective judgments about relationships and motives. Regulations can further define those judgments, leaving room for argument over application.
Open to argument
“was in the best interests of the child”
Subjective welfare standard that invites differing opinions rather than an objective checklist.“created a genuine relationship of parent and child”
Undefined term whose meaning turns on factual impressions rather than measurable criteria.“not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege”
Requires assessment of dominant motive, a subjective inquiry open to prolonged dispute.
Clear-cut
“after February 14, 1977 while the person was a minor child”
Uses a specific calendar date and the defined legal term 'minor child' to fix the temporal scope.“the Quebec authority responsible for international adoptions advises, in writing”
Requires a concrete written document from a named authority, creating a clear documentary test.
Discretion. The Minister must grant citizenship when the statutory conditions are satisfied, yet paragraph 27(d.1) lets regulations prescribe the factors for deciding whether those conditions are met, and subsection 5.1(3) substitutes an official opinion for direct application of the tests.
Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'best interests' and 'genuine relationship' could support a vagueness or overbreadth claim under section 7 of the Charter by leaving eligibility too uncertain.
Disputing a charge under it. Applicants can readily contest whether a relationship was 'genuine' or an adoption was 'primarily' for immigration purposes because those tests rest on subjective assessments rather than objective facts.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.