Proposition 50K1366

Projet de loi réformant l'adoption (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

July 17, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

adoption of a child

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 16, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, we are going to discuss an important bill concerning adoption and I am reporting on behalf of Mrs. Jacqueline Herzet and Mr. Herzet. Karel Van Hoorebeke and Servais Verherstraeten.

The Justice Committee has devoted numerous sessions — 11 in total — and numerous expert hearings to the adoption reform which pursues two objectives, one deriving from the other.

The Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in International Adoption. This Convention advocates the absolute obligation to take measures to guarantee, in the case of international adoption, the best interests of the child, the respect of his fundamental rights and to prevent any abduction, sale or trafficking in children. In order to ⁇ these objectives, the Convention establishes a system of cooperation between the Contracting States, designates the central authorities for adoption within each State and establishes strict conditions for adoption.

On the other hand, at the internal level, the text adapts the right of adoption to the current society, fills certain gaps and incorporates innovations. These include opening adoption to unmarried persons of different sex, the possibility for parents to oppose consultation with grandparents as part of the investigation, the possibility for a person to be subject to a new adoption and, finally, a preliminary assessment of the aptitude of persons wishing to adopt.

In addition to these substantive changes, it is important to note that the adoption and the approval procedure are abolished and replaced by a judicial procedure before the judge of the youth, who then becomes, after mature reflection, the judge of the adoption.

Another measure aims to impose the consent of the child aged twelve years or older at the time of adoption.

During the debates, the chairman of the committee raised four major issues, inviting members to take a position: - Which authority will grant adoption? Can adopters be homosexual? - What will be the respective competences of the federal power and the communities since the possibility of a greater association of communities to the procedure has been mentioned? Should there be a distinction between the internal procedure and the international procedure?

You will, of course, find the summary of the various hearings, on which I will not extend, in the written report as well as, in annex, the summary of the measures already taken at the level of the communities in this matter.

During the general discussion, the interventions of the various parliamentarians can be summarized as follows. by

First, some VLD members believed that homosexual couples should also be able to adopt a child. Thro ⁇ the discussion, they also insisted that the best interests of the child prevail.

The representatives of ECOLO-AGALEV, for their part, considered that there should be no discrimination between the children of homosexual couples and the children of heterosexual couples. In addition, the speaker said that no study demonstrated that children raised by homosexual couples suffered any harm.

Speakers of the SP.A expressed their fears of a conflict of competence with the Communities and insisted on the need to take into account the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights which specified that the orientation of the applicant to adoption cannot justify a different treatment while recognizing that, for international adoptions, bilateral agreements would be necessary.

For the MR, the problem of adoption by homosexual couples is an ethical issue. Every member of Parliament must have the right to speak freely.

Some speakers from CD&V and cdH recalled that the project constituted a progression from the right of adoption as it currently exists and ⁇ insisted that the protection of the child must prevail over the desire of adults. The emphasis was also placed on the concern caused by the difference in treatment between domestic adoption and international adoption in the preparation of adopting candidates.

The CDH emphasized the role of the bodies acknowledged by the Communities and considered that the guidance of adoptive candidates was not sufficiently guaranteed while it was important that the candidates were genuinely accompanied by the acknowledged intermediaries.

The PS, on the other hand, insisted that the project constitutes a significant advance in the matter, although it can be seen that no agreement could be reached on the adoption of homosexual couples despite all the interest that this issue has aroused and the subsequent debates. While several amendments granting this right to homosexual couples were filed, they were eventually removed to not block the project.

The Government has, for its part, proposed several amendments improving the scope of certain concepts and clarifying that preparation for adoption would also take place at the internal level and that bodies approved by the Communities would be associated with this preparation.

Finally, government amendments were filed to make the youth judge the judge of adoption.

Before concluding, I would like to thank the departments of the committee for the work they have done as part of the review of this important bill which, as I said, took into account the various sensitivities.

The draft amendment was unanimously approved.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the four rapporteurs who, through Mrs. Lalieux, gave us an excellent report on the work of the committee. First of all, I would like to point out that Mrs. De Meyer will intervene on behalf of my group. by

Je prie Mme Lalieux de m'excuser de l'avoir interrompue mais je crois qu'il est essentiel, dans cette matière où depuis bien longtemps les personnes concernées attend une réponse à leur souci majeur concernant leurs relations avec les enfants adoptés, de relever la manière dont les travaux se sont déroulés. It is appropriate to pay tribute to those who have helped us and you, Mr. Minister, to bring this truly magistral work to a good end. I think we rarely have been able to collaborate in this way. The committee has been able to appeal to so many experts, but at the same time you and we can count on the cooperation of excellent magistrates who with knowledge of matters and sense of responsibility have drawn up this text. I dare to hope that in this legislature, with this work, we will give an answer to the many who ask for it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker Erdman, the project that is submitted to us today and whose advances are far from negligible, significantly changes the law in the context of adoption.

This ⁇ sensitive subject has engendered a complex debate mixing legal, sociological, but also affective elements, which should be taken into account in order to respond in the most appropriate way? In order to enable every citizen to get there. Adoption does not leave anyone indifferent.

On the one hand, we welcome the progress made through the ratification of the Hague Convention and the updating of obsolete domestic rules. We are also satisfied with the removal of the adoption contract, a vestige of the adoption of the major, once provided by the Code Napoleon to provide for the agreement of the families, adoptive and origin, contract which will now be replaced by a judgment.

On the other hand, I allow myself to insist on the fact that adoption is not only an institution of filiation but above all a measure of protection of the child. The procedure aims to offer a family to a child, whose story is most often tragic, and not to provide a child to a family.

We also hope that the reform will prevent the abuse and trafficking of children we have seen in the past.

During the discussions, I strongly insisted that a similar procedure should be provided for domestic and international adoptions. This is the very evidence of giving adopted children the same guarantees and of allowing adoptive parents to undergo the same preparation at the services approved by the communities, authorized services which – I recall – have, for most of them, performed for many years an excellent work and have enabled many families to welcome children in the best conditions and in the best interests of them.

In fact, it should not be neglected that an adopted child is not a biological child and that certain difficulties may occur both before, during or after adoption.

For us, it is through a balance between the interventions of the youth judge and the psychosocial expert that we will obtain the guarantees, not only in terms of the suitability of the adoptive candidates but also in terms of the accompaniment before, during and after the adoption.

Finally, before concluding this intervention, I would like to regret that an agreement could not be reached on adoption by gay couples. At present, however, there is no objective reason to justify such exclusion, such discrimination.

Continuing to argue that adoption can only be reserved for heterosexual couples, is not taking into account the evolution of our society, the realities experienced by many children and families.

Homosexual couples raise children and homosexual couples raise children. But also and above all, it is to demonstrate a certain hypocrisy, to the extent that only one person can adopt, regardless of his sexual orientation.

In this debate, what must first be the interests of the child, is that he thrives in an affectively stable environment. This emotional stability can of course be provided by two parents of the same sex. The important thing, therefore, is to establish whether, as the law reminds, it is fit to be educated by a couple and that, regardless of the nature of the couple or the person. For me, this aptitude cannot be denied "prima facie", otherwise, it would be necessary to propose the defeat of parental authority of homosexual biological parents.

Any other argument is of symbolic, moral order or referring to a natural or divine law. During the debate, I did not hear any valid, rational, logical, empirical or even scientific argument to deny equality for homosexual couples and justify differentiated and discriminatory treatment.

As for the evolution of the child who would have trouble building a sexual identity, who would become of office homo, no study goes in this direction and the few existing studies demonstrate the opposite.

The biggest difficulty that the child will have to go through is undoubtedly the look of others, even insults or humiliations. But let us not justify a discrimination by invoking another discrimination. Only a few years ago, children of mixed couples or divorced couples were victims of malicious people. Are mixed couples or divorce prohibited?

Finally, we voted on Tuesday in the Justice Committee, the law on opening marriage to same-sex couples but, here again, we closed the door to filiation. The evolution of legislation is rarely spontaneous. Factual situations, often painful, often precede the legislator. I hope that, very soon, this Parliament will reopen the debate on filiation and parenting so that so many children of women and men no longer live in disorder, uncertainty and non-recognition. Law is an essential foundation of our society, but it is not immutable. It must be the reflection of an evolving democratic society, guaranteeing the rights, duties, but also the freedoms of everyone. Let us try to move as quickly as possible towards the elimination of discrimination. In my opinion, this is an imperative solution to live in a climate of solidarity and equality.

Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you a small question because many families today call us or send us emails regarding transitional measures. I would like you to repeat in the plenary session that all families that have entered the old chain, even if they do not yet have a child assignment, will not have to start the new procedure again. I think this would reassure many parents.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in my turn, I join those who have already expressed their congratulations here for the sound content of this bill, and the excellent work of the reporters.

The draft law can rely on a large support area and it is an important draft. It will enable the effective application in Belgium of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in the Field of Interstate Adoption. The VLD welcomes the fact that, as otherwise stated in the Convention, as a basic principle is included that an adoption may only take place in the best interests of the child, and with respect for the fundamental rights that it has under international law.

First, as colleague Lalieux also pointed out, adoption is, in fact, a measure of protection for the child to whom a family is given. This does not mean that the legitimate wishes of prospective adopters should not be taken into account, but that is subordinated in the hierarchy of interests to the best interests of the child.

During the hearing in the Judiciary Committee, a number of difficulties were addressed. First, who will be the adoption judge? Originally, the draft chose the peace judge, in the context of the future role of the peace judge as a family judge, and also because the youth judge would actually get less in contact with civil law matters. However, the hearings and the opinion of the High Council of Justice have shown that at this time the juvenile judge is best placed to take over the jurisdiction in matters of adoption. The smooth and proper handling of the adoption files has been our great concern. If the field thinks that the youth judge is the right person for that, then we will follow that as well. I could add, but that would be a little embarrassing, that we do not want to charge the overloaded peacekeepers with even more work.

The second challenging point was the different course of the procedure depending on whether it is an internal or an interstate adoption. It was also logical for us to opt to provide the same safeguards in case of internal adoption, and to have the candidate adopters always check their suitability, although the State Council did not really find it necessary.

The third point concerned the adoption by homosexual couples. In this regard — I agree with the previous speaker — it is a pity that the sexual orientation of candidate adopters remains a rule of exclusion, at least if they want to adopt with two. Remember that adoption by one person is already possible and that there is no exclusion basis for sexual orientation. The same-sex marriage will be voted here soon, but adoption within gay couples was apparently ‘a bridge too far’.

The latter point concerned the course of the adoption procedure, and more specifically the powers of the federal government and the Communities, respectively. Here it was clarified that the federal legislator creates the legal framework, including the conditions that the candidate adopter must meet and the procedures. However, it is the Communities that will determine what the content of the preparation is, and who will give it. They are also responsible for the matching and possible follow-up. In this context, it is very important for the VLD that the determination of the suitability of candidate adopters is made by a court decision, based on a social survey, carried out by a social service of the court. The State Council has also taken that opinion. It is, in our opinion, unhealthy that community services have a monopoly on delivering a certificate of adoptability or suitability. That is the role of the judge. In this way, a number of wasteland conditions, which are still occurring on the ground, can be avoided and the suitability will be established objectively and above all not overwhelmingly.

With regard to the competence of the Communities, we hope that consultations with the Communities can be held promptly in order to eventually reach a cooperation agreement. We also hope that the Communities will use the opportunity to amend their decrees. There should be more transparent procedures that are less burdensome, follow-up care should be organised and the costs of adoption could be pressured. In Flanders, a draft decree in this sense has already been submitted and can be discussed once the draft has been approved.

Most of the time was spent on the topics I recently listed. It should be noted that the draft law does not only deal with inter-country adoption — although these are the majority of adoptions — but also with internal adoption. The entire legislation on adoption is being reformed, gaps have been removed and a number of innovations have been introduced. I will not overcome everything. The rapporteur provided a comprehensive report. I would like to point out a few points that are important for the VLD. First, cohabitants are given the possibility of adoption, however on the condition that the couple has been living together for a certain period of time, 3 years, permanently and affectively. The reason is that one wants to ensure that the adopted is taken in a stable family framework. This does not apply to married people. One may wonder whether the fact of being married today still guarantees a stable family framework given the large number of divorces. But well . Second, the possibility of a new adoption is a welcome renewal. In spite of all safeguards and measures, an adoption may still fail or be revised. The revision is another novelty. The review may terminate the adoption if there is a violation of the rights and interests of the child such as kidnapping or child trafficking. In this case, the adopted should be given a chance to find a family again. In the light of less harassment and self-determination, the opinion of the child itself will also be taken more into account from now on. The consent of the child will be required from the age of 12 and more attention will be paid to hearing the minors. Finally, on the whole of the procedure, I can say that the VLD is pleased that the type-approval procedure is abandoned and that a judge accompanies the whole procedure, which should provide the necessary safeguards.

Unfortunately, the candidate adopters will not know the content of the report that the court will send to the federal central authority. They will not receive a copy in order to continue the procedure under the Convention and to prevent fraud. Some might be inclined to look for a country or institution that a child can offer. In my opinion, it would have been interesting to give at least insight into the report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in my brief speech, I have limited myself to the points that were most important for the VLD. I expect this draft to be approved by a very large majority, including by my group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this is an important step forward towards a more human justice. The committee has done a very thorough work. Work on this dossier has been done for a long time. This cannot be said for all files. In this regard, I would like to agree with the words of the Chairman of the Committee on Justice. This work was put on track by former Justice Minister, Tony Van Parys, in the previous legislature. The work has continued and is being finalised today. It is important to emphasize this from this tribune.

The adoption legislation showed many shortcomings. There was a lot of injustice that had to be removed urgently. A lot of hearings were organized and experts were put to work. The result is very good.

This law is important. A lot of people are waiting for some arrangements around adoption. They are really waiting until they can proceed with the procedure or initiate a procedure. Their

On the one hand, the legislation has been adapted to the Hague Convention and on the other hand, a number of shortcomings have also been addressed. It is important that many issues are resolved. I would like to give you a brief overview of what changes with the adoption legislation.

First and foremost, adoption is open to unmarried persons of different sexes. They must be unmarried persons who live together permanently in an affective manner. Persons who have been living together for three years and can also prove that, can subsequently also proceed to adoption. In this way, however, adoption is also adapted to the current social reality.

Second, the original parents are much better informed about the consequences of adoption.

Another point is the fact that the candidate adopters, the parents who want to adopt, are also much better evaluated. Their ability is checked and their suitability is checked. Of course, there is also an appeal to the Communities, so that they can do much more work on this. On the other hand, candidate adopters will also be much better prepared and will also be much better guided. But also there, the Communities will need to be called upon to ensure that all this is put on the right track.

On the other hand, there is also a simplification of the judicial procedure, with a further discussion of who should be competent for the entire procedure. Was it the judge or the judge? Finally, we chose in the Justice Committee to make the juvenile judge competent. We envisaged the option of giving the peacekeeper an additional authority, but the opposite of this was, of course, that there were not sufficient resources and that the peacekeepers also, in this work, would be insufficiently supported.

Another important point is that the age at which the adopted must allow adoption has been reduced from 15 years to 12 years. The importance and rights of the child are thus much better respected.

There is also greater clarity about the consequences of full adoption for the new spouse of a child’s parents. That is very important. In the past there have been many dramas about this and it was actually impossible for a new parent’s partner to adopt a child because the ties with that parent would then be broken. Now a solution is being given to this. It is precisely this that a lot of people are sitting waiting, so that they could move on with the adoption of a child that they have in fact considered their own child for years.

Finally, there is also an arrangement around the name. In the case of ordinary adoption, the name may also be preceded by the name of the adopters.

Finally, and that is also important, as colleague Moerman has already cited, adoption can be revised when the best interests of the child are violated.

We will fully support this project. The people are waiting. The importance of the child prevails in what is presented here. I would like to emphasize that all this was put on track by our Minister of Justice, Tony Van Parys, in the previous legislature. It is a realization that will be realized here both trans-legislature and trans-party. It is a staple of thorough work in Parliament and that can ⁇ not be said of all dossiers. We will fully support this.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, by

I take advantage of the speech time that is reserved for me to thank in particular these different personalities for having had the extreme obligation to take their time to illuminate our debates and allow us to overcome some of the obstacles we encounter in our work of drafting laws.

I will remind from the beginning that the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on Adoption consacrate adoption, not only as an institution of filiation, but as a measure of protection of the child. Adoption is to give a family to a child and not a child to a family, as Ms. Isabelle Lammerant reminded very well when hearing our commission. Adoption is justified by the best interests of the child and not by the desire for children of adults, even if this is of course necessary for the realization of an adoption. Our will, by amending the legislation on adoption, is therefore good to translate into the texts and in our practice this primacy of the best interests of the child. by

It was also important, in order to ensure the achievement of this priority objective, to simplify the adoption procedure and, above all, to make it more transparent for all stakeholders.

The project meets these fundamental objectives. by

With regard to access to adoption, we can only welcome the progress contained in the bill. In particular, I think of the possibility given now to unmarried couples to offer a family to children in distress. I also think of the provisions introduced to address the difficulties encountered by adoptive candidates in the proceedings, the possibility to conduct a new adoption procedure in the event of failure of a first procedure, when serious reasons justify it, the possibility for adoptive candidates to object to the consultation of grandparents in the social survey to verify the aptitude of the candidates to adopt, which will avoid obstacles resulting from possible generational conflicts, the introduction of a mechanism for converting simple adoption into full adoption.

With regard to the protection of the best interests of the child, the choice that has been made to entrust the judicial control of the adoption process to the youth judge in place of the peace judge is crucial. The government proposed, in the initial draft, to entrust this judicial control to the peace judge. We objected that the youth judge constituted the most appropriate authority to ensure the protection of the best interests of the child at every stage of the adoption process. In fact, the youth judge has certain experience in matters concerning the person of the child and the protection of his rights. Furthermore, the same judge has a specialized social service capable of carrying out the social inquiry provided for in the draft law. Our objection was accepted and the bill was amended in this direction. We congratulate ourselves.

We also welcome the establishment of a general procedure of preparation for adoption, the concrete organization of which will be the responsibility of the Communities, both with regard to domestic adoption and international adoption. This principle of equality seems to me essential in view of our international commitments and the obligations arising from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Hague Convention on Adoption and the European Convention on Human Rights.

I will conclude with a few remarks that are more related to the application of the legal device that we are called to vote than to the device itself. With regard to the assessment of the aptitude of adopting candidates, the bill leaves a great deal of freedom to the Communities in the choice that they will make of the assessment bodies. This bill refers to the mechanism of social investigation already implemented by the bodies designated by the Communities, without prejudice to arbitration and decisions that will be taken in this regard. by

We insist that such an assessment must be carried out in a thorough and serious manner so that the youth judge can make a decision that is in full conformity with the best interests of the child. The cooperation agreement will be important and will have to incorporate this dimension.

Finally, we consider that Article 21 of this bill, which regulates the problem of transitional measures, is too restrictive and risks to penalize adoptive candidates who already meet the main guarantees offered by the bill, namely, on the one hand, information and preparation and, on the other hand, the assessment of skills. Therefore, it is essential not to submit again to this preparatory work adoptive candidates who have already been the subject of a favorable social survey conducted by the currently competent bodies. It would be to take the risk that the provision, as drafted, produces in interested adoptive candidates a detrimental psychological effect and a legitimate sense of injustice that could lead to a real discredit on the work of the authorities in charge of adoption files and that could discourage more than one, while they have already completed most of the path leading them to adoption.

That is why our group has submitted an amendment aimed at changing the transitional provisions of the project under consideration, which we otherwise endorse for the reasons I have stated.

Mr. Minister, allow me to return to this article 21 since I have recently checked a number of elements. I realize that the paragraph we propose to add to it is still relatively important because if we do not add this first paragraph of the amendment I propose, 1,500 adoptive candidates will be penalized, only in the French Community.

This first paragraph, which we propose to add to Article 21, says this – I ask in the report that this be taken word by word and I ask the Minister to express itself on this first paragraph –: “When on the date of entry into force of this law, the adopters were subject to a favorable social survey for adoption, carried out in accordance with the modalities in force within the Communities, the adoption procedure remains subject to the earlier law for a maximum period of three years, from the date of entry into force of this law.”

Here, Mr. Minister, is the small paragraph that we ask to add. As I told you, according to my information, only in the French Community, if we do not extend Article 21 with this paragraph, 1,500 adoptive candidates would be penalized since they have already reached the stage that we describe in this first paragraph. In your response, I would like to provide some clarification on this issue.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my discussion on the reform of the adoption legislation, it should be clear to me that it is necessary and that it is difficult for me to take a place in this speaker’s seat in these circumstances. It is only because of the importance of the adoption legislation that I hold this speech, because, frankly, I have not had much more meaning in it when I recall the shabby spectacle that we saw here a little less than an hour ago.

However, I still believe that it is the right and duty of parliamentarians to interpell and question a government, to exercise our control right. Since then, we have experienced the opposite. A prime minister comes here ostentatively sitting on the banks to then see how the Chamber can only press the button. That, Mr. President, is your responsibility. The fact that this shameful mark is thrown on our parliamentary career is also part of your responsibility. I deeply regret that. It is pro forma that I hold this speech. I would therefore like this to be noted in the report. I would like to hold this speech only in the interests of the adoption legislation that we have approved and which indeed was properly completed in the committee. Furthermore, the many children who are adopted and who will still be adopted under this new legislation are my driving force to hold this speech.

That being said, it must also be of my heart that we, the Flemish Bloc, will not approve this legislation in connection with adoption. Despite the good work done, despite the fact that we are convinced that this is a great step forward in civil law, there is a very first name, important and principled argument to disapprove this text, namely that marriage is once again, unfortunately, outholded. Thereafter, it was said that holebians are excluded from this scheme and that the Flemish Blok thinks differently about it.

The Flemish Bloc states that marriage as a cornerstone of society is once again afflicted by this legislation. The statute, the institution of marriage, is exhausted and considered merely a contract. This has been discussed earlier this week, namely during the discussion of same-sex marriages in the Committee for Justice. Now also cohabitants, of a different sex – we can still congratulate that now that the same-sex marriages arrive at a drafte – who have a lasting relationship for three years are allowed to adopt. The Flemish Bloc has never said and will never say that couples of different sex would be bad parents if they were not married. That has never been our position, but we stick to the principle that marriage should be the cornerstone of society.

I would like to refer to a small anecdote in the committee. At one point I suggested to the employee of the Minister, who is always very speaking and very expertly explaining his affairs, that marriage for the Flemish Bloc should remain the cornerstone of society, also in adoption matters. He replicated that the marriage had in fact become a marble, and on the question of whether he welcomed that the marriage had become a marble, this speech waterfall suddenly stopped. The whole committee suddenly became silent. Apparently, that comment was made.

Indeed, colleagues, that is the only objection in this legislation that I am here to announce on behalf of the Flemish Bloc with force and with emphasis. Marriage is again and again outlawed by this legislation, because the relationship of cohabitants is rather non-binding and yet they are allowed to adopt. It is so. There is no reason to vote against this law. What has annoyed me in the committee is the fact that during the last five or six meetings and today again on the floor, certain members of political groups have only talked about the adoption possibilities for holebi couples.

It’s my modest opinion here – and I think I’m not alone in it – about a few dozen couples of hole bias who may someday want to adopt children once that’s allowed by law. During those recent meetings, however, the word homo and holebi has been taken more into the mouth by the homo and holebi lobby than that it has been spoken about the importance of the children that can be made under this law, which has also slowed the work. This has annoyed not only me, but also colleagues in other political groups. This has not only annoyed the Flemish Bloc. I can name members from other groups. They are not here and I will not do that out of respect for them. However, the comments of those members were not misunderstood. It has also irritated members of other groups.

The tuyau of the Greens and the SP.A, namely, much is not enough with the same-sex marriages, was the gay adoption. In a kind of deal with the CD&V faction, that is currently and for the time being not discussed. Believe me, however, if the purple-green majority enters the next legislature, then one can be sure — even the opponents of gay adoptions within the other factions — that those gay adoptions will come. It is just a tuyau of the Greens and the SP.A. The CD&V faction should have stood much more on its lines at this point and should have simply rejected that deal. In principle, like us, like the Flemish Bloc and like some in other factions, she should have come more in the fire against the plans for the gay and holebi adoption that are being prepared.

The [...]

Yes, Mrs. De Meyer, I have listened to you in the committee. It was not only annoying, it was annoying for all those children who need to be adopted. It was overwhelming that the bill had to wait not three to four weeks, but three to four months, because no deal could be concluded around ...

I find it a scandalous way the colleague is doing this. He makes an absolute distinction between the one and the other child, as if a child of heterosexual couples would be completely different from a child of holebi couples. Mr. Schoofs, where do you get it from? Where do you get the courage to tell such a thing?

Mrs. De Meyer, I wonder where you get that I made a distinction between children here. I did not distinguish between children. I also know that in our society children are raised in composite families where ⁇ two partners of the same sex. It is not the intention of the Flemish Bloc to discriminate against these children or to take them away from those parents. We never said that. It is what you suggest. We never said that. We do not make any distinction between children. We do not do it. However, it is your annoying interventions and interpellations during those last committee meetings that have delayed this legislation. It could have been finished much earlier.

One wanted—and that is of course a tuyau of you—that gay marriages were quickly linked to those gay adoptions, and then the whole battle had been taken home. This has not been achieved and I am delighted to do so. I say it honestly. Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt. It is my right to express my opinion. I will never make a distinction between children. Let me be personal for a moment. If my child would ever sit in the classroom next to a child who is raised by a hollow couple, then I will never forbid my child to deal with it. I will never forbid the child to come over the floor with me at home. I speak for all my colleagues. That is exactly your prejudice, Mrs. De Meyer. These are the prejudices that you always impose on us.

We want to preserve the marriage of two persons of different sex as an institution and a cornerstone of society. If you decide otherwise with the democratic majority, that is your right. Then we will put ourselves down there. We do not launch revolutions. There is no distinction between people and between children. We do not do it. In any case, we will continue to express our opinion on this. We do not agree with your opinion. That is all I said. So you should not question my words, because then that will become another prejudice against the Flemish Bloc.

With this, Mrs. De Meyer, everything is said. We do not make any distinction between people or children. We will abstain from voting on the bill, because marriage as an institution is outlawed. This does not only happen through the gay adoption, because this week in the Committee for Justice the same-sex marriage was approved and we do not agree with it, in honour and conscience, with heart and soul.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs. Lalieux for the quality and objectivity of her report. The adoption reform, an indispensable reform, has been expected for several years. The bill that has been presented to us by the government responds to obvious concerns and helps to meet many expectations repeatedly expressed. by

Let us first look at the benefits of the bill. Of course, the main point of the bill concerns international adoption. The Hague Convention of 29 August 1993 will finally be ratified by a forty-two state, our, Belgium. We have always fully adhered to the objectives defended by the Convention because it aims to establish guarantees for international adoption to be carried out in the best interests of the child and in respect of the fundamental rights recognized to him. It also aims to establish a system of cooperation to ensure the observance of these guarantees and to ensure the recognition of the Contracting States. These guarantees are established primarily to enable the child to grow up in a stable and permanent family that can bring him the love, happiness and understanding he needs. But these guarantees also allow countries such as Belgium to actively participate with others, in this process of collaboration with other adhering countries, in the fight against child abduction, sale and trafficking. by

Finally, guarantees organized by the Convention put in place much stricter guarantees in order to stop the abuses found in certain countries of origin where pressure is exercised on mothers, where some adopters blinded by their desire for children organize what we could call, Mr. Minister, a commercialization of adoption. As soon as Belgium has ratified the Hague Convention, adoptions by Belgian candidates will take place in a climate of guarantees guaranteed by the Belgian State. by

The bill as presented by the government also constitutes a progression from current law on other levels. It reforms rules of law which have become manifestly obsolete or obsolete. It allows the revision of adoption – an extremely important point – by establishing a procedure for ending simple or full adoption when ⁇ serious circumstances such as kidnapping, sale or trafficking in children are established. Another significant point: the age at which the adopted consent to its adoption has been increased to twelve years, which we find ⁇ important at the present time given the maturity and lucidity of young people of this age. Finally, beyond adoption to unmarried persons of different sex, there is also the possibility for cohabitants to exercise parental authority together during a plenary adoption. by

All these reforms seem to me to be developments, not negligible adjustments and significant improvements to the legislation currently in force. However, despite these many advances, the bill did not fully satisfy us. Some points remain to be clarified. We have been sensitized by numerous letters, testimonies and statements from all those people who have adopted, who wish to adopt, or who are actively working in adoption associations and movements, in short, by everyone who has been confronted day by day with the legislation we were about to examine. The concerns were there, the questions were there, and we had to take into account the interests in the presence by naturally prioritizing the best interest of the child throughout our legislative work. by

In order to ⁇ the goal, in order to understand the different facets of reality, it was of course necessary to take into account the opinions of field actors, university professors, experts and people of the profession. Your Justice Committee has therefore devoted very many hours of hearing to this, which has allowed us to acquire expertise and I will dare to say a lucidity in this matter. by

And the hearings confirmed our fears. First of all, it was necessary to maintain the competence of the youth judge in this matter and not to transfer it to the peace judge. Therefore, no discrimination could be accepted between children born in Belgium and others. All the guarantees provided under the Hague Convention were to be applied to all adoptions, whether domestic or international. Finally, it was necessary to ensure the work that would be done by the communities, an extremely important point for the Justice Commission.

These requests, relayed by all the members of the committee, were heard by the minister who performed a remarkable work of amendments with the members of his cabinet. We can therefore emphasize our full satisfaction with the text as amended and which answers most of our concerns and wishes. I would like to thank you in particular here — Mr. Minister, if you allow me — Mr. Maes, for his patience — it wasn’t easy every day — his ability to listen and also his determination to carry out this project. Thank you very much, Mr. Prosecutor.

Thanks to the amendments accepted by the Minister, the youth judge, naturally competent, will retain adoption within its competence. All children, whether Belgian or not, will receive the same guarantees and the same rights and a cooperation agreement must be reached with the communities. On this latter point, I would like to emphasize — and I have already done so in a committee — the importance of this agreement which will enable to ensure a perfect arrangement of the different competences, on the one hand the federal state and on the other the communities.

We really call on the relevant persons to conclude this agreement as soon as possible so that the bill that is presented to us today comes fully into force as soon as possible.

by Mr. Can the Minister now give me all the guarantees in this matter? Have contacts already been made? What is the reception currently reserved by the communities?

Within the framework of the division of powers, I naturally support the Minister when he expresses his desire to keep the final decision in the hands of the judge. This is supported by the opinion of the State Council which confirmed that the issuance of an attestation of adoptability or aptitude to adopt does not fall within the competence of the communities. In fact, it seems to me necessary to prevent the same instance from being a judge and a party and to ensure the absolute independence of the decision-making instance. In the end, my dear colleagues, who can fulfill this task better than the magistrates themselves?

Now I would like to say a word about the demands made on adoptive parents, which seemed and still seem to some, excessive. It is true, dear colleagues, that no more than for other parents, one can expect from them to be perfect beings, supermen or surfemmes or superparents. Being a parent is ⁇ the most difficult function, I think, but the most natural one for anyone. For us too. I think that, like each of us, adoptive parents should be able, of course, to bring the necessary affection to the child, the stability and balance he needs in the duration but I believe that the rest is above all a matter of heart.

Before concluding, I would like, like my colleagues, Mr. Minister, to relay two reservations that have been transmitted to us by the adoptive movements. I also want to say that they testify that they are generally satisfied with the bill we are going to approve. The first reservation concerns transitional measures that do not appear sufficient. I would like you, Mr. Minister, to calm your concerns on this subject. The second reservation concerns the time when the social survey should be carried out, without discrimination between international and domestic adoption. I expect from you, Mr. Minister, that you would like to give us all the guarantees on these two points.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to sincerely thank the entire associative sector as well as all the people who have devoted a lot of time to come to expose in committee the complexities that involve the bill that is submitted to us today. These auditions have been a very valuable help to us and have enabled us to perform a quality work. I would also like to thank the Minister for his openness and for accepting the text of this draft concerning adopted children, adoptive parents, parents of origin, stakeholders on the ground, and which will allow Belgium to continue a quality work in the context of its fight against human trafficking.

I am also pleased with the serene climate in which the work of the Commission has taken place. As Mr. said. Arens, the common goal was to give a family to a child and not a child to a family, the ideal being of course to reconcile the two.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, for all these reasons, the MR group once again expresses its support for the bill that is submitted to us today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present draft finally provides for the long-awaited integration of the Hague Convention into our Belgian legislation. The important starting point of this present law is that the child is at the centre, where every effort must be made to keep the child in its environment of origin. This seems to us a very important starting point. The original parents should be informed and supported. Adoption should only be considered if the interests of the child in its original environment are threatened.

There was a very intense discussion in the committee with extensive hearings. These have led to an important adjustment of the draft, in particular the replacement of the peace judge by the youth judge. The latter is indeed much better placed to act in the case of adoption. The juvenile judge and his services have a much larger expertise in this area and in that sense the design has been properly updated. The interaction with the communities has also been further refined. The mandate of the Communities is now clearly situated in the field of preparation, matching and aftercare, as has also been made clear by the Council of State. According to the State Council, it was effectively up to the court to issue the certificate of suitability or adoptability. Practice will have to show whether the procedure as stipulated in this law will also be able to ensure a smooth, quick and also proper completion of the files, which was the concern of all members of our committee.

We have a basic concern with this law that is now known to everyone. We truly find it very regrettable that this new law immediately also introduces a new discrimination, especially with regard to the holebi couples. During the discussions, we have extensively tried to argue to eliminate this discrimination. This discrimination is, in our opinion, in sharp contrast to what we have not so long approved in this Chamber, the draft to combat discrimination. It is also in sharp contrast to the design associated with the same-sex marriage that finally gives holebi’s the right to seal their care and love for each other in a valuable and lasting marriage relationship. The discrimination against holebies in this law is, in our view, also contrary to the basic objective of this law, namely the best interests of the child. Excluding holebi children from this scheme makes all the children already in these relationships paria. Their "co-mother" is not allowed even if one of the children is on intensive care. At the sinter clock party of their "co-father" they are not even invited and such more.

We believe that it is up to the legislator to provide opportunities for everyone to take responsibility. After all, these are real people with real problems that need to be protected. Children must be taken care of, both in life and in death. In our view, it cannot be that the legislator knows that there are children in gay and lesbian couples but allows one of the partners to simply leave without any legal responsibility in this regard. We find it unheard of that, at a time when even the House of Lords has given up its opposition in this regard, the Belgian House holds a more conservative position. We also find it shocking that for holebi couples, who still have no children despite having a great desire for children and who often think and discuss for a very long time before making a well-thought-out decision, their wishes are not met.

We think that the legislator is therefore too conservative in this and actually also goes against recent jurisprudence, where recently a juvenile judge placed a twin at a homosexual foster family in Aalst. In our view, it is not only in conflict with existing laws and existing jurisprudence, but also with any serious investigation on the subject. You know that after the children's doctors, the American Association of Psychiatric Professionals has unambiguously voted for adoption by holebi, based on more than thirty years of research. I would like to end this discussion with a quote from Professor Heyvaert, who has taught personal and family law at the UIA for many years and actually perfectly summarizes the fear of cold water of this Chamber. Professor Heyvaert says the following: “Only if one assumes as a principle that it is best for a child that it is raised by a man and a woman, of course, everything that differs from it is less good. But who says it is less good that a child is raised differently? There is no absolute measure of what is good or bad for a child. That is all argumenting, starting from existing data. This is the same kind of argument as referring to abroad or stating that society is not yet ready for it. In this way, one actually tries to counter any evolution that is rationally reasonable. These are not arguments, that is just conservatism.” Despite this criticism of the lack of a holebi-lock in this legislation, for the rest, we are 100% in support of this good law. We think this is a step forward in terms of adoption in our country and we will therefore vote with full favour for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, since the text is important, you will understand that each member of this assembly must, if he wishes, be able to speak about it.

Like other colleagues, I am pleased, first of all, with the method used. In fact, for once, the Parliament has really done its job. We were able to hear all the actors before starting real discussions and performing real work on the text, in order to make it more appropriate and more consistent with the reality on the field. I would like to thank you, Mr. Minister.

I would also like to address the well-known problem of transitional measures. It is very important that the Minister fully reassures us about this as well as parents who have already introduced a procedure, children who have been designated and who are waiting to join their adoptive family. There is no question of telling them that a new law has been passed and that things have changed for them. It should be known that the procedures initiated as part of an adoption are very heavy on the affective level, expensive and energy-eating since they are often very long. Therefore, it is not necessary to send them back to the starting point. by

Therefore, I ask the Minister to commit today to work quickly on this cooperation agreement. I hope that his choice of a cooperation agreement is the right one and that it would not have been better to legislate. We trust him with the hope that we will not bite our fingers!

We look forward to the project as a whole. The minister succeeded in bringing about a project that had been trapped for a while in the office of his predecessors. The Hague Convention was concluded in 1993. It was time for Belgium to comply with this because we were among the last.

This convention tries to frame as best as possible a matter that, by essence, is very difficult to process because it really touches the human. It tries to establish a balance between rich countries and often poor countries, seeking the solution that best suits the child. Should he stay in his country? Should he be able to leave him? Under what conditions? How do parents get involved here? It was very important to incorporate the principles of the Convention into Belgian law. That said, there will still be debris because it is impossible to eliminate them completely.

We have tried to move as far as possible in this area.

It was quite difficult to settle this reform, given what I would call the “percussion” of competences between communities and the state. The State Council had demolished the first preliminary draft. It was necessary to "return the profession to the work" and try to determine in serenity the conditions of adoption, who decides, who can adopt and how. This is a heavy responsibility to bear. It was not clear to decide who should do it. I think we made a wise decision by deciding that it would be the youth judge who would be responsible, in collaboration with the communities, with the field actors who have extensive experience in the matter.

Several responses from the Minister show the path we have chosen. As an example, I will read one: "Why should the judge resort to a own social service, yet to be created, when he could resort to bodies that are approved by the communities and who have already acquired extensive expertise in the matter?"

I think this reform will be a new opportunity for parents. They will be managed by the services that know this work. In addition, they will, in some way, have a second chance by being confronted with another interlocutor for the final decision. They can also make appeals. by

We would have wanted to be able to discuss the training, the accompaniment, all the points that gravitate around this adoption process and which are primordial, given the difficulty of "taking the transplant". But we could not talk about it because these points were the responsibility of the communities. However, they have always been at the edge of our discussions.

It was important to change another point and we got there. This is a double procedure. We had chosen a very comprehensive procedure respecting the best interests of the child at the international level. Parents should follow this procedure in its entirety. On the other hand, at the level of Belgian children, we had opted for a very light procedure. It was totally inexplicable. In fact, either we offer all children a complete procedure, checking whether the parents are well prepared, have as much information as possible, are ready or not for an adoption; or we do not check for anyone.

Certain members of the Council of Ministers ⁇ still remembered all these stories of the suffering of parents who encountered enormous difficulties in the procedure. We’ve all heard these stories of social workers coming home and asking all sorts of questions. by

The situation has evolved well. Most parents today say that the procedure goes well on the ground. It is clear that the best interests of the child absolutely do not justify that there is no minimum respect for these parent candidates.

Another very positive aspect of this project is the end of the jungle both abroad - child trafficking, abductions, etc. - that in our country because, let's not hide our eyes, there were quite difficult situations also in us. Some people were tempted to relate a woman who did not want to keep her child with parents who wanted to have one. It was necessary to put an end to this situation, which we did.

The last aspect I would like to address is the evolution of our society. Until now, adoption was reserved for married and single people. Now, we have opened it to cohabitants of different sex who have been living together for three years. This is an excellent decision. by

I think we have been ⁇ frightening in this debate. In fact, we did not have a debate. I had the impression of presenting my arguments like others but that the debate did not really take place. We did not hold hearings on this subject, we did not inquire, we did not hear experts or witnesses. It is a pity. This could have promoted the debate in Parliament and in society as a whole.

We missed this opportunity and I regret it.

In fact, we find that single people, homosexuals among others, actually adopt children. Then these children live in couples of two people of the same sex. Imagine the situation of the second person, who has no rights over the child: she cannot accompany him to the hospital. Imagine that she dies: she cannot leave her property to this child easily and at attractive rates. I am talking about idyllic situations where everything goes well between both parents. If these two same-sex parents decide to separate, the judges must begin to brick because the legislator has not taken responsibilities. Some judges grant visiting rights, others do not. Some judges ask for a maintenance allowance so that the child continues to develop in the same financial environment, others do not. The situation is far from ideal.

I hope that in the next legislature we can break this taboo and have a real debate, which is not the case now.

The Minister has the word. I recall that a few questions were asked, which he undoubtedly noted well.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, you asked later if I would like to replicate. Yes, I want that, Mr. Speaker. My name is, by the way, Ver-wil-ghen and in those circumstances I think it is also necessary that I answer at least some quite relevant questions asked today by the colleagues.

Years of intense cooperation have finally resulted in a large-scale, and I think I can also say, in all modesty, consistent reform of adoption. I say: finally, because these work began in 1993, as one of the intervenants reminded us today, to be able to reach a final point only today, almost ten years later. There was quite questionable talk about the efforts made and about the results achieved. That is also why I have no trouble imposing this bill on all those who have been able to decrypt their individual and group interests for the superior interest of the child. I think this is also an important day for one of my employees, who can not only experience bad moments, but today also a beautiful moment in this Parliament.

In my opinion, the work of the Committee on Justice has abundantly demonstrated that everyone was willing to cooperate constructively, from a double perspective. One starting point was obvious: it is the completion, implementation in Belgian law of the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993. I would like to remind you of the title, because it is all-called: "International cooperation and the protection of children in the field of inter-country, therefore international, adoption".

At the same time, we took the opportunity to streamline, simplify and update the procedure. I think that was a good legislative work. We did not make any effort for this. We held hearings with specialists and formed an idea.

My presentation will therefore be limited to two aspects. The first aspect concerns the implementation of the Hague Convention. You know that in this Convention the best interests of the child are central. Therefore, we have made no effort to emphasize the subsidiarity of adoption. We want the preservation of the child in his or her environment of origin, except where there is a permanent detriment of his or her superior interest. This is tested by a number of international conventions, resolutions and recommendations that have put the rights of children at the heart of telkenmale. So we can say that the adoption as it is now understood will benefit the child anyway. We aim to prevent abduction and trafficking in children as much as possible. We have also made efforts to allow the exchange of data between the potential adopters and the child. We have done all this with only one purpose: to provide the best chance of success for the adoption in the best interests of the child. We have succeeded in this and thus the first task, the completion of the Hague Convention of 1993, has been performed perfectly.

In terms of national and international adoption, we have introduced many innovations. I take the opportunity to quote you a few: - the obligation to provide the parents of origin with information on the consequences of their behavior and adoption, as well as advice and information on the means of solving the social, financial, psychological or other problems posed by their situation; - the introduction of the affective assessment by the court of youth of the qualifications and aptitudes of persons wishing to adopt; - the obligation for persons wishing to adopt to receive a preparation before the assessment of their aptitude; - the abolition of the affective assessment by the court of youth of the qualifications and aptitudes of persons wishing to adopt, replaced by a single judicial procedure; - the opening of the adoption to persons unmarried of different sex not apparent to have, in a permanent and habitable manner, and from considering at least three times a case of adoption, if a child's option is required, or if it requires more than twelve years of adoption; - removing the consensus of the twelve;

It seems to me that we have done a work that has been quite complete, although it can still be improved.

I want to come up with some questions that are still being asked. The first question was asked by both the rapporteurs and Mr. by Arens. It was a question of whether our transitional measures are sufficient and whether an amendment that has been submitted should not be adopted.

I know, Mr. Arens, that some communities had expressed a fear. I have been very attentive to their comments and criticism. There are several reasons why we cannot accept an amendment, even if the submission of the amendment is based on positive will. I do not consider this as a negative act on your part.

The amendment seems to forget that this law, which is still still a federal law on adoption, does not know nor the obligation of information nor the obligation of social, psychological or medical investigation, nor the follow-up of a preparation in view of adoption, but only a procedure of homologation or a judicial procedure which is concluded plus particulièrement par un jugement du tribunal de la jeunesse. This is the current situation. .Aussi, accept an amendment that tends precisely to insert these provisions in the law we place in a situation rather loufoque on the judicial plan. In effect, the authorisation de principe délivrée par les communautés is not a condition to the adoption in the current federal law. Technically, it is already impossible. That does not mean that the following basic question must be answered. How can persons who have already ⁇ a formation, an information from the Communities before the entry into force of the new law, be assured that their demarche has not been useless and that they should not start again? In this regard, there are two hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the judicial procedure was initiated. An adoption act was drawn up or an application for homologation or an adoption decision was submitted to the court before the date of its entry into force. The previous law shall continue to apply. This is reflected in Article 21. There is no doubt about this. All these cases have already been settled.

The second hypothesis is that the judicial proceedings have not yet begun. This means that the applicants do not yet have an adoption document, or that they have not yet filed a petition for the entry into force. Then there are two possibilities. Their

The first possibility is that they only have information, formation and preparation behind them. In those circumstances, the Communities will naturally provide them with a certificate of such formation. This will be submitted together with the introductory petition and then it will act in accordance with the new law, without any waiting time. In the second option, the information, training and preparation is behind but the child is assigned by the authorities of another country. In such a case, the Communities shall provide the certificate in question, but it shall be necessary to wait for a moment until the judgment establishing the capacity and aptitude for adoption has been delivered. From that moment on, the normal procedure is followed again.

I would also like to add that it is of course that we will do what is necessary with the Communities to have contacts. I know that a question has been asked about this, but of course the law must be passed before we can take effective commitments. In addition, we have had a lot of contacts with the communities on this subject. Reassure yourself, all the elements are there so that this ends in a quite acceptable way.

I also add that, thanks to the new law, the deadlines that must be observed are significantly minimized. In these circumstances, I believe that the procedure itself will already be accelerated, so that the waiting periods that some had planned, and which will not occur given the context that I have just explained to you, will not be of the nature to cause a backwardness in the desire to be able to adopt.

And what concerns the social inquiry, it shall be ordered in all cases of figure by the judge of the youth, who has the possibility of making an appeal, as you know, to the social service of the tribunal de première instance. In these conditions, we can also guarantee that all the elements are provided. In that context, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to invite the Chamber to approve the text as soon as possible so that the course can be concluded during this legislature to satisfy the so many people for whom the procedure is running, but also to provide the guarantee that in the future the procedures will not only be simpler and faster but above all contain much more safeguards for the minors. This is in the first place to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his explanations on what could be called the transition period. Mr Arens, by his analysis, the minister a clearly responded to your souci, alors que l'amendement que vous aviez déposé était en quelque sorte beaucoup plus compliqué que l'approche faite par le ministre. I believe that the answers given by the Minister are sufficient largely for the application of the law, and complement with an agreement of cooperation. I would like to emphasize, however, what has been said repeatedly during the discussions in the committee, namely that at the federal level we are in no way in the hands of the powers of the Communities. Indeed, with regard to certain aspects, the competences of the Communities play a role here. There will therefore necessarily be an interference of the Communities in the procedure, for which an agreement is necessary.

I think you can be quite reassured on this point.