ADOPTED CHILDREN DENIED CITIZENSHIP AS IMMIGRATION HISTORY CONSIDERED

Adoption cases are rare, and this one is even more rare. Not one but four children  are in the limelight in this case. 

Dela Roca v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Between
Cristeta L. Dela Roca, Agapito Manalo Dela
Roca, James Russel Dela Roca, Mac
Marlo Dela Roca, Joseph Mari Dela
Roca, Julius Stephen Dela Roca,
Applicants, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent

[2015] F.C.J. No. 524

2015 FC 555

Docket: T-1790-14

 Federal Court
Vancouver, British Columbia

Harrington J.

Heard: April 22, 2015.
Judgment: April 28, 2015.

(19 paras.)

---

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

1     HARRINGTON J.:-- In 2005, Cristeta L. Dela Roca and her husband Agapito Manalo legally adopted her brother's four sons in the Philippines. They are: Mac Marlo born in 1988; Joseph Mari born in 1990; James Russel born in 1992; and Julius Stephen born in 1994.

2     Mrs. Dela Roca and her husband first tried to bring their four adopted sons to Canada as members of the family class in accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA] and Regulations thereunder. The visa applications were denied and Mrs. Dela Roca's appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board was dismissed. They did not apply for leave and judicial review of that decision.

3     The Citizenship Act has been amended so that adopted children need not become permanent residents before applying for citizenship. They applied. However, their applications were denied as the citizenship officer was not satisfied that the adoptions were in their best interests, that a genuine relationship of parent and child was created and that the adoptions were not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege in relation to immigration or citizenship. As such, the requirements of s. 5.1 of the Citizenship Act were not met. This is the judicial review of that decision.

4     Although there were four separate appeals under Court docket numbers T-1790-14, T-1791-14, T-1792,-14 and T-1793-14, by order dated 26 January 2015, they were consolidated under the lead file T-1790-14, and the style of cause was amended so that the adoptive parents and all four adopted sons are shown as applicants.

I. Judicial Review Dismissed

5     As I am of the view that it was reasonably open to the citizenship officer to determine that the adoption was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege in relation to citizenship, this judicial review is dismissed. Consequently, it is not necessary to discuss in any detail whether the adoptions were in the best interests of the children and whether a genuine relationship of parent and child was created.

II. Analysis

6     Mrs. Dela Roca's brother and his wife, the birth parents of the four boys, and the four boys themselves, were all interviewed by the visa officer in 2007. The officer's notes are quite detailed. Apart from establishing that daily life continued just as it had before, with the birth parents and their children continuing to live under the same roof, the birth parents and the four boys are reported to have said that the boys would enjoy a better life in Canada. The visa applications were denied as the officer was not satisfied that the adoption was not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege under IRPA. The officer's notes record the following exchanges at the interview:

·       Do you know why your spr want to adopt the 4 of you? Yes. Why? So that we can have a better future. Do you think you will have a better future if you are in cda? Yes. Because the govt supports students there. Because they can support all our needs. We can find jobs there. 

·       ... 

·       Your children wants to be adopted by the spr? Yes. Why? Because they know that they will have a better future there. They want to go to cda. 

7     Mrs. Dela Roca, a Canadian citizen, appealed to the IAD. Apart from herself, she only called one of her adopted sons as a witness, Joseph Mari. He was found not to be credible in that he was trying to retreat from what he had said to the visa officer the year before, particularly as regards living arrangements with his birth parents. The appeal was dismissed, again on the grounds that the primary purpose was to gain status or advantage under IRPA and that the adoption did not create a genuine parent-child relationship.

8     As mentioned above, no application for leave and judicial review of that decision was filed.

9     In 2007, the Citizenship Act was amended to add section 5.1, subsection (1) of which reads:

·       5.1 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the Minister shall, on application, grant citizenship to a person who was adopted by a citizen on or after January 1, 1947 while the person was a minor child if the adoption 

·       (a) was in the best interests of the child; 

·       (b) 

created a genuine relationship of parent and 

·       child; 

  

·       (c) was in accordance with the laws of the place where the adoption took place and the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen; and 

·       (d) was not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status or privilege in relation to immigration or citizenship. 

* * *

·       5.1 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3) et (4), le ministre attribue, sur demande, la citoyenneté à la personne adoptée par un citoyen le 1er janvier 1947 ou subséquemment lorsqu'elle était un enfant mineur. L'adoption doit par ailleurs satisfaire aux conditions suivantes: 

·       a) 

elle a été faite dans l'intérêt supérieur de 

·       l'enfant; 

  

·       b) elle a créé un véritable lien affectif parent-enfant entre l'adoptant et l'adopté; 

·       c) elle a été faite conformément au droit du lieu de l'adoption et du pays de résidence de l'adoptant; 

·       d) elle ne visait pas principalement l'acquisition d'un statut ou d'un privilège relatifs à l'immigration ou à la citoyenneté. 

10     The citizenship officer relied heavily on the notes taken by the visa officer in 2007. In addition, new evidence by way of affidavit was rejected as being after the fact and self-serving.

11     It was submitted that the visa officer's notes should not have been taken into consideration at all because:

·       a. 

there was no affidavit from the officer who took the notes; 

·       b. 

the four boys, three of whom were still minors in 2007, were interviewed together; 

·       c. 

part of the interview was in English, even though the four boys only had a tenuous grasp thereof; 

·       d. 

there was no interpreter present; and 

·       e. 

the notes were inaccurate in some respects. 

12     The citizenship officer was quite entitled to take into consideration the visa officer's notes and the decision of the IAD. There is no requirement that they had to be accompanied by an affidavit. Issues of procedural fairness in respect of the 2007 interview should have been raised before the IAD and were not. It is quite improper to raise them before this Court several years later (Uppal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 338 at para 52).

13     The citizenship officer had issued a fairness letter stating that she was not satisfied that the adoptions were in the children's best interests, that a genuine relationship of parent and child was created and that the adoptions were not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring status or privilege in relation to immigration or citizenship. The applicants were given an opportunity to address those concerns. Although they now say the letter was procedurally unfair in that it was too vague, they did file further evidence, rather than request particulars.

14     It was not unreasonable for the citizenship officer to discount the affidavits on the basis that they were after the fact (obviously, after the 2007 interview) and self-serving. Clearly, the four sons wish they had not said what they did in 2007.

15     The applicants have been backtracking ever since.

16     I might well have come to a different conclusion had the only two grounds for refusing citizenship been the best interests of the children and whether or not a genuine relationship of parent and child was created.

17     Mrs. Dela Roca takes strong issue with the officer's view that she only did what a loving and generous aunt would do. She says she did far more, and she may well be right. However, what could she do as an adoptive mother which she could not do as an aunt? The answer is straightforward -- bring her adopted sons to Canada!

18     It was not unreasonable for the citizenship officer to form the view that the adoptions were primarily for the purpose of gaining status or privilege in relation to citizenship. As citizens, the four sons could have come to Canada, and left, as they pleased.

19     There is no serious question of general importance to certify.

JUDGMENT

·       THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that: 

·       1. 

The application for judicial review is dismissed. 

·       2. 

There is no serious question of general importance to certify. 

·       3. 

A copy of this decision shall be placed in Court File Nos. T-1791-14, T-1792-14 and T-1793-14. 

HARRINGTON J

INDIAN ADOPTION CASE IN THE SPOTLIGHT

This case is amazing. It must have been a great interview a tthe High Commission in New Delhi....

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Between Gurpreet Singh, Avtar Singh and Karamjit Kaur, Applicants, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent

[2012] F.C.J. No. 1406

2012 FC 1302

Docket IMM-7785-11

 Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario

Zinn J.

Heard: November 6, 2012.
Judgment: November 7, 2012.

(15 paras.)

---

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

1     ZINN J.:-- Avtar Singh and Karamjit Kaur are husband and wife. They have a birth daughter, Harwinder Kaur, and they claim that Gurpreet Singh is their adopted son. Mr. Singh and the two children made an application for permanent residence under the Live-In Caregiver Class as his spouse is a live-in caregiver in Canada. All family members are citizens of India.

2     The decision under review is that of a visa officer of the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi deleting Gurpreet Singh from the application for permanent residence in Canada on the basis that Gurpreet was not a "dependant child" as defined in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR 2002-227 (Regulations). The Regulations provide that a dependant child includes an adopted child, but the officer was not satisfied that Gurpreet was an adopted child of the adult applicants and accordingly, deleted him from the application.

3     In my view, this application has no merit. The decision was reasonable and made in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. Based on the record before the Court, I would have found a decision contrary to that reached by the officer to have been perverse.

4     On July 30, 2011, an officer reviewing the applicants' file noted concerns about the inclusion of Gurpreet on the permanent residence application. Although a copy of the purported adoption deed and a birth certificate for Gurpreet had been submitted by Mr. Singh, the officer noted that the latter had been registered only recently. Moreover, the officer noted the absence of family photos including Gurpreet and photos showing the adoption ceremony including the 'giving and taking' of him. The officer concluded that he or she was "unable to confirm that an adoption ceremony ha[d] taken place," and requested that the applicant parents be interviewed.

5     On August 23, 2011, the officer, fluent in Punjabi, conducted an interview with the applicant parents, in Punjabi. The only written record of the interview is found in the CAIPS notes made by the officer at or very shortly following the interview. The officer provided an affidavit in which he swears that the notes in "'question-and-answer form' were typed as the questions were being asked and answered" and that the notes in "'paragraph form' were typed immediately following the portion of the interview reflected in the paragraph."

6     Mr. Singh, described by his wife as being "uneducated and unsophisticated," was interviewed first, in the absence of his wife. The following are relevant excerpts from the officer's notes of that interview:

 

·       Q Was Gurpreet's parents related to you 

 

·       A No to my my spouse - I am illiterate but it is my wife's bright idea 

 

·       Q What bright idea 

 

·       A My wife told me that we should do papers for the boy as she was likely to get permanent (PR) in Canada and that we could help relatives and tag along the boy [...] 

 

·       Q What rituals were conducted for adoption ceremony 

 

·       A We called the photographer to get some photos clicked in Holy Gurudwara 

 

·       Q So no formality or rituals were done 

 

·       A No - just to get the photos clicked - we posed while the sweet pudding (Prasad) were being distributed inside the Gurudwara and then outside in the community kitchen while some snacks were served
[...] 

 

·       I reviewed the photos and was surprised to see that the natural father no-where to be seen (boy's natural father is seen in the adoption papers) 

 

·       Q OK please point out where the natural father is in the photo 

 

·       A He was not there 

 

·       Q Why 

 

·       A Maybe because he had had a few drinks more and did not come inside the holy place 

 

·       Q So not the formality of giving and taking was done 

 

·       A I told you that my wife is very smart was she had thought of this adoption to take along the boy 

 

·       Q Since the formality of adoption, where did the boy stay 

 

·       A Dhowali- 

 

·       Q Your place 

 

·       A No why our place - this is where his father used to stay 

 

·       Q And he continues to stay there 

 

·       A No, now he has come to stay with us after his father died around 4 months back
[...] 

7     The officer then telephoned Mrs. Kaur in Canada, and noted, in paragraph form, that Mrs. Kaur "appeared as very defensive while responding to questions of adoption." After finishing the phone call with Mrs. Kaur, the officer then "expressed [his] concerns to [Mr. Singh]." The officer noted the following concerns in the CAIPS notes:

 

·       You and your spouse were of young age and could not explain the need to adopt a child when you could have your own children 

 

·       Adoption was done with the intent to help the child and not forge a genuine child parent relationship 

 

·       Adoption did not involve any give and taking of the child in the ceremony 

 

·       Natural father of the child is not seen giving away the child during the adoption ceremony 

 

·       Child continued staying with natural father till very recently 

 

·       Previous child parent relationship were not ceased nor relationship was forged 

 

·       Your spouse did not bother to attend the adoption ceremony nor has ever visited the child 

8     The following appears immediately after the above-listed concerns:

 

·       [Mr. Singh] requested that since he was illiterate and his wife was very smart, she be called up. Call made to sponsor [a]gain and concern[s] explained. Sponsor indicated that she only wants visa for all three ([Mr. Singh], biological daughter & adoptive son). Call put on speaker phone- [Mr. Singh] requested sponsor that she should stop being stubborn and drop the idea of helping Gurpreet (adoptive son) as they could send him some money and that it would delay their case. Sponsor remains adamant - call disconnected. 

 

·       [Mr. Singh] informed that it is the smartness of his wife who added the child to application and requested that the child be immediately deleted from the application and he and his daughter be issued a visa. I informed him that the present application is only to confirm their relationship and that visa will be issued only if Karamjit lands as PR in Canada 

 

·       **** Interview Concluded ***** 

9     On September 9, 2011, roughly two and a half weeks after the interview, and referencing the decision under review, Mr. Singh delivered the following letter to the High Commission in New Delhi:

 

·       Dear Sir, 

 

·       With reference to your letter dated 25/08/2011 this is to inform you that I have no objection to the deletion of name of my adopted son Gurpreet Singh from my application for immigration to Canada. 

 

·       Kindly issue further instructions for the grant of immigrant visa for me and my daughter. I & my daughter have been medically examined on 03/05/2011 by Dr. U.S. Sidhu of [illegible]. 

10     The applicants submit that the officer erred by calling into question a "validly issued foreign legal judgment," namely the applicants' "court-issued adoption deed." They cite and rely upon Boachie v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 672, at para 31, for the proposition that the officer was "not entitled to assess the legality of a foreign adoption order in the absence of fraud."

11     I agree with the respondent that Boachie is distinguishable from the facts before the Court because in that case there was most clearly a "court order" and no allegation of fraud in obtaining it had been made. I further agree with the respondent that the facts at hand more closely parallel, in fact almost identically, those in Singh Dhadda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 206, in which Justice Mactavish held that it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that no 'giving and taking' ceremony took place even though the Deed of Adoption stated otherwise and further that the Deed of Adoption was not a Court Order, and that it was inconsistent with the evidence of the adoptive father.

12     The Deed of Adoption is a contract drawn up by lawyers for the parties and executed by them. It is not evidence that a court of law turned its mind to whether the legal requirements for a valid adoption had been satisfied. It was then taken to a court for registration; however, there is no evidence that the registration process involved any independent decision-making. It appears to be merely an administrative process for which the court charges a nominal fee.

13     The officer in this case, unlike the tribunal in Boachie but like the officer in Dhadda, was faced with independent, "cogent evidence" which cast doubt on the adoption deed. I refer, in particular to the evidence of Mr. Singh who told the officer "my wife is very smart was she had thought of this adoption to take along the boy." Further, although he was given three chances to say that there was a giving and taking ceremony he never says that one occurred and he does not challenge the officer when he says that it did not.

14     Lastly, the applicants submit that the officer "bullied" and "frightened" Mr. Singh at the interview and "put ... words into his mouth." The officer denies it. To support these serious allegations, the applicants rely only on Mrs. Kaur's affidavit evidence which is hearsay. The best evidence of these allegations would have been her husband's as he was the only person other than the officer who was present when he made these damaging admissions. I give Mrs. Kaur's evidence no weight. Her affidavit does not explain why her husband sent his letter stating that he had no objection to the deletion of the adopted son from his application after receiving the decision. Counsel submits this is evidence that supports that he was bullied by the officer. I disagree. In my view, it is evidence of someone who knows that the jig is up and who wishes his family to be reunited in Canada. Further, it is consistent with the plea he made to his wife during that part of the interview when she was present by teleconference to "stop being stubborn and drop the idea of helping Gurpreet."

15     For these reasons, I find that the decision under review is unimpeachable and the application must be dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed and no question is certified.

ZINN J.

IMMIGRATION AND SURROGACY

Draw your own conclusions. Incidentally, there is no constitutional right to pregnancy or child-bearing. There is, however, a fairly vocal adoption industry lobby.



Desperate to parent, Canadians turn to world's baby farms


Desperate to parent, Canadians turn to world's baby farms

Six years after Canada outlawed the 'renting' of wombs, an international business is flourishing

By Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia NewsDecember 11, 2010

Inside two special houses in the Indian state of Gujarat, the women spend their time waiting. They live together, eat meals together and take sewing, cooking and English classes together: 67 surrogates whose bellies bulge with the babies of foreign couples, including Canadians.

Tiny, 26-year old Vandana is pregnant again. In 2008 she delivered twin girls for a New Brunswick couple. Vandana worked as a roadside labourer breaking stones at construction sites for up to 12 hours a day, for which she earned about $2 daily for her labours. According to the clinic that employs her, she bought a house with the money the doctors paid her -- about $7,000 -- for becoming impregnated with the Canadian embryos.

Another surrogate, Smita, paid for her daughter's schooling with the rupees she made bearing twins -- a boy and girl -- for another couple from Canada.

"We have helped many Canadian patients," says Dr. Nayana Patel, medical director of the Akanksha IVF Center in Anand, Gujarat.

Benhur Samson is helping Canadians procure surrogates, too. The Chicago-based, Indian-born entrepreneur runs Surrogacy Abroad Inc. His all-inclusive, $36,000 US international surrogacy package covers services from psychological screening of surrogates to exit visas for the babies. Samson says he assisted four Canadian couples in bringing babies home from India last year; he's working with "25 to 30" more.

Six years after Canada outlawed the buying and selling of human eggs and sperm and the "renting" of women's wombs, a new international baby-making business is flourishing. It's being called "reproductive tourism," a global industry in which more and more infertile Canadians are seeking fertility services abroad that would carry fines of up to $500,000 and 10 years in jail at home.

Infertile Canadians are travelling to India to pay surrogates to carry their children and to Mexico, Argentina, Spain, Romania and the Czech Republic for in vitro fertilization using paid donor eggs -- a desperation to reproduce that's colliding with the ethical and moral issues surrounding the commercialization of life and the potential exploitation of women mired in poverty in the developing world.

"Frankly, ever since the laws in Canada came into existence, egg donation in Canada -- in Montreal at least -- has ground to a virtual halt," says Dr. Seang Lin Tan, an internationally regarded infertility expert at Montreal's McGill University. "We have about 50 patients a year who can find their own donors -- friends or relatives. But the majority can't find donors and for those who can't find donors we send them abroad."

Tan refers women to Argentina, where, he says, the costs are "reasonable, and the results are very good."

The Infertility Awareness Association of Canada directs women needing donor eggs to the U.S. -- assuming they can afford it. "It's closest to home, they speak the language and we're trying to minimize the patient's stress as much as possible," says executive director Beverly Hanck.

"Could you imagine, you can't have a baby and you find out you're infertile. That's the first devastating blow. Second, you suffer from premature ovarian failure and you need an egg, and then, my gosh you find out you can't get an egg in this country?"

At the clinic in Anand, surrogacy costs $22,000 to $25,000 US, a fraction of the fees charged in the U.S., where surrogacy can cost $100,000 or more.

Patel's surrogates are implanted with embryos produced via in vitro fertilization using the commissioning couple's eggs and sperm, or, if the woman can't conceive using her own eggs, with the eggs of a donor.

The only thing the surrogate provides is the womb. Patel says three to four embryos are transferred at each attempt at pregnancy -- increasing the odds of success but also the risk of multiple births.

Patel says her clinic provides a legitimate service to women who can't carry a child -- they don't have a uterus, for example, or their uterus is abnormal, or they've had multiple miscarriages or gone through rounds of failed IVF -- and for surrogates, who use their once unimaginable earnings to help their families.

"They want to earn this money. They cannot do it by any other means." Surrogacy, Patel says, changes their lives "360 degrees."

"Women in India, they're not equal, in the sense that they're just taken for granted -- the kids are depending on them, the husband is depending on them, the in-laws are depending on them," Samson adds. "All of a sudden, I see the husbands bring them a flower when they come to visit" their wives in the surrogate house.

Most of his clients are Caucasians; babies born via an Indian surrogate are Caucasian, too, he says. "Even with an Indian (egg) donor, most of the babies get the father's features," Samson says. "Sometimes it's only by the hair colour that you can tell it's an Indian donor."

But cross-border reproductive care raises sticky ethical questions: are the bodies of impoverished women being exploited by the rich?

What guarantees are there that the surrogates or egg donors aren't being coerced into participating? Is it, as Patel describes on her website, a "win-win situation," whereby a woman with the biological means to do so is rewarded for helping infertile couples get the baby they so desperately long for? What happens if the baby is born disabled or there is some other "unforeseen outcome"?

"What bothers me so much is that we're totally commercializing, depersonalizing and de-humanizing the most intimate of human relationships, that of parents and children," says Margaret Somerville, founding director of Montreal's McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

Somerville participated in the drafting of the Declaration of Istanbul, a consensus document signed by representatives of scientific and medical bodies the world over that calls for an end to organ trafficking and transplant tourism, "because we know that what happens there is huge abuse," she says. "What comes first is, how much money can you make out of this? And just like the reproductive tourism industry, it's the poor people who get used and the rich people who buy."

But the prohibition against paying for sperm, eggs or wombs "has made it impossible for many couples needing donor gametes to access care in this country -- even though from a safety and effectiveness perspective, it's very feasible for us to do that," says Dr. Edward Hughes, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Hamilton's McMaster University.

The ban, he says, effectively off-loads the burden to other countries where donors may not be treated ethically.

Others say that the desire to reproduce -- while genuine and real -- shouldn't be all about the needs of the parents.

"There's a reason that the government of Canada, acting on behalf of Canadian citizens, is trying to put into writing the values of Canadian society by making payments for tissue-based services illegal," says Raywat Deonandan, former scientific adviser to Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, the country's fertility agency.

"We can't pay for sperm or eggs, we can't pay for blood or organs, because once you start commodifying human tissue, it's a slippery slope into an ethical morass."

Deonandan, an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa, says one Indian village ostracized a surrogate for carrying the baby of two gay Israeli men. In at least one clinic, surrogates are isolated and segregated once they become pregnant, he says, suggesting there's sometimes a social stigma attached. "Is there any postpartum care for the surrogate after the baby is born? Often there isn't," he says.

In many parts of India, infertility is seen as a curse. Surrogacy is sometimes sold to women as a way for them to perform almost godly work, he says, "by alleviating this curse on the part of the American and Canadian couples."

As long as DNA has proven that the baby is the genetic child of at least one of the Canadian parents, a baby born abroad to a surrogate mother could become a Canadian citizen by descent, according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

And while Canada's assisted human reproduction act prohibits payment for surrogacy, it doesn't prohibit couples from going to foreign countries for surrogacy or other fertility-related services.

Nor does it prohibit Canadian clinics from providing information on medically assisted procreation abroad.

High in demand in the cross-border reproductive trade are fresh young eggs -- a phenomenon borne from a huge wave of women who are putting off child-bearing only to discover that their own eggs have effectively expired.

The quality of a woman's eggs begins to deteriorate rapidly during her 30s. By her 40s, only the oldest and least fertile eggs remain. In his book, Designing Babies, British fertility expert Roger Gosden likens these "residual" eggs to the popcorn kernels left at the bottom of the pan "after the rest -- white, fluffy and delicious -- have burst."

The success rate for IVF in women under 35 who use their own eggs is about 38 per cent. The odds sink to seven per cent for women 40 and older, and continue to shrink until, by age 45, the take home baby rate is about one to two per cent. But with donor eggs, her chance of pregnancy increases to that of the age of the donor. In other words, it's the age of the eggs -- and not the uterus -- that matters.

Egg donors have to inject themselves daily with drugs that induce their ovaries to produce multiple eggs. A woman normally produces one egg per month. Some eastern European centres are pushing donors to produce up to 100 eggs. The risk is ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, where the ovaries swell and fluid spills into the belly and chest. In severe cases, it can lead to blood clots and kidney failure.

The egg trade, however, hasn't been entirely outsourced: Canadians seeking eggs are posting ads on the Internet. One London, Ont., couple advertising on Kijiji is offering "about $10,000" for all medical, travel, lost work time and other expenses for an egg donor. A Toronto couple is advertising for an Asian egg donor on Craigslist.

"Because it's a black market, you're not getting a 32-year-old who is sitting in her kitchen and has a couple of toddlers when it occurs to her that she'd like to help her fellow man by donating eggs," says Hanck, of the infertility awareness association.

Hanck saw one case where a couple's request to use a surrogate they found on the Internet involved an obese mother of four who had six previous abortions and four caesarean sections.

"From a patient's perspective, I say no. First of all, you're putting the surrogate's health at a very high risk. We know money is changing hands . . . They're probably doing it in cash, nobody sees it. You can almost not stop this with the Internet."

Canada's assisted human reproduction act doesn't prohibit reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by an egg donor or surrogate. Yet Health Canada hasn't specified what kinds of "receipted expenses" can be reimbursed. "As we say in Yiddish, 'what means receipted expenses?' " says Jan Silverman, an infertility counsellor at Toronto's Women's College Hospital.

"There are people who will provide eggs and they are getting compensated. It's happening and don't fool yourself that it's not going to keep happening," Silverman says. "Make it open, for God's sake. People are not being protected, and that's the part that makes me crazy. If we're not going to be able to do this upfront and make sure we have contracts that are real contracts, we're not going to be able to make sure people are being dealt with fairly, that donors and surrogates are being dealt with fairly, as well as the commissioning couples. There is so much room for abuse."

Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, the body charged with enforcing the Assisted Human Reproduction Act, says its mandate is to regulate the laws, not write them. Health Canada says any offences under the act apply to activities taking place within Canada and that couples who choose to go to another country to pay for surrogacy or gametes would be subject to the laws of that country.

Silverman says nobody chooses egg donation or surrogacy as a first choice. "Nobody wants that. They want to give birth to their own child. They want to use their own uterus. I don't see the fancy women who want to preserve their figures so they ask a surro to carry their baby."

Women who have paid for eggs in the U.S. say they feel almost like fugitives from the law.

"I worry about the government finding out later on -- it's an absolute fear I have," says a 31-year-old Saskatchewan woman who is eight weeks pregnant after undergoing IVF with donor eggs at a Colorado clinic. The couple experienced four years of infertility and two miscarriages before the woman was diagnosed in January with a genetic disorder that causes infertility and pregnancy loss.

They paid $5,000 for eggs from an anonymous donor. "I went to one of the best clinics in the world. . . . I can be guaranteed that I got exceptional care," said the woman, who requested anonymity for fear of the law. "What about some of these people who are going to Third World countries?"

Surrogacy in India is legitimate because no Indian law prohibits it, according to the Law Commission of India, which says foreigners have turned the country's fertility industry into a veritable "pot of gold," according to a 2009 commission report on the need for legislation to regulate assisted reproduction. "It seems that wombs in India are on rent which translates into babies for foreigners and dollars for Indian surrogate mothers."

Nayana Patel's surrogates have already given birth to close to 250 babies. The surrogates are allowed to bear another woman's child up to five times. The maximum is five pregnancies -- including her own children.

There have been complications, Patel says. In two cases, the surrogate required an emergency hysterectomy because of bleeding. In another case, the surrogate's placenta ruptured. The baby couldn't be saved, and died inside the uterus. "Once in a while, complications can happen," Patel says, but rarely, she says, are they major.

Patel captured headlines in 2003 when she arranged for a woman to carry her own daughter's IVF-conceived twins. The daughter, who lived in the United Kingdom, couldn't find a surrogate.

Inside the surrogate's houses in Anand, the surrogates pass the time, waiting for the day they will give birth and relinquish all rights to the child growing inside them.

"They learn, they become confident, and they have the moral support of all the surrogates around them," Patel says. "They see that they're not the only one doing it, or that they're not doing something wrong."