Ont. privacy watchdog wants adoption bill changed
Lilmtncbn
Ont. privacy watchdog wants adoption bill changed
CTV.ca News Staff
Ontario is considering legislation to change its adoption rules to
allow adoption records to be opened. If passed, the law would give
adults adopted as children the right to find out the identities of
their birth parents.
Currently, Ontario has an Adoption Disclosure Register. It allows
adoptees over 18 or adoptive parents to register saying that they would
like to find the birth parents. If the birth parent also registers, the
parent and child will be put into contact.
But many have complained that the register system takes too long. The
proposed new law would allow adoptees direct access to original birth
records which may identify birth parents.
Birth parents could also have access to adoption orders -- once the
adoptee has reached 19 -- by providing the name that the child was
given after the adoption.
The province's Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian is
worried about the bill. She says she's fine with the bill applying to
adoptions in the future but believes that birth parents in the past who
had an understanding of complete privacy should be protected.
"The problem is the retroactive application of this legislation,"
Cavoukian told Canada AM Thursday.
"It's going to apply to those individuals who had given their children
up for adoption in the past and had been given assurances of
confidentiality and privacy. They'd been told that the records would be
sealed permanently."
Cavoukian fears that the new law will destroy the confidentiality of
parents who don't want to be found. She says she's been inundated with
letters from birth mothers who say they were promised that their
identities would be kept secret when they gave up their babies and want
her to block the legislation.
"They trusted what the government told them. They were given assurances
and led their lives like that. If they made a mistake, it was to trust
the government" Cavoukian believes.
"Jill" (not her real name) gave up her son 20 years ago and told Canada
AM that she's also troubled by the bill. She says she understands that
there are some adopted children who want to know about their biological
lineage and their family medical history. But she says she also has the
right to privacy.
"There are two groups here, individuals who want to get their
information and those who don't want to have their information
released. You have to preserve the rights of both groups in a society
like Canada with the Charter of Rights. One group doesn't eradicate the
rights of another group, it's just unthinkable. We believe in equality
of rights in this country."
The bill includes a no-contact notice, so that birth parents could ask
that the individual receiving identifying information would commit in
writing not to contact the birth child.
"Jill" doesn't think that would be enough.
"There's no protection of privacy or confidentiality. The Alberta Court
of Queen's Bench ruled that a no-contact veto doesn't give privacy and
doesn't preserve the rights of the birth parents. It's not a quality
replacement."
Cavoukian thinks one compromise might be to include a "disclosure
veto," which would allow mothers to maintain their privacy while still
providing important health information. She says the only three
provinces that have retroactive application of their adoption record
laws -- B.C., Alberta and Newfoundland -- all have disclosure vetoes.
"And look at the experience they've had. Only three to five per cent of
those groups filed disclosure vetoes. Ninety to 90 per cent who want
their records get their records. The majority get access to the
records," she says.
The Toronto-based Adoption Support Kinship doesn't like the veto idea.
The group's president Wendy Rowney told Ontario's Standing Committee on
Social Policy, which is looking at the proposed legislation, that a
veto would render the law meaningless.
"It tips the scales in favour of anonymity, secrecy and shame," Rowney
said.
Her group believes the rights of thousands of adopted children to know
about their birth parents should not be trumped by the few who seek to
keep their secrets.
Karen Lynn
The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received "hundreds
of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this week
that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
Karen
"Lilmtncbn" <lilm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117136771.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Marley Greiner
are opened!
Marley
"Karen Lynn" <karen...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:YdedndllWfH...@rogers.com...
twg...@yahoo.ca
Karen Lynn wrote:
> Top Posting:
>
> The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
> disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
> credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received "hundreds
> of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this week
> that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
>
> Karen
Unfortunately, it may not be as steadfast as we would have hoped, if
this story in the Star is to be believed:
Ontario offering veto to birth parents
Will have chance to protect identity
Adoption bill to be amended
RICHARD BRENNAN
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU
The Ontario government is bowing to pressure to protect birth parents
who don't want their identities revealed to children they have given up
for adoption, the Toronto Star has learned.
Social Services Minister Sandra Pupatello says amendments to her
controversial adoption disclosure bill will be introduced today.
"Birth parents in extreme circumstances would have the ability as well
as the adoptee to go to the Child and Family Services Board with the
potential then to access a veto," Pupatello said Friday.
The proposed legislation already gives adoptees access to a veto.
The climbdown is meant to appease birth parents who have begged the
government and Ontario Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian to protect
their identities. But New Democrat MPP Marilyn Churley
(Toronto-Danforth) said it is an unacceptable roadblock to accessing
adoption records.
"The problem is that it is still creating two classes of adoptees and I
believe that's wrong," said Churley, who tracked down the son she gave
up when she was a teenager.
"These adult children of these women would be discriminated against
because they were born out of tragic circumstances and would not have
the same rights as other adult adoptees. I think that is wrong and two
wrongs don't make a right," she said.
Churley has been pushing for years to open up adoption records and
finally succeeded in her campaign when the Liberal government
introduced proposed legislation earlier this year.
Cavoukian told a legislative committee earlier this month that
retroactively opening adoption records without some kind of veto would
be a grave injustice for women who fear reliving the trauma of giving
up a child.
"There are countless defenceless individuals who have written to me ...
begging me to speak for them and to allow them to preserve their
confidentiality," she said.
Cavoukian said several women threatened to take their own lives if the
records they believed sealed long ago were opened to the children they
gave up.
Pupatello said these vetoes would only be granted under unusual
circumstances of serious emotional or physical harm.
"It is certainly not a wholesale disclosure veto by any stretch, but we
can't say there would not be extreme circumstances and that's certainly
what we heard" at the legislative hearings, she said.
Pupatello said she is concerned that there may be cultures in Ontario
that believe in "honour killings" to seek retribution for children born
out of wedlock.
"I sat back and thought about that for a long time. ... We can't deny
that it may happen in some parts of the world or that it wouldn't
happen here," she said. "If someone is going to be put in an extremely
harmful situation then they would have that ability to be heard by the
board."
Pupatello said even if a veto is granted, only the identity of the
birth parent would be blocked, not other information that could be
vital to the adoptee.The proposed legislation already provides for a
no-contact provision, including hefty fines for violating it, but
Cavoukian said it does not provide enough protection.
Churley said the adoption disclosure bill is a matter of basic rights.
"The fact is that if you are going to change a law retroactively for
human rights reasons you can't pick and choose who gets these rights
based on when they were born and the circumstances of their birth," she
said.
She said other countries have adoption disclosure laws with no veto
provisions and "they are working just fine."
Another amendment calls for a review of the adoption law after five
years.
Rhiannon
> Karen Lynn wrote:
> > Top Posting:
> >
> > The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
> > disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
> > credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received "hundreds
> > of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this week
> > that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
> >
> > Karen
>
> Unfortunately, it may not be as steadfast as we would have hoped, if
> this story in the Star is to be believed:
> >
>
>
It doesn't seem as if the option of contact preferences for bps who may
be in "extreme circumstances" has even been discussed as a possible
alternative. I wonder why.
Rh.
twg...@yahoo.ca
Rhiannon wrote:
> twg...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Karen Lynn wrote:
> > > Top Posting:
> > >
> > > The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
> > > disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
> > > credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received "hundreds
> > > of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this week
> > > that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > Unfortunately, it may not be as steadfast as we would have hoped, if
> > this story in the Star is to be believed:
> > >
> >
>
> >
> It doesn't seem as if the option of contact preferences for bps who may
> be in "extreme circumstances" has even been discussed as a possible
> alternative. I wonder why.
>
> Rh.
I don't know enough about open records advocacy or legislation to know
what discussion this sort of alternative has generated. I'd be
interested to know.
As a political solution, I can see that it must have a great deal of
appeal to the Minister. From the perspective of "rights discourse," it
seems to be a bit of a cop out--there is neither a right to information
for the adoptee, or a right to privacy for the birth parent. But,
then, I suppose most political solutions to problems are a cop out of
some kind.
I look forward to seeing a draft of the bill to see how they define the
"exceptional circumstances" that would allow a person to file a contact
veto. I'm also interested to see what sort of process will be
established to test applications to file such a veto--will they be
granted pretty much "as of right" to anyone who claims exceptional
circumstances? Or will the applicant be required to lead some evidence
of the exceptional circumstances? How would that evidence be tested?
Tom
twg...@yahoo.ca
Rhiannon wrote:
> twg...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > Karen Lynn wrote:
> > > Top Posting:
> > >
> > > The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
> > > disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
> > > credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received "hundreds
> > > of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this week
> > > that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
> > >
> > > Karen
> >
> > Unfortunately, it may not be as steadfast as we would have hoped, if
> > this story in the Star is to be believed:
> > >
> >
>
> >
> It doesn't seem as if the option of contact preferences for bps who may
> be in "extreme circumstances" has even been discussed as a possible
> alternative. I wonder why.
>
It appears that this alternative solution hasn't pleased the Privacy
Commissioner:
http://www.ipc.on.ca/scripts/index_.asp?action=31&N_ID=1&P_ID=16183&U_ID=0
NEWS RELEASE : May 30 , 2005
Proposed adoption bill amendment is no solution - privacy rights are
still non-existent: Commissioner Cavoukian
An amendment the government is expected to introduce this afternoon
when a legislative standing committee conducts a clause-by-clause
review of the proposed Adoption Information Disclosure Act will not
provide the privacy protection that many Ontario birth mothers and
adoptees are desperately seeking, says Information and Privacy
Commissioner Ann Cavoukian.
The Commissioner thanked Community and Social Services Minister Sandra
Pupatello for considering an amendment to the bill. But the proposed
amendment offers no real change. Birth mothers and adoptees could apply
to a board to convince them that their identifying information should
not be disclosed. The problem is that such an amendment fails to help
the vast majority of the birth mothers and adoptees who fear having to
come forward and have their lives disrupted.
The amendment proposed by the government would require birth mothers
who already fear stepping forward publicly to appear before the Child
and Family Services Review Board to prove that they would face
"significant harm" if their adoption files are opened.
"The fundamental privacy rights of birth parents and adoptees who
don't wish to have their personal information disclosed must be
protected - they should not have to convince anyone of anything, let
alone have to demonstrate harm," said the Commissioner. "The
government amendment does not satisfy the real concern of most birth
parents and adoptees. The amendment I have suggested is not harm based.
It is a veto based on fundamental privacy rights - rights that were
promised by the government."
"There are two very compelling reasons why a privacy-based veto
available to all birth mothers and adoptees is needed, rather than an
extremely limited harm-based order," said Commissioner Cavoukian.
"Privacy relates to one's ability to control the use and disclosure
of your personal information. It's all about freedom of choice -
making your own decisions about disclosing your personal information
- not having to convince someone else as to why they should be
protecting it for you.
The other compelling reason is that many of these birth parents have
lived their entire lives based on the privacy promises that were made
to them, decades ago. To tell them that they now have the onerous task
of going before a tribunal to try to convince strangers that they
qualify for the very limited "exceptional circumstances" that would
protect their information is a complete affront to the faith they once
placed in government."
The Commissioner explained that the proposed harm-based amendment is in
fact something that her office raised with the government well before
the bill was introduced. "We told the ministry that it didn't make
sense to have a "harm-based" order available only to adoptees -
at the very least, it should have included birth parents. However, even
that was far too limited - what was needed was a disclosure veto
similar to what all other jurisdictions in Canada have."
The Information and Privacy Commissioner is appointed by and reports to
the Ontario Legislative Assembly, and is an independent officer of the
Legislature. The Commissioner's mandate includes overseeing the access
and privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act , the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, and the Personal Health Information Protection Act, and
commenting on other access and privacy issues.
Rhiannon
>
You're right. How to define "exceptional circumstances"? I can see the
danger of it becoming an easy out for anyone who feels merely
disinclined.
My friend's father recently told her that his sister had relinquished a
child in the early '40's when she was 14, and that she'd been
approached by her daughter some years back. Apparently she responded
with a letter explaining why she couldn't deal with the emotional
rigours of reunion, and this was respected.
I wonder if she'd had the possibilty of filing a veto if she'd have
done so instead?
Rh.
>
> Tom
Marley Greiner
"Rhiannon" <llewel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117461562.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> twg...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> Karen Lynn wrote:
>> > Top Posting:
>> >
>> > The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
>> > disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
>> > credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received
>> > "hundreds
>> > of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this
>> > week
>> > that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
>> >
>> > Karen
>>
>> Unfortunately, it may not be as steadfast as we would have hoped, if
>> this story in the Star is to be believed:
>> >
>>
>
>>
> It doesn't seem as if the option of contact preferences for bps who may
> be in "extreme circumstances" has even been discussed as a possible
> alternative. I wonder why.
>
> Rh.
Natalie Proctor Servant and Bastard Nation gave them this alternative in
Nat's testimony. You can read the entire procedings in the Hansard
http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_debates/38_parl/session1/SocialPol/SP033.htm#P80_3198
I heard that someplace (it's not in the proceedings above that I can see)
there was a big discussion about honor killings, too. Suicide, honor
killings, divorce. Just what else can they throw in?
Since I don't trust government, I never trust that they'd see this bill
through without compromise. I think I'm right.
Marley
Rhiannon
> "Rhiannon" <llewel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1117461562.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > twg...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> Karen Lynn wrote:
> >> > Top Posting:
> >> >
> >> > The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
> >> > disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
> >> > credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received
> >> > "hundreds
> >> > of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this
> >> > week
> >> > that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
> >> >
> >> > Karen
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, it may not be as steadfast as we would have hoped, if
> >> this story in the Star is to be believed:
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> > It doesn't seem as if the option of contact preferences for bps who may
> > be in "extreme circumstances" has even been discussed as a possible
> > alternative. I wonder why.
> >
> > Rh.
>
> Natalie Proctor Servant and Bastard Nation gave them this alternative in
> Nat's testimony. You can read the entire procedings in the Hansard
> >
>
>
Sorry about that. My bad. I'd meant to write "considered", not
"discussed". I had read Nat's testimony and did write to the various
mmps and the Priv Comm urging passage of the bill with full
retrocativity, no vetoes or fines, and amended to include a clause that
would allow for contact preferences to be filed.
> >
>
> http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_debates/38_parl/session1/SocialPol/SP033.htm#P80_3198
>
> I heard that someplace (it's not in the proceedings above that I can see)
> there was a big discussion about honor killings, too. Suicide, honor
> killings, divorce. Just what else can they throw in?
> >
>
>
Space aliens?
Satan's face in a cloud formation?
I'm sure Ed Anger would have come up with something.
> >
>
>
> Since I don't trust government, I never trust that they'd see this bill
> through without compromise. I think I'm right.
> >
>
'Fraid you are :-(
Rh.
Marley Greiner
Funny, when I read "mmps" it came out pimps.
>> >
>>
>
>> http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_debates/38_parl/session1/SocialPol/SP033.htm#P80_3198
>>
>> I heard that someplace (it's not in the proceedings above that I can see)
>> there was a big discussion about honor killings, too. Suicide, honor
>> killings, divorce. Just what else can they throw in?
>> >
>>
>
>>
> Space aliens?
> Satan's face in a cloud formation?
> I'm sure Ed Anger would have come up with something.
It's all part and parcel of World of Faith politics. If it could happen by
the furthest stretch it will. Say it and it's true. I found the honor
killing discussoin interesting. Bill tried to push that for awhile in the
SH debte, but it disappeared quickly I wonder if one of the old white men
at NCFA has been talking to the privacy girl.
Funny how privacy gets jerked around. Terry Anderson who was held hostage
in Lebanon for years and years was denied access to US government records
about his captivity in order to protect the privacy of the hostage takers.
No doubt information on the AG prisoners will be withheld on similar
grounds. We care.
>> >
>>
>
>>
>> Since I don't trust government, I never trust that they'd see this bill
>> through without compromise. I think I'm right.
>> >
>>
>
> 'Fraid you are :-(
I'm not even convinced that they had any serious intent to pass the law.
Sure it was a government bill, but how do we know that they didn't know the
cons would mess with it and kill it once and for all and take care of their
problem for them?
Marley
Rhiannon
parapraxes or whatever they call it? Anyway, "pimps" is good.
> >
>
>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >> http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_debates/38_parl/session1/SocialPol/SP033.htm#P80_3198
> >>
> >> I heard that someplace (it's not in the proceedings above that I can see)
> >> there was a big discussion about honor killings, too. Suicide, honor
> >> killings, divorce. Just what else can they throw in?
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >>
> > Space aliens?
> > Satan's face in a cloud formation?
> > I'm sure Ed Anger would have come up with something.
>
> It's all part and parcel of World of Faith politics. If it could happen by
> the furthest stretch it will. Say it and it's true. I found the honor
> killing discussoin interesting.
> >
>
>
Me too. Especially as so many relinquishments were primarily about
salvaging the family 'honor' in the first place.
We're a bit susceptible here to the fear of being 'culturally
insensitive' -- to the extent that our collective anxiety is prone to
affect our judgement, with the result that we too often get wrong what
we most want to get right. IMO to capitulate to the Priv Comm's
fearmongering tactics would be almost to condone such practices -- at
least to be held hostage to the idea of them.
> >
>
>
> Bill tried to push that for awhile in the
> SH debte, but it disappeared quickly I wonder if one of the old white men
> at NCFA has been talking to the privacy girl.
> >
>
>
It does rather smell of rancid testosterone.
Fee fi fo fum.
Rh.
Karen Lynn
news:1117461562.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Karen Lynn wrote:
>> > Top Posting:
>> >
>> > The good news is that the government is steadfastly hanging on to *no
>> > disclosure veto* in Bill 183. The Privacy Commissioner is ruining her
>> > credibility with her insane hyperbole. She claims to have received
>> > "hundreds
>> > of letters" opposing the bill, yet her assistant told me in person this
>> > week
>> > that they have received "about 150 letters", total! Oooops!
>> >
>> > Karen
>>
>> Unfortunately, it may not be as steadfast as we would have hoped, if this
>> story in the Star is to be believed:
The gov't continues to hold onto the bill, despite about 30 articles &
interviews by the IPC.
>>
> It doesn't seem as if the option of contact preferences for bps who may be
> in "extreme circumstances" has even been discussed as a possible
> alternative. I wonder why.
>
> Rh.
We did recommend this to the government, citing the five US states who have
this with no problems etc. But it was a no-go with them. They feel that the
public needs the security of a contact veto. They like the NSW law.
Karen
Karen Lynn
news:RM0ne.865514$w62.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Yes Natalie did give them this alternative and so did we in a 35 page brief
earlier in the year.
Karen