|
Adoption Reform… Nova Scotia still lags far behind
Ron Murdock, Halifax Herald
June 6, 1999
The government of Nova Scotia recently dropped the $250 fee it charged
adoptees and birth families seeking information. Since the fee should
never have been levied, it is hardly ground-breaking legislation.
Community Services Minister Francene Cosman said in the legislature
that national and international attention is focused on Nova Scotia
regarding adoption reform. Let us be clear. The international attention
is critical of what is happening in Nova Scotia, not supportive.
Present legislation allows the right to veto the release of information.
This supposedly protects people. What it does is infringe the adopted
person's rights to his or her birth history and perpetuates the
fear, secrecy and shame. It is no solution and clearly does not
work. France, England, Scotland, Holland, the Scandinavian countries,
Australia, New Zealand and Israel have open records. These countries
offer a right to no contact (offering protection) along with an
absolute right to the information sought (honouring human rights
— two separate issues, not one). They report that no problems
have arisen regarding invasion of privacy. Why? Professional help
is available to all parties throughout the process.
There are two sides to this human problem and both sides have valid
needs and rights. Both deserve the best legislation. The rights
of one should not infringe the rights of the other, but this has
to be applied both ways. Nova Scotia legislates in favour of the
birth mother. The searching adoptee is seen as the problem. Government
policy is the problem, and it is to a government we must look for
the solution. Never forget, governments derive their authority and
legitimacy from the consent of the governed.
How can Nova Scotia go forward? Ms. Cosman’s advisory committee
(with no representation from the adoption community) advises no
further changes to the law. The ministerial recommendations of 1994
have been tossed aside by the minister without declaring what she
disagrees with. Is this accountable? Are we at an impasse?
The UN Charter on the Rights of the Child, signed by Canada in 1990,
guarantees everyone the right to know who he is, where he comes
from and what his ethnic background is. The UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child told Canada in 1994 that it fell short of implementing
many guarantees embraced by the convention. Among other recommendations,
the UN asked Canada to increase public awareness of the convention
by launching a “nationwide education campaign sensitize the
population at large — including children themselves —
to the principles and provisions of the convention and that consideration
be given to incorporating the rights of the child in the school
curricula.” They urged Canada to “integrate the convention
into the training curricula for professional groups dealing with
children, especially judges, lawyers, immigration officers, peacekeepers
and teachers.”
Here is a way forward out of the shame and secrecy surrounding illigitimacy;
yet, five years on, we see no evidence of these suggestions being
implemented. We also have the precedent set by other Western countries.
Indeed, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories
now have open records. Nova Scotia lags far behind. Should we not
be asking our politicians, federal and provincial, some very direct
questions? Don’t we deserve some very direct answers? I think
so.
_ _ _
Ron Murdock is a native Nova Scotian now living in Amsterdam.
[ARTICLES]
|
