ADOPTION DISCLOSURE BILLS 16 AND 60 COMPETE

In Ontario, legislators have tried again to overhaul provincial law on disclosing adoption records, and once again the reforms have stalled. Premier Ernie Eves called a provincial election on Sept. 2, 2003, bringing an end to the 37th Parliament and to all bills on the order paper, including two competing bills on adoption disclosure.

Following the demise of Bill 77 on March 18, 2003, two bills, numbered 16 and 60, were proposed. Both were private members' bills, but one came from the governing Progressive Conservative (PC) party:

  • Bill 16, Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 2003, by Marilyn Churley (New Democratic Party). On May 15 it passed second reading 41 votes to 14, and was sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy.
  • Bill 60, Disclosure and Protection of Adoption Information Act, 2003, by Wayne Wettlaufer (PC). On June 12 it passed second reading by one vote: the Speaker broke a tie by voting with those in favour of seeing the bill go forward. It was also sent to the justice committee.

Ms. Churley's Bill 16 to open sealed records is no stranger to the Ontario Legislature, being modelled on her previous bills 88 and 77, which were supported by the adoption community in Ontario but failed to pass third reading. Mr. Wettlaufer's Bill 60, on the other hand, comes as a surprise to advocates for open records.

Each piece of legislation proposes greater access to sealed adoption records, giving adult adopted persons right of access to their own original birth registrations and the corresponding right to birth parents. In addition, each gives veto powers to birthparents or adopted adults who wish to stay unidentified

Under a disclosure veto, a birthparent wishing to remain anonymous may file a written notice to prevent release of identifying information to an adopted adult, such as the adoptee's original birth registration.

Under a contact veto, a birthparent who does not wish to be contacted by an adult adoptee may file a notice preventing contact. The adoptee who attempts contact would be subject to penalties.

The two kinds of veto work in both directions, so that adult adoptees could file disclosure or contact vetoes to prevent their birth parents from accessing their identifying information or making contact.

Veto notices are filed with the Registrar of Adoption Information, who sends them to the Registrar General to be matched with documents on file.

Bills 16 and 60 differ on the penalty for unauthorized searching:

  • Bill 16 says that if you contact the other party despite having received a no-contact notice you will be fined up to $10,000.
  • Bill 60 says the fine for trying to contact the other party, directly or indirectly, other than through the Adoption Disclosure Register, is up to $100,000. This applies even if third parties are used to try to make contact.

Another difference between them is that Bill 16 would open sealed records retroactively whereas Bill 60 would open records for future adoptions only. The bills also differ in treating such elements as counselling, provision of medical information, and stating reasons for lodging a veto.

Various voices in the Ontario adoption community have spoken out on the two bills. Here is a summary of what people are saying:

ADOPTION COUNCIL OF CANADA. On Aug. 18, 2003 the president of the ACC wrote to the Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy. (See the text of the letter below.) In her letter Sandra Scarth said,

"Of the two Bills currently before the committee, the ACC supports Bill 16 as progressive, but sees Bill 60 as seriously flawed and harmful to adoptees, birth parents and the broader adoption community." She cited the features of Bill 60 which made it "regressive legislation". It would:

  • Prevent adult adoptees from receiving vital health and genetic information.
  • Allow birth parents and adoptees an information disclosure veto, when similar adoptive parent veto power was rescinded in 1987.
  • Provide an unreasonable fine of $100,000 for those who search and reunite outside the Adoption Disclosure Registry, essentially criminalizing the normal desire of adult adoptees to find their family information.

The ACC supported the position of the Coalition for Open Adoption Records and Parent Finders, Inc. against Bill 60 and urged that the committee consider it no further.

ADOPTION COUNCIL OF ONTARIO. ACO supports Bill 16, but not Bill 60. The ACO web site, www.adoption.on.ca, says:

"Bill 77 is no more, but there are two new bills that address adoption disclosure. Bill 16, introduced by MPP Marilyn Churley, has passed second reading and has been referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy. This bill is the same as the previous Bill 77, allowing adult adoptees access to their original birth certificate, and giving birth parents access to the amended birth registration. Counselling would no longer be mandatory and there would be a contact veto provision with a fine for breaching the veto. This bill has had wide consultation and support from the adoption community and would bring Ontario into the 21st Century and in keeping with current understanding about adoption.

"In June, a surprise gesture was made by PC Member Wayne Wettlaufer, who introduced Bill 60. It has passed second reading. There are many concerns about this bill as it is repressive, it is not retroactive, and it does not help the many adoptees and birth parents who are currently searching. It also allows for an information veto and severely restricts search and reunion efforts. It would be an offence for anyone to search or assist with a search if there is an information veto. The fine for breaching the terms of the bill can reach up to $100,000. "

COALITION FOR OPEN ADOPTION RECORDS. In a message June 5, 2003 to the adoption community Michael Grand, Karen Lynn and Wendy Rowney of the COAR Coordinating Committee argued against Bill 60:

"This bill, Bill 60, is different from Marilyn Churley's Bill 16. If it passes third reading Bill 60 would set our fight for open records in Ontario back several decades. Bill 60 would:

  • allow any adoptee or birthparent who chooses to launch an independent search to be fined $100 000. This Bill would make any searching (or search and support group such as Parent Finders) illegal.
  • allow adopted adults and birthparents to file a disclosure veto. A disclosure veto makes it impossible for an adoptee to learn even the name of his/her birthparent or for a birthparent to learn the name of his/her adult child.
  • allows birthparents to file a disclosure veto without providing their medical history.
  • permit adoptees and their birthparents to find each other only through the Adoption Disclosure Registry."

COAR writes at its web site, www.geocities.com/coarontario, "Unfortunately, Wayne Wettlaufer (PC MPP for Kitchener Centre) introduced Bill 60, a private member's bill that would open records for future adoptions only and would impose a fine of up to $100,000 on those who reunite outside of the Adoption Disclosure Registry."

PARENT FINDERS INC. Equally opposed to Bill 60 was Holly Kramer, President of Parent Finders Inc. of Toronto. She wrote in a June 10, 2003 letter to Ontario MPPs:

" ... Like the host before it, Bill 16 (Ms. Churley) rests on almost 30 years of study and consultation, including two Tory commissioned reports (Taylor, 1976; Garber, 1985) and all party support the last time it went before a Standing Committee (2001). Bill 16 would give adopted adults right of access to their own birth information, and birth parents the right to lodge a "no contact" veto. Breach of such a veto would carry a $10,000 fine. It is instructive that in other places where such contact vetoes have been enacted as part of disclosure law, no breaches have been reported. ...

"Bill 60 seeks not to "redress the wrongs imposed by previous legislation" as recommended by Dr. Garber almost 20 years ago, but to compound these. There has been no consultation with the affected community on the provisions in this Bill; indeed, Bill 60 is entirely contrary to the findings and recommendations of the many, many studies, commissions, consultations and Standing Committee hearings and deliberations since the 1970s.

"Bill 60 would allow birth parents to lodge a "no information" veto. No law in Ontario grants any individual the right to determine what personal information another adult is entitled to about himself (similar adoptive parent veto power was rescinded in 1987). Bill 60 would set the fine for even searching for one's birth family at $100,000. ...

" ... Every law concerning adoption in this province has allegedly been premised on the "best interests" of adoptees; yet adopted people have no codified right to their own familial medical information. Like existing legislation, the proposed Bill 60 would allow Ministries, adoption agencies and birth relatives to deny adoptees their genetic health history. ..."

BASTARD NATION. On June 6, 2003 Bastard Nation, the adoptee rights organization based in Houston TX, published an alert at bastards.org/alert/on-alert.html, urging immediate action to stop Bill 60. It said in part: "The bill contains: a disclosure veto; a $100,000 fine if adoptees do not comply with the contact veto outlined in the bill; and conditions which make current search and reunion methods illegal."

The Eastern Canada Director of Bastard Nation is Natalie Proctor Servant, of Ottawa, Ont. On July 24, 2003 she wrote to Robin Hilborn: " ... Marilyn Churley's Bill 16 would open records to adult adoptees and birth parents of adult adoptees while allowing either party to file a $10,000 contact veto. Wayne Wettlaufer's Bill 60 would only open records for future adoptions. In addition, it would place a max. $100,000 fine on people who reunited outside of the ADR and would essentially outlaw the kind of on-line registries that currently help many adoptees and birth families."

Bills 16 and 60 appeared after Marilyn Churley's Bill 77 died on the order paper when Ontario's Conservative government prorogued the legislature March 18, 2003. In its Feb. 17, 2002 news release, www.adoption.ca/news/020217NRcoarbill77.htm, the Coalition for Open Adoption Records had urged the Ontario government to bring Bill 77 to third reading. Bill 77 would have allowed:

  • adult adoptees to obtain their original birth certificates
  • first parents to obtain the original and amended birth certificates of their adult children
  • adult adoptees and their first parents to file a contact veto
  • adult adoptees and their first parents to seek counselling.

Legislation similar to the Churley bills has been passed in many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Oregon, Alaska, England, Scotland, Australia and New Zealand.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

LETTER FROM ACC TO THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY

August 18, 2003

Mr. Toby Barrett
Chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Social Policy
Room 1405, Queen's Park, Whitney Block
Toronto (ON) M7A 1A2

Re: Adoption Disclosure in Ontario (Bills 16 and 60)

Dear Mr. Barrett:

The Adoption Council of Canada (ACC) has reviewed Bill 16, the legislation proposed by Marilyn Churley and Bill 60, proposed by Wayne Wetlauffer in relation to the mission and principles of the ACC. Of the two Bills currently before the committee, the ACC supports Bill 16 as progressive, but sees Bill 60 as seriously flawed and harmful to adoptees, birth parents and the broader adoption community. It is regressive legislation and should receive no further consideration by the committee.

The Adoption Council of Canada's position on open access to adoption records is clear and unequivocal. Our mission statement is to inform and educate Canadians on all aspects of adoption; promote the placement of waiting children in permanent homes; promote openness and honesty in adoption; and work toward legislative reform.

One of the ACC's three major goals is to achieve open access to adoption records in all provinces and territories in Canada. This position is based on:

  • a growing body of research and practice experience over the past 30 years that secrecy is harmful to all involved in the adoption constellation
  • the recognition by progressive jurisdictions that open access to records is the accepted standard of practice
  • the positive experience of those jurisdictions with a history of open access to records, such as Scotland and Finland where records have been open for decades
  • the experience of jurisdictions including England, Australia and British Columbia that have more recently enacted legislation that allows for openness and access to adoption information without any dire consequences, and
  • the rights of any child under the Convention on the Rights of the Child to know his or her parents and preserve his or her identity (Articles 7 and 8)

There have been two studies (Taylor, 1976; Garber, 1985) that supported open records and numerous attempts to draft bills for greater disclosure of adoption records in Ontario over the past 30 years. Bill 16 provides access for adopted adults to their birth information, and birth parents the right to lodge a contact veto. This is a reasonable approach that is based on the two reports and numerous public consultations

There was no public consultation for Bill 60, and it is contrary to the findings of the studies and other public consultations since the 1970's. It would:

  • prevent adult adoptees from receiving vital health and genetic information
  • allow birth parents and adoptees a "no information" veto (similar adoptive parent veto power was rescinded in 1987) that prevents adoptees from realizing the right to preserve their identity, biological roots and heritage
  • provide an unreasonable fine of $100,000 for those who search and reunite outside the Adoption Disclosure Registry (ADR), essentially criminalizing the normal desire of adult adoptees to find their family information

The ACC supports the positions taken by the Coalition for Open Adoption Records (COAR) and Parentfinders, Inc. against Bill 60 and strongly urges that this Bill receives no further consideration by this committee or the government of Ontario.

The ACC would be very pleased to discuss this issue further if there are any questions about our position.

Sincerely,

THE ADOPTION COUNCIL OF CANADA

Sandra Scarth
President

Cc: Hon. Brenda Elliot
Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services
Ms. Susan Sourial
Committee Clerk
Members of the Provincial Parliament

The Adoption Council of Canada, 210-211 Bronson Ave., Ottawa (ON) K1R 6H5, (613) 235-0344, (888) 542-3678

Source: Adoption Council of Canada, www.adoption.ca

Copyright 2003 Adoption Council of Canada. Reproduction permitted, if credited "Source: Adoption Council of Canada, www.adoption.ca".

Please make a request to reprint, so we can track the use of ACC news items. Send your request to acc@adoption.ca.

Home | About the ACC | Organizations | News | Viewpoints | Legislation | Events
Publications | Research | Glossary | Newsletters | Links | FAQs | Statistics | Principles
Canada's Waiting Children

Adoption Council of Canada 
Bronson Centre, 211 Bronson Ave., #210, Ottawa, ON K1R 6H5
phone: 613-235-0344. e-mail: acc@adoption.ca