Amendments to Nova Scotia's existing Child and Family Services Act were introduced last week by Opportunities and Social Development Minister Barbara Adams.Kelly Clark/The Canadian Press
A parent whose child dies has suffered an unbearable tragedy. Amid their grief, they will be looking for answers. And if the victim had been in child protection they will naturally wonder how the authorities could have let this happen. But in Nova Scotia, those parents could be muzzled under a proposed law.
They would be able to speak out fully only with permission from the government – which itself could be to blame for their child’s death. That is grotesque.
Amendments to the province’s existing Child and Family Services Act were introduced last week. Among other changes, they broaden a ban on naming Nova Scotians in the child protection system.
The law currently shields the identity of these children from publication. Under the new rules, that ban would continue posthumously. Meaning that media covering the death of a child would be unable to report the involvement of the child protection system. No one – parents included – would be able to post identifying details on social media, without ministerial approval.
Nova Scotia seeks to shield identities of children in protection system even after they die
Opportunities and Social Development Minister Barbara Adams said the changes stemmed from a 2021 review of the law. However, that review floated broader exemptions to the publication ban, including with the consent of the family.
The effect of the proposed change could be shielding the authorities from valid criticism, the opposite of transparency.
If this passes the media would be stuck in limbo, able to publish what happened without identifying the family or identifying the family but keeping secret a key part of the story. Neither allows for proper disclosure.
This change in law comes as Nova Scotia is gripped over the fate of two young children, Jack and Lilly Sullivan, who disappeared from their rural home 10 months ago. The case remains under police investigation.
Concerns about suspected neglect or abuse in the home prompted a visit from child protection social worker, and the government has faced questions over whether enough was done to protect them. Such questions deserve full scrutiny.
This is a remarkable moment to propose legal changes that would make it harder in the future to get answers in cases of young victims who have intersected with child protection.
Legal system’s ‘data desert’ keeps many court rulings out of public reach
If the media cannot report on a young person’s involvement with child protection after their death, the question of whether enough was done to shield them from danger would disappear from the headlines, removing pressure on the government to act.
The ban could also prevent public knowledge of criminal wrongdoing.
A lawyer arguing against the changes before a provincial committee raised the case of a Nova Scotia toddler named Isaiha Surette, who was killed in 2020 after being returned home from foster care. His mother, April Wendy Marie Surette, later pleaded guilty to manslaughter. However, the proposed change in law also shields the identity of parents and foster parents, meaning that her role in the death would have remained secret.
Reflexive secrecy is a recurring flaw of Canadian officialdom. There is an institutionalized instinct toward not releasing information that is starkly at odds with some other countries. Some examples of this have been detailed in The Globe and Mail’s ongoing series, Secret Canada, which has exposed such issues as the difficulty accessing court records or information about closed emergency rooms, and how those who withheld or destroyed records faced few consequences.
Too often the reaction to a reporter seeking answers is to tell them to file a request under access-to-information legislation, which can take years and cost thousands of dollars.
In the case of the proposed law change in Nova Scotia, even such a formal request would go nowhere unless the minister approved it personally.
With this new law, it’s only a matter of time before some future minister is being asked to rule on whether to release information about a child that would put his or her department in a bad light. This is an obvious conflict.
A law that silences the family of a dead child is an unjust law. Grieving family members must not need permission to raise their concerns publicly, allowing the media to amplify these and hopefully bring about change.
Children who die under the oversight of the state have no voice. But their deaths cry out for accountability and action.