» Final Report «
|
IntroductionWhen the Review Panel on Common-law Relationships was established on June 21, 2001 by the Honourable Gord Mackintosh, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Province of Manitoba, he sought the advice of Jennifer A. Cooper Q.C. and myself on several issues. As we began to write our report on the various topics, we found that, although we agreed on many matters, we disagreed on others. We had difficulty trying to reflect our differing positions in one report and finally concluded that we could more clearly express our opinions and recommendations if we submitted separate reports. That possibility was discussed with the Deputy Minister and he suggested two interpretations of the issues, and separate opinions, might be even more beneficial to government than one. We are therefore submitting separate reports. The Minister initially asked us to report to him by the 31st of December, 2001, but subsequently asked us to expedite our report on Adoption and submit an Interim Report on that topic. My interim report was submitted on October 29, 2001. The following is my final opinion and report. It alters my interim report by inserting some initial comments in this document and by eliminating others that are no longer necessary. The substance of my comments on adoption remains unchanged. The terms of reference we received from the Minister indicate the issues we were to examine, what we were to report on, and to some extent, how we were to proceed. They stated:
The first thing we did as we entered upon our responsibilities was to invite people to send us their comments and suggestions on the various issues. We published a notice and request for comments (in urban and rural newspapers throughout the province) and received a number of replies.They served two purposes. They provided us with a cross-section of opinion and enabled us to identify those with whom we would like to meet. Our second step was to arrange a number of private meetings and to invite a representative number of individuals and organizations to discuss their thoughts and recommendations with us. We invited those we believed had a similar point of view to the same meeting so we could discuss their perspectives free from any or argument from those who might disagree with them. We were anxious to avoid confrontations and bitterness displayed during the committee hearings on Bill 41. We also invited some we thought would have first-hand knowledge of how the adoption system operates. We developed a number of questions and tentative concerns and wanted the opportunity to explore them with people who are actively involved in administering the Act. We wanted to learn of their concerns, if they were prepared to share them with us. Everyone we invited, who was available, came to a meeting and graciously discussed the issues with us. After the in-person consultations were completed we made a number of long distance conference calls to discuss our terms of reference with national organizations that have staff studying the issues and intervening in Supreme Court of Canada and other cases. While the plans for meetings were being put in place, we considered the state of the existing law and read the transcripts of the oral presentations that were made to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments on June 18th and 21st, 2001 and the written submissions that had been filed with it. The consultations we held and the submissions we received were of value as they provided a considerable amount of information we would not otherwise have had and provided us with a wide variety of strongly held opinions. As will be seen, they played an important role in the formulation of my own opinions and recommendations. We received eleven written submissions from representatives of national and provincial organizations as well as 25 written submissions from individuals throughout the province. We met with 26 people, 18 of whom represented an organization. Telephone conference calls were held with three national organizations. I have amended my interim report on Adoption by extracting some opening comments to adapt them to this document. My final report is divided into four parts. Part I contains my analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada case of M. v. H. and other cases dealing with adoption. Part II deals with Conflict and the Public Interest and the applicability of the legislative requirements to common-law couples. Part III deals with property legislation, contains a lengthy review of a another line of Supreme Court and other cases and it deals at length with the effect of stereotyping and the need to avoid legislative discrimination. It suggests changes to many statutes, including some amendments to those changed pursuant to Bill 41. It deals primarily with the reasons changes are necessary, but gives examples of the most serious Charter problems that remain. Part IV reviews systems that record common-law systems in other jurisdictions and discusses their suitability in Manitoba. It spends some time discussing the possibility of establishing a Partnership Registry in Manitoba.
|