All the initial consultations and inquiries were conducted jointly with Ms. Cooper. Following is a summary of the comments and opinions I found to be of particular significance. They include a number of divergent opinions and views, but some similarity as well, particularly on what is best for children.

The method of consultation we followed allowed us to explore each issue and to discuss the opinions that were expressed, in some detail. There was no rancour during any of our meetings and everyone we spoke with was anxious to see government proceed in a fair and appropriate manner. I was pleased to see that each consultant expressed a concern for what is best for children. Most discussed all the topics that were referred to us but, in this interim report, I will only comment on what they said about adoption.

One woman who wrote to us had worked with children, fostered many, and has four of her own. She felt quite strongly that no changes should be made to Manitoba's Adoption Act. In addition to her moral considerations, her experience was that children hate to be different from other children. She said that an adopted child often feels different enough without adding further pressures. She believes that same-sex relationships are not normal and feels very disturbed to think of being adopted with no say in the matter, by a same-sex couple, so she would not submit anyone else to such a situation. I took her comments as a plea for and on behalf of children.

The main concern of two women who are in positions of public responsibility with whom we discussed the disclosure and conflict of interest questions, was that joint adoptions by same-sex partners are important as they can provide children with the same rights of support and succession enjoyed by the children of married couples.

We spoke with those who have strong traditional lifestyles and believe in the sanctity of marriage. They believe that all children need a father and a mother and that they are the ones who should be adopting children. They recognize that marriages are breaking down and that alternate lifestyles are becoming more common, but do not want government to do anything that would encourage the breakdown of traditional marriages or that would encourage another lifestyle.

It was necessary on occasion to advise some with whom we spoke that any single adult may now apply to adopt a child, no matter what their sexual orientation may be and that it is only same-sex couples that may not. We had to do that as some felt that no gay or lesbian person should be entitled to adopt at all. Two women to whom we spoke did soften their opposition a bit by agreeing that two sisters of a deceased relative should be able to provide a home for a child and be able to jointly apply to adopt, but they maintained their opposition to gay or lesbian adoptions.

The opposition to gays and lesbians that I perceived was really to the life style they believed gay and lesbian people have, without any particular understanding of what that may include. They of course did not hear gay and lesbian people speak, as we did, of their long-term stable relationships. Nor did they hear of their sensitivity to the needs of children and the large numbers of children now being raised in their homes.

A Manitoba lawyer who is a Board member of Adoption Options, spoke to us. That organization assists young mothers or pregnant women who are thinking of putting their child up for adoption. The mothers are given information about possible adoptive parents and have an opportunity to meet with them and to assess their ability to provide a good home. In effect, they select the adoptive parents. They may also enter into an 'openness agreement' that will give them the right to receive photographs and reports on how the child is doing. Some even include opportunities to visit with the child from time to time.

His focus was on the welfare of children who are adopted by only one member of a same-sex partnership. He was concerned about what would happen if the partners separated. He said:

"The "non-legal parent" would be at a huge disadvantage in seeking custody or access as against the "legal parent". The presumption that a child is to benefit equally from both "parents" after separation would become a farce and again expose the child to the potential of a protracted court battle."

He asked how this could possibly be in the best interests of the child. Children's rights, he said, should be the same for all whose "parents" are married or are same- or opposite-sex partners."

He also said that if the government is of the view that the placement of children in the homes of gay or lesbian couples is bad for children, then the government should explicitly say so and make the practice illegal. He said that by permitting the placement of children in gay or lesbian households, and then declining both partners the right to call themselves parents, the law is engaging in a practice that is intellectually dishonest.

We spoke to two representatives of labour who had obviously looked at the issues on behalf of their members, had discussed them in considerable detail, and had received direction from their members as to the position the unions should take. They said they would like to see changes to the law that would permit common-law partners, whatever their sexual orientation, to adopt children. They suggested that the sole criteria when selecting adoptive parents, should be what is best for the child.

In an earlier written submission, the Canadian Labour Congress had taken the position that "gay and lesbian people are every bit as capable of being loving caring parents." The Manitoba Federation of Labour recognized the diversity of its members and also urged that all be treated with fairness and equity.

The Children's Advocate advised us that gay and lesbian people are more likely to adopt children with special needs. The chairperson said that the adoptive parents should understand that, when they are given the responsibilities of adoption, the law is saying: "these are your children now" and there should be government financial support and other support services in place to assist them with their difficult responsibility.

We spoke to a woman who was raising her three teen-age children with her same-sex partner. She said the children were well adjusted and she and her partner make certain they have a male influence in their lives. She said the children have adjusted to the fact that they have two mothers who love and care for them. The couple helps the children understand their particular relationship and has been able to make them comfortable with it. When the children were younger they were encouraged to say whatever they wanted about their "parents" or not to discuss it with their friends until they were older. The couple adapted their approach to the sensitivities of each child.

Others told us of some of the difficulties resulting from the fact that only one partner is officially recognized by the school and medical authorities and to problems that could arise when a consent is needed in a hurry. We did not hear of any actual problems but same-sex partners are concerned that they could arise. Same-sex couples wish to be recognized as equal partners and have equal responsibilities. Although they cannot marry, these women would like to regularize their relationship as much as possible, and in particular, would have liked to have been able to adopt their children as a couple.

We heard a great deal about the impact of the Supreme Court decision in M. v. H. on the law. We were told that the Manitoba Bar Association has passed a resolution asking the Government of Manitoba to eliminate all distinctions between same-sex and opposite-sex common-law partners. The members of the Bar we met said they would prefer to see government make the necessary changes, rather than seeing their members and their clients having to challenge the existing law in court.

The majority of those with whom we spoke suggested the decision as to whether a certain person or persons should be able to adopt a child, should be made by a child welfare agency or by a judge, on the basis of what is in the best interests of the particular child.

Many we consulted were anxious to see all children have all the benefits that can flow from an adoption. People on both sides of the question said that children who are adopted should receive the same rights and benefits from those raising them that they would have from natural parents. That should be the case, they said, whether those raising them are single, married, or are same- or opposite-sex partners.

Two openly gay presenters spoke of the caring personality of many gay men who are now involved in parenting children, in one way or another. They suggested that 1 in 10 gay men and every 3 or 4 lesbian women are now raising children. Many have children of their own that are now being raised by a same-sex couple. The only change that is desirable from the standpoint of a couple, and from the position of the children, they said, is to permit both partners to join in adoption applications and to become the official parents of the children they raise.

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission, after a very informative meeting, forwarded a summary of its recommendations. On the topic of adoption it said:

"We recommend that The Adoption Act be amended so that gay or lesbian couples can apply together to adopt or foster a child, and so that the non-biological parent in a same-sex couple can adopt his or her spouse's child."

The Commission also made several other recommendations:

"Amendments should be drafted in a manner that is respectful of the dignity of gay and lesbian persons in relationships, and their families, and recognizes these relationships as equal with opposite-sex relationships.

Irrespective of the approach favoured by the Panel with respect to any future amendments to The Adoption Act, any reference to common-law partners within the adoption process should include both same- and opposite-sex partners.

We recommend that The Vital Statistics Act be amended to allow for both the biological parent and the co-parent in a same-sex common-law relationship to register as parents.

We also recommend that the Vital Statistics Act be amended so as to extend to same-sex common-law partners the same rights currently enjoyed by opposite-sex common-law partners to register their child with the last name of either partner, or a hyphenated combination of both parents' last names."

We reviewed the carefully researched report of the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law that had been presented to the government. Its contents were discussed by us with its representatives at our first meeting. They raised many issues that we subsequently explored with other presenters. We also heard from the Rainbow Coalition and their suggestions are included in those I attribute to individuals.

The Executive Director of EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) made some interesting comments in the written material we received after we spoke to him by telephone. It said in part:

"The terms of reference for the Panel on Common Law Relationships make clear that "the Province of Manitoba maintains a policy of non-discrimination in the application of provincial statutes. This commitment is consistent with Manitoba's inclusion since 1987 of "sexual orientation" in its human rights legislation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. It is also consistent with the constitutional obligation shared by all governments in Canada to ensure that the laws of each jurisdiction correspond with the equality guarantees of the Charter of Rights."

An officer of Focus on the Family in British Columbia advised that their concern is the family. Their approach is based on Christian principles and they believe in monogamous heterosexual relationships. He said that they have two positions on same-sex adoptions:

His personal feeling was that he would have to agree to giving the same rights to same-sex and common-law couples. He makes no distinction between opposite and same-sex arrangements. He subsequently advised that he had contacted the Vital Statistics office in British Columbia and was informed that while most birth certificates refer to a "father" and "mother", in the case of same-sex adoptions, the names are changed to "parent" and "parent".

REAL Women of Canada in their written submission to us said:

"The social movement by same sex couples to adopt children, as couples, is the seeking inter alia of the court's approval of same-sex sexual practices. Such a movement is about same-sex couples' interests, not the interests of children.

It is our view that the Manitoba Adoption Act cannot be amended to apply to same-sex couples because it is not legally possible within the legal and constitutional framework of adoption law. This framework is the Prerogative law of the parens patriae, the sovereign's guardianship, maintenance and protection of children…."

The person we spoke to on the phone also said:

"Yes, there are long waiting lists of children waiting for adoption. Children should not have succession rights. They can get welfare."

While I disagree strongly with these sentiments I feel obliged to pass them along to government. I will refrain from identifying the person to whom we spoke in the hope that her comments do not reflect a corporate policy.

We met with three senior Child and Family Service administrators who have had extensive experience in child welfare work and in finding suitable people to adopt the many children who have had to be removed from their birth parents. They spoke of their inability to find enough adoptive parents, particularly for older children and those with special needs.

When people apply to adopt a child, a CFS agency undertakes a detailed examination of their background and arrives at an opinion as to whether they are able to properly care for and raise a child. If a same-sex couple applies to adopt they are advised that only one of them can be the official applicant but that the suitability of both partners will be examined. If an agency approves a single applicant and supports their application to adopt a particular child, an application is made to Court and again only one applicant is shown as applying to adopt the child.

If an Order of Adoption is made by a judge, only the one same-sex applicant is named as the adoptive parent. From that day on that person is the official parent of the child and has the rights and obligations of a natural parent.

They emphasized that every adoption applicant is judged on his or her ability to care for a child and they do not approve a gay or lesbian person any more quickly than any other applicant. They make the same inquiries and apply the same criteria when assessing their suitability. On the other hand, they do not reject a gay or lesbian person or couple solely on the basis of their sexual preference.

The administrators were familiar with adoptions that have been processed under the direction of their agency. Follow-ups have shown some excellent same-sex situations in which the adopted child is doing well and is benefiting from the love and attention of two people of the same sex. Even more significant is the fact that they have found "some beautiful gay and lesbian families."

They volunteered that, in their experience, people in same-sex relationships are no more promiscuous than partners in other arrangements. They pointed out that there is a need, throughout the province, for adoption applicants and they look beyond the stereotypes and look at their applicants as individuals.

In passing, they mentioned that there are a number of matters every adoptive parent has to deal with. They have to be sensitive to the needs of their children and tell them that they are adopted, and the nature of their own relationship. That should be done, they said, before a child is 12 and the door to a discussion should even be opened after age 6 to let the children ask questions if they want to. They urge same-sex couples to do the same.

They stated that they come as close to approving same-sex couples as adoptive parents as the law permits and that they plan to continue that practice. Whether the existing law is changed or not, it would make no difference to their present practice.

Following our meeting, one of the CFS representatives sent us a copy of some of the rules that were published in the Manitoba Gazette that apply when the suitability of an applicant is being examined. A social worker, when doing a home study report on adoption applicants must cover the following matters, which I list in summary form:

• Biographical data on the applicant, their family and those living with the applicant.
• Present relationships with them and any children of a previous relationship.
• Past marriages or relationships.
• Ability to parent a child with special needs or from another culture.
• The stability of the person and the effect of adding a child to the family.
• Lifestyle, including involvement in neighbourhood, leisure and social activities.
• Description of the home and community.
• Description of the child who may be placed with them.
• Wishes with respect to an openness agreement, a contract veto and a disclosure veto.
• An evaluation of the suitability of the person to assume the responsibilities of a parent.
• A recommendation as to whether the person should be approved for the placement of a child.
• Any other relevant factors.

As I did not fully understand the significance of the openness agreements referred to in the directive, I phoned and asked the person who had forwarded the material to give me some further information. Apparently openness agreements are quite varied. Some applicants are not comfortable with them at all while others agree to send some information to the birth mother or grandparents. This may take the form of an occasional letter or photograph. Some adoptive parents stop sending photographs as the child grows up for fear that he or she might be identified and demands to see the child in person might commence or escalate.

The Adoption Act says that these agreements may be in writing, and may contain a method of resolving any dispute that may arise, but that is apparently not done in practice. The existence of an openness agreement is merely noted in the CFS file.

It seems that openness agreements are more often used in the adoption of Aboriginal children. The adoptive parents are more likely to appreciate the importance of having the child maintain a connection with his or her extended family and with Aboriginal culture and traditions. Aboriginal social workers and Aboriginal communities are comfortable with that arrangement.

I explored the comment made during our in-person meeting that it did not matter to Child and Family Services whether the law is changed or not. The person I spoke to said that the intent of that remark was only to indicate that CFS now examines the capacity of both same-sex applicants to parent a child, even though only one can legally adopt. Child and Family Services nevertheless believes that the system would be improved, and that it would be better for children, if same-sex couples could jointly adopt a child.

I have recently been in touch with a recognized expert in California who has done a number of longitudinal studies that followed children of divorced parents for years to assess the impact of their parents' separation on them as they grow up. She advised me that, while there is a considerable amount of writing on the subject, no similar studies have yet been done to track children raised by same-sex couples.

She did say that the research to date shows that children raised by a gay parent do not become gay themselves and that children raised in gay households, by and large, are doing well. She said that some children do experience discrimination as they get older, depending on the degree of tolerance for same-sex relationships in the community where they live. She said that is not a problem in California.

As I conclude my recital on the various comments and suggestions we heard, I must say that I was concerned about the attitude of some that denigrated those who hold a different opinion. Some seem to feel that those on the other side of the debate are strange and unacceptable members of society while some others feel that those who oppose their request for equality are bigots without any understanding of or compassion for others. These comments were not expressed openly to us but there was certainly strong disagreement on what should or should not be done by government. It may be that my conclusion on the extent of the disagreement was occasioned more by the animosity displayed during the committee hearings.

I believe that the people we are talking about in this study are those who would be found to be suitable adoptive parents by an agency and by a judge. The gay and lesbian people we spoke to impressed me as concerned and responsible citizens who want to do their part in improving society and in helping children are in need of a good home. They wanted no special privileges, only the same opportunities as other citizens.

Society is obviously divided on the rights same-sex couples now have, or that should be accorded to them, and I regret that others were unable to hear the manner in which opinions were expressed to us. Unfortunately, there is a wide gulf of misunderstanding between those on the extremes of the debate. I was bothered by the gulf and by the dichotomy but I found some comfort in one of the cases that was referred to us.

In Mossop v. Canada [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554, at page 634, Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé of the Supreme Court of Canada said:

"It is possible to be pro-family without rejecting less traditional family forms. It is not anti-family to support protection for non-traditional families. The traditional family is not the only family form, and non-traditional family forms may equally advance true family values. … {I}t is in society's interest to improve conditions to enable families to function as best they can, free from discrimination."

Opinion on Common-Law Relationships of Hon. A.C Hamilton, Q.C. - Final Report Part I) Adoption - Consultations
Part I) Introduction	Part I) Case Law
Opinion on Common-Law Relationships of Jennifer A. Cooper, Q.C. Volume 1 Volume 2 (proposed Statute Amendments) Opinion on Common-Law Relationships of Hon. A.C Hamilton, Q.C. Final Report