Persons who were consulted on this issue and who provided written submissions were surprisingly consistent in their approach. With the exception of one organization, who later qualified their position, everyone took the position that common-law partners, including same-sex common-law partners, should be bound by the same conflict of interest provisions as spouses.

This position remained true even though such disclosure could have the effect of breaching the privacy of gay and lesbian persons who wished to keep their sexual orientation confidential. The response to this concern by members of the gay and lesbian community was essentially that "this is the price we pay in order to have confidence in our public officials".

Despite this statement, it was clear that some gay and lesbian persons supported disclosure because:

1. They believed that it is only necessary to disclose the fact that a conflict has arisen, and not the fact that it arises by virtue of a relationship with a same-sex partner, and that therefore it would be possible to keep one's sexual orientation confidential and still disclose a conflict;
2. They believed that there is a convention in the media not to "out" gays or lesbians against their will; and
3. They believed that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ⁽⁹⁶⁾ would protect employees who had to make disclosure of a conflict arising from a same-sex partnership.

The one organization who initially took a contrary view was the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law. This organization conducted an equality audit of Manitoba statutes in June, 2001. They did no empirical research but, based on anecdotal information, concluded that requiring such disclosure could have a chilling effect on the participation of gays and lesbians in public life. They pointed out that there is a big difference between the climate in Winnipeg where there is a visible gay/lesbian community with somewhat more community support, and in rural Manitoba where discrimination can be intense. They spoke of same-sex partners who were even foregoing employment benefits because it would require public disclosure of their relationship.

Ultimately, the representatives of the Women and the Law Association advised that they were prepared to agree with a requirement of disclosure if steps were taken to try and ensure confidentially, where possible, such as limiting the extent of the disclosure and perhaps having a central person who would deal with conflicts instead of the local officials, who might not always be trusted to keep the information to themselves in a small town setting.

Footnote

96. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.M. 1997, c. 50 - Cap. F175.

Opinion on Common-Law Relationships of Jennifer A. Cooper, Q.C. - Volume 1 Submissions and Consultations
IV a) The Law in Manitoba on Conflicts of Interest and Protection of the Public Interest	IV c) Analysis
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