Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for June 22, 2016

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

The days when you had somebody hiding you know in the Chateau Laurier behind a palm tree - trying to steal a secret I think are by and large long gone. You either do it through cyber, or you start developing a relationship.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Six years ago, Richard Fadden was talking about how espionage has evolved with technology. As the then-head of Canada's intelligence agency CSIS, he was well aware of the many changing demands of National security from terrorism to cyber-spies, right back to the more traditional threats of seemingly-hostile governments. In a moment, Canada's former top spy-master joins us with his views on the vulnerabilities and challenges of Canadian security. And speaking of challenges...

SOUNDCLIP

And yes, finally, fathers will be able to say to their daughters: you, too, can grow up to be president.

[Sound: crowd applause]

AMT: In Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House, the conversation around gender is unavoidable. From her own ads that proudly point out the potential to make history to the comments of her detractors and her republican competitor, she faces both obstacles and advantages as a woman running for President. In half an hour, three women navigating U.S. politics weigh in on how they see the Clinton strategy unfolding. And then, its summertime.

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Large splash]

AMT: But before you get too cozy at the cottage, be warned: it turns out fights around who inherits the family cottage provide a lot of work for estate lawyers, mediators, even psychologists. Family misunderstandings and squabbles about cottage ownership can put the shun in vacation. You want to bet we're going there in an hour. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current.

Former CSIS director Richard Fadden on new oversight for Canada's spies

Guests: Richard Fadden

SOUNDCLIP

The Russia beat for intel folks was a more quiet one, frankly speaking, over the last couple decades, And now, it's quite hot. And we have to find linguists, we have to find people who can analyze all the information that we have to find coming in, in Russian and other languages.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Well, that's Evelyn Farkas, the Pentagon's former top Russia expert. She was on NPR just last week, speaking about how U.S. intelligence had been so distracted by terrorism that it ignored the growing threat from Russia. Richard Fadden knows a lot about the priorities of Canadian intelligence and threats to national security. He was director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, from 2009 until 2013. After that, he served as Deputy Minister of National Defense. He then became the National Security Advisor to then Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and then briefly for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. For more on the challenges facing Canadian intelligence in countering terrorism, cyber threats. and Russian espionage, Canada's former top spymaster joins me now. Richard Fadden is in our Ottawa studio. Hello.

RICHARD FADDEN: Good morning.

AMT: Last week, CSIS released an unnerving report saying Russia was, and I'm quoting, "retooling its military for a fight." Should Canadian intelligence be more focused on keeping tabs on military power such as Russia and China than on terrorists?

RICHARD FADDEN: Well, first of all, I think the report that you're referring to was a compendium of academic views that CSIS had sponsored. But having said that, I think we have to worry about it because Russia is spending a great deal of money retooling its, for example, reactivating its Arctic bases. Having said this, I don't think we're facing the same kind of existential threat that we faced when the Soviet Union was in existence. But Russia has been using its armed forces to push and to prod here and there, and I think it would be a mistake for the West, including Canada, to ignore that entirely.

AMT: Now, Canada has been asked to send troops to eastern Europe to act as a deterrent to Russian expansion. If you were still the Prime Minister's national security advisor, what would you tell him to do?

RICHARD FADDEN: That's actually, I think, a very complicated question. Because I think there's no doubt that Russia has its eyes for ways to try and increase its influence in Europe. I think our European allies are very worried about that. I think to be practical, we have to do something to signal to Russia that they simply can't do in Europe what they did in Crimea, which is a clear unequivocal violation of international law. So I think I would probably say something along the lines of, you know, we don't want to re-establish Canadian forces bases like we had in Europe during the Cold War, but having a much improved capacity to do exercises with our allies throughout the year might be the way to go.

AMT: I want to ask you on another issue. Last week, the Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, introduced a bill for the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians for oversight on Canadian security agencies. What do you think of that committee as it's been structured?

RICHARD FADDEN: Well, I think the idea is one whose time has come, and I think it's a very good start. I think I would make two comments on it, I think overall, the bill is really quite good: one, I think we need to make clearer, or at least parliament is to be very clear on the extent to which this committee would be able to review ongoing operations as opposed to post facto. Generally speaking, when legislative institutions look at things of this nature, they do a post facto review. Under our unwritten constitution, it's the minister who is responsible for ongoing operations and I think if you had the committee involved in day to day running or current operations, it would cause a bit of a conflict. And we have to find a way to make this oversight, this review effective, while at the same time not impeding the operations of the security agencies. And secondly, I think the bill says that the committee and the review agencies, CERC and the CSEC commissioner, need to cooperate. I'm not sure that's enough guidance for three institutions who want to work in the same area. So I think if I were involved, I would say we need to provide a little bit more guidance on who does what to whom under what circumstance.

AMT: The bill, apparently, will give the committee what is called extraordinary access to scrutinize any operation of a federal department or agency. Would that keep security agencies accountable?

RICHARD FADDEN: Well, I think that's an interesting question because I think you have to ask yourself to begin with whether they are accountable right now. I think, by and large, they are. We have existing review committees: the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the CSEC commissioner, we have the federal court, and we have ministers. Now I entirely agree with the view that it's now time to involve Parliament in this, so I think Parliament will add another layer of assurance, if that's the right way. But I don't think I would agree with you entirely. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's fair to say that there's no accountability right now. What we don't have is accountability through our elected representatives and through parliament.

AMT: Mmm. Would it work both ways? A committee can't later say I didn't know something.

RICHARD FADDEN: I think they need to know. There's a difference between knowing about what's going on and actually being involved in things as they are occurring. I don't think they can comment on legislation or on policy unless they have a really effective understanding of what all these agencies do. So I think the bill strikes a pretty reasonable balance between saying as a matter of principle you can have access to anything. On the other hand, the Minister has the right to say in extraordinary circumstances, you can't have access to this and that that refusal has to be made public.

AMT: Well just keeping on in this area, let's talk about Bill C-51, the anti-terror law. You were Stephen Harper's National Security Advisor during much of the time that it was being debated, and you said at the time that it seems more frightening than it really is. What did you mean by that?

RICHARD FADDEN: I think one of the problems we have in Canada is that we don't talk a lot about national security except after a crisis, which is a bad time to do it. So I think there were two aspects to C-51 that worried people a lot. One was the sharing of information between federal departments. I understand the desire not to end up in sort of a situation where, you know, there's one central database on all of us and anybody can access it at any time. On the other hand, one of the things that scared me when I was director of CSIS is that something terrible would happen, there would be an inquiry, and we would find out that there was some bit of information somewhere in the federal system that we didn't have access to and which could have prevented the crisis or the explosion or the terrorist act. So I think people were sort of more worried about the need to protect information in various departments than they were concerned about the need to make sure that information was centralized when necessary, under a lot of controls and under a lot of procedures, to avoid, possibly, a terrorist act. So I thought there, we should have had more of a dialogue. We should have talked a little bit more about who did what to whom. You know, the view that all of the information, for example, held by CSIS is instantaneously available to anybody in CSIS under any circumstances is absolutely false. They have more controls internally than there are external controls. There are audit trails: you need to have reasonable belief that something is going wrong, and I think that's true across the system. So that's one area. The other area where I think there's a little bit of controversy was the part of the act which gave ceases the right to, under certain circumstances, disrupt threats to the national security. I think actually that's entirely reasonable. Under the law as it was before, CSIS was only allowed to collect information. So if, for example, they were meeting with a young man or young woman whom they thought was going to be involved in an act of terrorism, they could actually talk to that person or find out things about the person; but they couldn't, if they thought that person was going to commit an act of terrorism, talk to that person's priest, or Imam, or family, or social worker. The rule was so strict that they were unable to do anything at all. So I was then and am of the view now that if you have the possibility of trying to avert terrorist acts by simply talking to people, or do a variety of things, you should be able to do that. Now, the way the law was constructed, it allowed for a violation in some circumstances of the law and of the charter. I think this brings into pretty sharp relief a number of other principles. I think the director of CSIS told a Senate committee a few weeks ago that he'd already used this power without having to go to the federal court, so there was no violation of the law. I think up to two dozen times, to avoid, you know, somebody doing something that they shouldn't be doing. So I think you need to put all that into the pot as you consider whether or not these are reasonable or not.

AMT: Well, and I want to just pick up on that, because we often hear about disruptions or we the work of agents in terms of violations, in terms of missteps. We don't hear where security works. We don't hear that you that a security threat has been thwarted. Should we hear more of that?

RICHARD FADDEN: That's a problem everywhere, as I'm sure you know. I think we should make an effort to talk about it a little bit more, but I think also this is one of those areas where you deal with national security and you don't talk about it. But I do think it should be possible by aggregating up a bit the information to talk about it a little bit more. I mean, maybe for example, once a year in its annual report, CSIS could try and talk a little bit about some of these things. Other countries have tried to do this, but you always reach the point where you can't give details or you're actually giving away information that may help the people that you're trying to deal with. But I do think it's possible and we should try to talk a little bit more about it.

AMT: There's been a lot of concern about Canadians who have gone to fight with ISIS or support ISIS, and then have returned to Canada. What do you think should be done with Canadian defectors from ISIS?

RICHARD FADDEN: Ah. Well I think first, we have to admit to ourselves that some of them are coming back so disgusted with what they've seen and what they've done, they will never be a threat to national security again; and at the other end of the spectrum, we have people who are coming back who are absolutely determined to find the right moment where they can do us harm. And there are various stages in the middle. The key, I think, initially, is to try and figure out in which category these people fall. In some cases it's pretty obvious; in other cases, it really is not obvious because those who are on the far end of the do harm spectrum are going to try very hard to conceal what they're doing. So I think, initially, we have to know who's coming back, that's the start: having good intelligence about who's coming back and keeping an eye on them. And then when you have a reasonable belief that they're going to do something unlawful, you have to ratchet up surveillance and try and do what you would do in any other circumstances. But I think it's important to remember that not everybody who comes back is determined to do harm: some of them, I know, are absolutely convinced they made a mistake and they don't have anything to do with it again. The key is to identify in which category they fall.

AMT: Any idea how many did come back so far?

RICHARD FADDEN: I think the CSIS director said a little while ago, something of the order of 80. That's a lot of people to keep an eye on, by the way.

AMT: And that's just the ones who left and came back.

RICHARD FADDEN: That's right. And those are the ones we know about.

AMT: Because at the time when Stephen Harper was Prime Minister, he said they wouldn't be allowed back.

RICHARD FADDEN: Um…

AMT: Like, the agency actually knows who they are, at least 80 of them are, and they've come back.

RICHARD FADDEN: Well, I don't know what Mr. Harper said, but people have a constitutional right if they are Canadians to enter and to leave this country. So I don't think it would be that easy to deny a person the right to come back. They might come back and be immediately arrested, if we the R.C.M.P. are able to develop the view that they did something that violated Canadian law, but we do have a right, under the charter here, to come and leave this country if we're Canadians.

AMT: Any idea what the breakdown is between men and women in that group?

RICHARD FADDEN: By far male, but there are a few women. I'm afraid I don't know the percentage.

AMT: As you learn more about the man who killed so many in Orlando, what lessons should Canadian security agencies take from that?

RICHARD FADDEN: That is a very, very difficult question. I mean, for one thing, we've taken some measures that the Americans seem to refuse to take. Our controls of firearms are much, much more effective. I think one of the first things we need to do is if people are under suspicion, to some degree or other, of being likely to commit terrorist acts, we have to make sure that they don't have access to firearms. There may be ways, for example, of getting peace bonds. One of the other provisions in C-51, I think it was, is that if the police suspect that somebody may be committing a crime, about to commit a crime, they can go to the courts and ask for peace bond. So there are a variety of things to do. The problem, of course, is just because you're on a list, if our reasonable, well-articulated view that you might be a threat, that doesn't mean that all of a sudden, you should be put in jail, so there's a real balance here. The difference between Canada and United States, though, I think, is if you're on a United States list, as I understand it, suspected terrorist, that doesn't prevent you from acquiring firearms. We don't really have that problem in a serious way. But the key is to have a real grip on whom we think may commit a terrorist act and try and keep them under some form of surveillance. But you know, I won't be telling you anything you don't know when I say that most of these people who want to do this go out of their way to try and keep secret what they're doing. And you can't, we mustn't move towards developing a surveillance state to the extent that everybody is suspected of doing everything. So there's a real balancing act here, I think, required.

AMT: But you're telling me that firearm control is not a small thing when you're trying to fight terrorism on home soil?

RICHARD FADDEN: I think that's right. Having said that, firearms are a real problem. ISIL, for example, Daesh, whatever you want to call it, the so-called Islamic State, has recommended to its supporters around the world, find any means that you have to commit terrorist acts. So they actually publish a magazine which you may have seen, which suggests how that using material available in the average kitchen, you can construct a bomb. So it's not only the firearms or the tool that's chosen, it's the mindset and it's the opportunity. All of which I think goes to a point I would try and make with you, which is that this isn't easy. Particularly when you have people who are trying very hard to be secretive, and we have agencies that are restricted quite reasonably by the Constitution and by the law. So you have to put all this in a pot and try and find those who are most likely to do some harm without damaging their constitutional rights.

AMT: I'm wondering where cyber warfare fits in all of this. It's been raised as a real threat to Canadian national security. How prepared is Canada to withstand a cyber attack on power grids, other important installations? Major institutions?

RICHARD FADDEN: Yeah, that's a good question, I think. I've argued that cyber is as serious a threat as terrorism; its nature is simply different. I think the way I've tried to look at this, if you just talk about cyber in the aggregate, it becomes a problem that's insurmountable. So the key, I think, is to break it down. And what the government has done, what we've done over the years, is we looked at Canadian through sectors: you have the nuclear sector, the electricity sector, the financial sectors, the Telcos. I think it varies as between the sectors which are better prepared and which are not. Over the years, all of them have made some progress. For example, I think the general view is that the financial sector is in pretty good shape. I think the nuclear sector is, too. Others, they have certainly tried to improve things, but they're not doing everything they can possibly do. I think one of our challenges in Canada which our friends in the states and the U.K. have done slightly better than we have is engage in exchanges between the government and the private sector. We have not, over the years-- and by years, I mean decades-- been very good at sharing classified information with selected parts of the private sector so that we can have a real dialogue about who's doing what to whom. So for example, if there are cyber attacks against one or more of these sectors or particular corporations, there's no requirement in Canada to report these, as there is, for example, in the United States. So how do you deal with these threats if you can't figure out where they're coming from, how many of them there are, and how serious they are? So I think we need a somewhat greater dialogue with the private sector, and I think both Mr. Harper's government and Mr. Trudeau's government have been committed to increasing the number of security clearances that we can give to the private sector, so we can have a bit more of a dialogue.

AMT: Can you see the day where Canada might engage in offensive cyber war?

RICHARD FADDEN: I can. Again, I'm telling you something you don't know, Canadian law now doesn't allow that. But in particular, if we're going to have Canadian Forces personnel abroad and they are facing cyber attacks, either their communications or whatever, I think it's entirely reasonable for us to think seriously about whether or not we should give them the capacity to reach out and suppress these things before they're used against them.

AMT: Do you see the Canadian military working on that level, in terms of its training?

RICHARD FADDEN: I think so. I think they would be derelict in their duty if they weren't talking about these things. I mean, you don't send people in harm's way without doing everything you possibly can to avoid that harm being done to them. And today, I think most militaries that we're facing-- I mean, we have Canadian Forces personnel, for example, in Iraq. Well, some of the forces that they are opposing have a cyber capacity. I think the military would be irresponsible not to take into account these sorts of threats. You begin by developing as good a defensive capability as you possibly can, and I think the Canadian Forces have a pretty good defensive capability. But at some point, I think you have to ask yourself, at least, and eventually ministers will have to consider whether they shouldn't be given the capacity to push back as opposed to just defending.

AMT: Richard Fadden, thanks for your thoughts today. We're out of time, but good of you to join us, thank you.

RICHARD FADDEN: My pleasure, thank you.

AMT: That is Richard Fadden, he was director of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, from 2009 until 2013. He was also National Security Advisor to Prime Ministers Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. He joined us from Ottawa. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current on CBC Radio One.

[Music: Sting]

Sexism on the campaign trail: How Hillary Clinton can shatter the glass ceiling

Guests: Celinda Lake, Siobhan "Sam" Bennett, Kelly Dittmar

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and you’re listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

AMT: Still to come, why conflict over cottages is tearing some families apart. But first, Hillary Clinton steps up to the biggest political playing field in the US.

SOUNDCLIP

HILLARY CLINTON: Thanks to you, we've reached a milestone-- [crowd cheers] --The first time in our nation's history that a woman will be a major party’s nominee.

AMT: Well, Hillary Clinton, making history becoming the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president of the United States. The former Secretary of State's gender is something her Republican rival Donald Trump is also pointing out on the campaign trail.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think the only card she has is the woman's card. She's got nothing else going and, frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she'd get five per cent of the vote.

AMT: Mrs. Clinton has famously called the Oval Office the highest, hardest glass ceiling. Today we're exploring the obstacles in Hillary Clinton's path to the White House as she faces challenges unique to female candidates. Celinda Lake is the President of Lake Research Partners and a leading political strategist with the Democratic Party. She joins us from Aspen, Colorado. Siobhan "Sam" Bennett is a Democratic strategist, a former congressional candidate, and a past CEO of the Women's Campaign Fund, a US organization dedicated to helping female candidates. She joins us from Allentown, Pennsylvania. And Kelly Dittmar is an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University and a Scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics. She is in Philadelphia. Hello, everyone. Welcome.

KELLY DITTMAR: Good morning.

CELINDA LAKE: Hi, how are you?

SIOBHAN SAM BENNETT: Welcome. Good morning.

AMT: I'm going to start by playing a clip for you. This is from Hillary Clinton's speech yesterday where she targeted Donald Trump's economic plan and his attitude toward women.

SOUNDCLIP

Just like he shouldn’t have his finger on the button, he shouldn’t have his hands on our economy. Over the years, he has said all kinds of things about women in the workforce. He once called pregnant employees, and I quote, “an inconvenience. “

AMT: Kelly Dittmar, what did you make of Hillary Clinton's message yesterday?

KELLY DITTMAR: I think that she has been very targeted on making sure that she paints a contrast with Donald Trump. In noting that he is reckless, that is something that came up both in her foreign policy speech and the economic speech, and that she is somebody who's prepared for office, she's qualified, and she knows what is needed to be done in order to promote the policies that will best impact Americans. And so, I think yesterday's speech was yet another case in which she laid out some of her own plans for the economy, but very quickly shifted to Donald Trump and really tried to target him, not only on the lack of policy - we haven't heard much from him yet - but also to say some of the things he has said and done have been actually negative or offensive, particularly to women.

AMT: Celinda Lake, how are female candidates judged differently on economic plans?

SL: Well, economics is the most important issue for any candidate to establish themselves on right now, but work that we've done for the Barbara Lee Family Foundation shows that both Democratic and Republican women have a disadvantage on the economy. They have to prove that they have an economic plan and, in both parties, women are presumed to be less good on the economy than men are. In this particular case, Donald Trump, even with all of his craziness, gets some credit for being a wealthy businessman on the economy. So it's a very, very important message to talk through who actually benefits from this economic tax practices and who will actually benefit in the future from his economic plan.

AMT: And Sam Bennett, what obstacles will Hillary Clinton face that a male candidate won't?

SAM BENNETT: Well, let's be clear, the only reason, in my opinion, that Hillary Clinton is at this historic point in our nation's development politically is she’s been focused on running for president her whole life. And the obstacles that women face when it comes to politics are daunting. Voters, Celinda Lake, my colleague Celinda pointed out, voters just assume that a man is qualified. A woman has to prove that she's qualified and both men and women have to prove that they're likable. So, a woman candidate like Hillary has to prove at the same time that she's likable and she's qualified - absolutely daunting - but it remains-- We're making some progress. If we look at those fundraising numbers, right, Donald Trump only got about, what, a million in his coffers. Hillary's got 42 million and she raised significantly, exponentially more money than he did, so we are making some progress there.

AMT: Celinda Lake, since the massacre in Orlando, Ms. Clinton's polling numbers have spiked. Mr. Trump's have slumped. What's going on there?

CELINDA LAKE: Well, I think it was a very vivid moment where the temperament of the candidates was revealed. And, actually, what's ironic is initially Donald Trump got some credit for being tough and strong, but as he typically does, what he kept engaging and bearing down people thought he lacked empathy. People thought he also was reckless in his judgment, quick to jump to the gun - excuse the expression, actually - quick to jump to conclusions and it's a trait that really unnerves, as Kelly said, women voters who are much more risk averse, much more focused on temperament. And so you're seeing with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton a record gender gap fuelled somewhat by her being a woman candidate, but, frankly, fuelled more by the kind of candidate that he is. And we’re particularly seeing that among married men and married women. We have the biggest gap in voting between married men and married women that we’ve had in history.

AMT: So, are you saying he's being judged on, quote-unquote, “emotion” in a way women are often judged on emotion?

CELINDA LAKE: That's exactly right. He's perceived to be the more emotional, erratic candidate that you never know how he’s going to show up. You never know how he’s going to respond. He also has a trait of escalating and retaliating. And those are seen as very unnerving traits to voters, particularly in the foreign policy context.

AMT: Kelly Dittmar, what do you think of that?

KELLY DITTMAR: Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, I think that what we've seen is, in some cases, he's blown out of the water the strategies that both men and women have tried to pursue to ensure that they look like commander-in-chief. And one thing he's done is he's really tried to play into a very traditional playbook, in some ways, to prove that he's the most manly candidate. And I think in regard to his aggressiveness he's tried to prove that that is proof that he's man enough for the job, something that we've sort of desired in presidents until now, but it's backfiring, in some ways, when it does threaten the temperament that Celinda talked about. So, if he overplays that hand, if you will, it does provide some potential risk. I think, on the other hand, while he's accusing Hillary Clinton, for example, of playing the woman card, he's actually the candidate who's been playing gender in a much more explicit way, including trying to emasculate his opponents. So even throughout the primary and into the general election he's questioning the strength and stamina of his opponents. He's talking about his own masculinity and he's saying to women voters, I will protect you and I love you and I cherish you, but without a sort of calm, clear plan on how he's going to do that. I do think that message might not resonate, especially with women voters.

AMT: Sam Bennett, what do you think?

SAM BENNETT: Well, I think we have to get back to the bottom line here. What I've been very impressed with in this race, between Hillary Clinton and Trump, of course Bernie Sanders and the other candidates in between, is the word sexism has been used on this campaign trail like none other I've ever seen. And I'm very proud of that. In fact, my colleagues Kelly and Celinda and a host of other women from across the United States who've been focused on helping getting women elected --And here in the United States, let's not forget, we're ranked 84th in the world in the number of women in elected office in the United States and if we count all the countries we're tied with, we are somewhere around 112th in the world in the number of women in elected office. And so what I'm particularly proud of is we're using the S-word and why is that? Well, Celinda, Kelly, and a host of us initiated research right into this topic of political sexism. It's called Name It. Change It. Gloria Steinem, god bless her, she named it. And the bottom line is this, that when women receive sexist attacks, whether it's just a description of the attire that they're wearing, that reminds voters that they're a woman, god forbid, they plummet electorally, sometimes as much as 12 points in the research that we conducted. But as long as they respond, as long as they use the S-word, the sexist word, and others can chime in in their behalf, they regain all the lost votes and they get a bump at the end. And voters, it's almost as if they say this: Oh, you’re right. That’s sexist. So, what I see on the campaign trail is that Name it. Change it. research that we collectively did as women leaders in Washington, DC back in 2010 has gone into the political groundwater and has reached the political electoral politics and it's being used. You would not have seen Hillary Clinton's brilliant send up on Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon - I to get those two young men mixed up all the time - but there she was on national television poking fun at political sexism and regaining all the lost votes. So, I'm very pleased about what I'm seeing in this campaign when it comes to sexism and her pushing back.

AMT: Now, Sam Bennett, you have your own experience with sexism as a candidate running for office. My producers have held me I have to warn you to watch your language—

SAM BENNETT: [laughs]

AMT: --but tell us what happened when you were running. What were you running for and what was being said?

SAM BENNETT: Well, by way of full disclosure, I am running for my final run for elected office. I'm running for mayor of Allentown, my city, third largest in the state of Pennsylvania, electorally significant, even when it comes to national politics. But here's what happened. Back in 2001, I was recruited by a group of prominent Republicans, prominent Democrats to run for mayor. There are two quick stories I'll tell. This is the first one. Here we were with the press in the room and all the leaders of the Democratic Party were there. It was a sea of about 60 men, average age about 60, and in the middle of my stump speech I was interrupted by the head of the group and he said, Sam, I just want to ask you question all the men in this room have been dying to ask you. Just what are your measurements? And this was with TV cameras on me and the newspaper. And, lo and behold, the next day, they cut out that segment from the TV coverage and they never reported about it in the newspaper.

AMT: How did you respond at the time?

SAM BENNETT: All I did was stutter. I had no idea what to do. I went back to my stump speech. Ah, but then let's fast forward to my congressional race in 2008. There was a blogger who was very unhappy with me - and this is where I'm going to be very careful. He put a quote, incredibly misogynistic quote, on his blog. But here's the sad story. Our major circulation, Tribune Paper, in our region picked up the quote, unchanged, and only added a few asterisks, printed it on the front page of the newspaper for four days with a colour photo of me, top of fold, front of the paper, so, of course, my children could see it before they went to school in the morning. Here's a quote, edited, “Sammy Bennett is a phony political w*** who gives good head and makes cheap political opportunists look like f*** political opportunists. She makes political opportunists look like – blank, blank, blank - Mother Teresa. Even her p*** is made of plastic.”

AMT: They put that on the front page of the paper?

SAM BENNETT: On the front of the paper. Now, here's the good news. I was hired to be the CEO of Women's Campaign Fund, a very important and historically significant organization, which, by the way, Celinda Lake, in her past, was also the CEO of, and I knew that if I'd experienced sexism like this in little old Allentown, 118,000 population, god forbid, what other women were going through and no wonder we were ranked 84th in the world in the number of women in elected office. It's like the United States is the Wild Wild West of politics. So, that's what inspired me to gather other women organizations from across the country. We called ourselves Political Parity and we did this research and now, isn't it wonderful? Hillary Clinton's using it and pushing back on the sexism she's experiencing on the campaign trail.

AMT: So, let me ask Celinda Lake, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called certain women: Fat pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals, at various times. He's also tried, as we heard in the clip off the top, to play the gender card against Hillary Clinton. Does that work for or against Hillary Clinton, in your view?

CELINDA LAKE: It works for Hillary Clinton, but maybe not as much as you would think. Actually, our research has shown that people use - and this is kind of disturbing in some ways, both rewarding and disturbing - people are more upset by what he says about racial groups than what he says about women or even more upset. And they think that the statements he makes about racial groups could lead to very serious divisions in America and could lead to divisions in our country, even new violence and demonstrations. In terms of the sexism comments, well, 60 per cent of the voters find Donald Trump's rhetoric repugnant. And, interestingly, it's about even between men and women, women a little bit more, but not dramatically more. And people certainly cite the sexism. But there's still, as Sam said, when people don't like it they still absorb the sexism more than they should and one of the things that was so important at the leadership at Women's Campaign Fund and one of the things that's so important about the Name it. Change it. Research and work that Kelly has done as well is it's important for us to call it out. Often women are silent about it and what we found in the research is, not just for the winning candidate to call it out, but also for women's groups to call it out and for women, ordinary women to say this is wrong, and it is particularly wrong in terms of what it does for our daughters and what role models it does for young women in our country. And that's a very important piece that Hillary Clinton has, is that people think she's a very powerful role model to suggest to our girls that they can be anything they want.

AMT: Now, Celinda Lake, it's not solely competitors, it's not other candidates, it's also in the media, right? It's the pundits. It's the observers.

CELINDA LAKE: Oh, absolutely.

SAM BENNETT: Absolutely.

CELINDA LAKE: That’s exactly right.

AMT: I've got some tape here. Earlier this month, CBC political commentator Rex Murphy was on CBC Television, The National, talking about the unlikable qualities of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. You'll hear a little bit of that tape. And on Monday Tom Velk, who’d the director of the North American Studies Program at McGill University and a Republican voter was on The Current talking about why Marco Rubio would have been an ideal opponent to Hillary Clinton. Listen to them both and what they say about Ms. Clinton. First, Rex Murphy and then Mr. Velk.

SOUNDCLIP

REX MURPHY: Hillary, with Bill -- it's impossible to think of Hillary without Bill. They're a unit. Hillary is ambition-possessed and ruthless.

TOM VELK: He's very well spoken. He would be a grand contrast to the kind of nasty old grandma that's running on the other side.

AMT: Okay. “Ambition-possessed” and “nasty old grandma.” Celinda Lake.

CELINDA LAKE: [laughs] Well, it’s a lot of code there and a lot of that very – not too much coded, actually. And this is one of the biggest problems that women candidates have. People are perfectly willing to elect a man that they don't like if they think he’s qualified, but for women, they will only vote for someone they both like and think is qualified. And this code about ambition and of that, and no one ever referred to a man as the b-i-t-c-h is very much hitting at the likeability factor. It’s ironic, because, of course, Donald Trump himself is so actively disliked by the public.

AMT: Go ahead. Sam, want to jump in? Go ahead.

SAM BENNETT: Yeah, yeah. On this one, it's very important for us never to forget that we all drink from the same sexist ground water and I think your point earlier was very salient, that Celinda Lake was pointing out, that you know it's a little disturbing, but true, that people are far more offended by the racist comments than they are by the sexist comments. Well, what's underneath that? What's causing that? Well, we have managed in our culture in the United States to make huge progress. We still have work to do, in terms of our views towards civil rights and race relations. We've come far farther than we ever have around sexism and we really need to look no further than some of the dynamics in the Obama-Clinton race back in 2008 to see that pattern. And that is carried forward. It’s a very real issue.

AMT: Kelly Dittmar, what do you think?

KELLY DITTMAR: So, I think that these examples are pervasive. We thought - I think some of us thought - that after 2008 maybe we'd see less of these, we'd hear less of those comments about ambition, about age, about her voice, about her not smiling enough, things and questions and standards to which we're not holding men to the same standard or asking the same questions. But, unfortunately, we are seeing gender at play this year, sexism at play this year. But I think what is different, and you sort of alluded to this earlier, is that we are finding that people are calling it out. And I think Sam mentioned this, we're at the Center for American Women in Politics this year. We're doing a project called Presidential Gender Watch. We started it a year ago with the idea that we wanted to elevate the sort of gender dialogue in this race, that includes calling out and pointing to sexist or gendered treatment or behaviour. But also pointing to the fact that gender is at play for all of these candidates and for all voters and gender doesn't mean just talking about women. And so I think that there has been a real positive shift, at least in the fact that we're talking about it on this show and on other media outlets, in commentary, and that when folks are making these comments, we’re pointing to them as sexist and I do think that that's an important improvement, though it does demonstrate that we've got a ways to go until we see what some would call a gender neutral playing field.

AMT: So you're making the point that gender is an issue on all sides now, because of who the candidates are?

KELLY DITTMAR: Of course. I think it's easy to fall into the trap that because we're we have a woman candidate for president all of a sudden gender matters in presidential campaigns. But the reality is it has always played a role. You know, I’ve been saying recently, one of the jobs of a presidential candidate, until now, has been to prove that he's man enough for the job because it's been an office so characterized by masculinity and inhabited only by men. So, you've seen candidates, male candidates work really hard to prove that they meet those masculine credentials and that is not new to 2016. And so, pointing that out, I think, is really important because it demonstrates that Clinton is not simply playing a woman card, but Donald Trump is playing the man card. I think one other thing is that she has said, and this is really the first time - she didn't do this in 2008 - that gender is among the many merits that she brings to office. And for those of us who have worked really hard to demonstrate the importance of having diversity in our office holders and particularly increasing women's representation, we've made the point that having women in office brings a different perspective, that women experience the world differently, and therefore they're going to bring something new and advantageous to the dialogue. And I think she's been willing to say that this year in a way that she wasn't in 2008 and it does sort of elevate the dialogue that we're having overall to say that it's okay to say being a woman brings some advantages, in addition to the many other credentials that she would bring to the office. And, again, you could argue the same for men that they bring a distinct experience in addition to the many other things that they bring to the table.

AMT: Now, we know they each have low ratings when it comes to likability. Could that cancel out some stuff and actually force people to focus on issue?

KELLY DITTMAR: You know I—

AMT: Who wants to go?

KELLY DITTMAR: I’ll say briefly and then I’ll pivot to—I know Celinda’s done the research on this. But I think that for likability, as Celinda has found and others, it is much more tied to qualifications or perceptions of qualifications for women candidates. And so the concern, I think, in this election is: Would it matter more for Hillary Clinton? Would it be more detrimental that people don't like her than the fact that they don't like Donald Trump? I think that may have made a difference in the primary, but I will defer to Celinda to see what she thinks what will happen in the general.

AMT: Celinda, we’re almost out of time, so briefly, if you can speak to that.

CELINDA LAKE: Just real quickly, I would say that I think the most important thing for Hillary to do is-- The irony is voters think they know her very well, but she's kind of an iconic leader and people don't know that much about her. And so what really improves her likability and kind of reintroduces her is showing her authenticity, her long history on some issues before the cameras were on. And the current ad that they have up on children's issues, for example, is just tailor made to do that. So I think they're dealing with the reintroduction of Hillary Clinton, while I think Donald Trump has reintroduced himself as more unlikable than he was and crazier than he was the first time around.

AMT: Okay. We have to leave it there. Thank you, all of you, for this conversation today.

SAM BENNETT: Thank you so much.

CELINDA LAKE: Thank you.

KELLY DITTMAR: Thank you.

AMT: That is Celinda Lake, President of Lake Research Partners, a leading political strategist with the Democratic Party. She was in Aspen, Colorado. Siobhan "Sam" Bennett is a political strategist and past CEO of the Women's Campaign Fund. She’s in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where’s she’s running for mayor. Kelly Dittmar is an Assistant Professor at Rutgers University and a Scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics. She joined us from Philadelphia. We want to hear from you. What role will Hillary Clinton's gender will play for her fight for presidency? Will it play a role? Tweet us @TheCurrentCBC. Post on this segment on our Facebook page. Or email us by clicking on 'contact' at cbc.ca/TheCurrent. And if you’re joining us part way through, go to our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent, download our podcast, stream right there. Listen to what you missed. This is The Current.

Why conflict over cottage ownership is tearing families apart

Guests: Benjamin Tal, Gord Cameron, Rachel Blumenfeld, Barbara Benoliel

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, this is The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

[loons calling, fire crackling, children laughing and singing Kumbaya]

AMT: Oh, so Canadian, the call of a loon, a jump off the dock, the fire, the campfire song. Well, the familiar sounds of cottage life in summer. Whether you call it a cottage, a cabin, or a vacation home, recreational properties are cherished across this country by those lucky enough to have one. Due to shifting demographics over the next decade, many cottages are set to become family battle grounds as ownership of vacation properties, along with other family assets, will be transferred from aging parents to their children. We will hear more about the family disputes that can arise over the cottage but first let's put this in context. Cottages are part of a much larger wealth transfer that's happening as boomers inherit from their parents who are now 75-years of age or older. Benjamin Tal is the chief economist at CIBC capital markets. He is the author of a new report on this transfer of assets from one generation to the next and the potential impact on Canadians. Benjamin Tal is in Toronto, hello.

BENJAMIN TAL: Good morning.

AMT: Well, you've done the math. How big is this transfer?

BENJAMIN TAL: It's very big. It's actually the largest ever. We're talking about roughly $750 billion that will change hands over the next decade. This, by far, would be the largest exchange of money; wave of inheritance that we have seen ever, so it's going to be complicated.

AMT: Where is all that money coming from?

BENJAMIN TAL: Well, you know what? The 75+ generation, first of all there are many of them and they're relatively wealthy. They are pensioned and they're not suffering, they have relatively good money on average, and of course the value of their real estate went up dramatically over the past 15,20 years, so they are comfortable. This amount of money is a reflection of a number and the fact that per capita they have more money.

AMT: What will the impact be, then, on the generation inheriting this kind of wealth?

BENJAMIN TAL: Well, the issue is that we're talking about a lot of money but the reality is that the distribution of this wave of inheritance is not going to be normal. Simply put, this money will go to money. People who are comfortable, people in their 50s or 60s that are fine, they will be getting most of this money, so we will not see all the $750 billion going to the economy and supporting people who really need it. Many people basically don't need it, but they will get it anyway. So that's, I think, the story. If you go back to economics 101, the average of the inheritance that we would be getting is roughly $180,000, but the median, namely we're in the middle, it's only $30,000. This means that most of this money will go to people with money.

AMT: Okay, in other words, the haves will have more and the haves less will still have less.

BENJAMIN TAL: Yes. We know that income inequality is probably the number one issue facing this country, and I think this income inequality would be turning into wealth inequality due to this wave of inheritance, so that's something that we have to understand and therefore the people with the money that will getting more money will do something with it, it will be an investment, it will be buying real estate, or simply giving part of it to their kids that are in their 20s and 30s that we know are struggling now because of a very difficult labour market and of course, a real estate market that is in the sky.

AMT: And you know, as you look at trends with money in Canada and you see this massive, $750 billion, over ten years, I mean what do you start thinking as you add that up? What was going through your head?

BENJAMIN TAL: Okay, is it a good thing or a bad thing? First of all, it's very good for the economy as a whole, but if the distribution was more even it would be even better because many of those Canadians with a below average income can use this money to increase spending and therefore support the economy, you would have you create G.D.P. and jobs, it would be kind of another momentum. Unfortunately, that will not be the case, at least not to a large extent, I think that a lot of it will go to people that already are relatively comfortable. At the same time, it will help their kids and we know that the next generation, namely people in their 20s and 30s, some people call them the lost generation and rightly so because they are struggling. The labour market is very difficult for them, and the housing market you simply cannot afford it, so you need the help of your parents and those parents will be getting money from their parents and that's why already we hear that roughly 20 to 25 percent of young people that buy a house get a significant amount of money, help, from their parents. So they're getting a significant amount of help in order to be able to buy a house; something that we haven't seen in previous generations.

AMT: Okay, well Benjamin Tal, thank you for your time today.

BENJAMIN TAL: A pleasure, thank you.

AMT: Benjamin Tal, chief economist at CIBC capital markets. He's in Toronto. Well, since vacation properties are so often passed down to more than one family member and end up jointly owned, the process can complicate relationships. Gord Cameron co-owns a family cottage with two of his five siblings. He joins us from Ottawa to tell us what happened when it came time to transfer the cottage’s ownership from his parents to the adult kids. Hello.

GORD CAMERON: Good morning, Anna Maria.

AMT: So where's your cottage?

GORD CAMERON: Oh, it's near Algonquin Park in central Ontario.

AMT: And what has it meant to you, or did it mean to you, growing up?

GORD CAMERON: It was the place where all five of us, all five of the children and our parents spend pretty much most of every summer as we grew up.

AMT: And as you got older, as you got spouses, partners, how did that work? Everybody still getting along?

GORD CAMERON: Well when spouses came in of course, there's a new dimension there because it's not their family cottage and they have to be made part of it, and then there's children for all of us. It became a place where we could have a relatively inexpensive vacation with our children for a couple of weeks each summer.

AMT: And as your parents aged, what were the discussions in your family about transferring ownership to the kids, the adult kids?

GORD CAMERON: We could see this coming for over 30 years, and we had talks about it from year to year. We tried to figure out different ways of passing the cottage from my parents down to the children. We talked about complex corporate structures and informal sharing arrangements, but mostly we just put it off.

AMT: And so what did you come up with?

GORD CAMERON: Well, eventually as my father, who was kind of the guiding force, got less able to manage the place, it became more obvious that we are going to have to take over and come up with some solution so it just became more urgent. We wanted to make sure we'd come to some arrangement before my parents died so that we were doing it at least without the complication of the emotions that come when you're dividing up an estate.

AMT: And so who has control of the cottage now?

GORD CAMERON: Well, for us, despite some tension about who was going to carry on with the cottage, it did work out fairly well because there were three of us who were quite interested in the cottage and had more or less the same idea about what a cottage should be. And then there were two others who had different things that they wanted to do and so the three of us bought out the other two, and now we carry on the three of us sharing a place and all three of us have children so the pyramid grows out to about 15 or 20.

AMT: So the three of you are pretty compatible with how you want to use the cottage now?

GORD CAMERON: That's right, and I think that's important because a cottage can be jet skis and noisy cabana on the dock party time for some people, or can be paddling in the moonlight listening to the loon calls to others, and fortunately the three of us had the same mix.

AMT: And the two who were bought out, do they come and visit, what happened?

GORD CAMERON: They could do. For one of them it meant a good improvement in the sense that he could get his own place further up north and have a cottage more the way he liked it himself, and that probably wouldn’t have been financially possible without being bought out of my parents' cottage. It's been a good outcome and much happier than some that I've seen among other people.

AMT: And the other sibling?

GORD CAMERON: For her, the question was really probably not going to be happy being partners with the rest of us in the cottage and thus preferring what she could do with the money other ways.

AMT: And so as you were going through this, did you have to figure out like how do you buy out or like, did you have to look at individual finances to see who could help to carry this? What were the actual discussions?

GORD CAMERON: For sure. I mean that's a big factor among five kids in any family. Even if you grew up with the same parents, you end up with some who are more comfortably able to afford a cottage and also just different interests in amount of time they want to spend at the cottage. When it came to dividing up the cottage and the funds, we actually have shares, the three of us who are in the cottage aren't in it equally, because some wanted and had the ability to be up there a lot during the summer and others just wanted a small part of it, and so of the three of us, it's actually divided into one with three fifths and two with a fifth each.

AMT: Okay, and was this all just fine or did it get a little rough at times?

GORD CAMERON: No, it got it got tense at times. I mean, the family cottages is a place that's tied to a lot of strong emotions, a lot of history, and so those decisions about whether you're going to stay involved in the cottage or say goodbye to it can be really, really emotional and tense.

AMT: What did you learn about yourself in the process?

GORD CAMERON: Oh I think in all circumstances we all had to be ready to walk away from the cottage if it wasn't going to work. I don't think I wanted it to be a factor that would interfere with my relationship with my siblings, So we, I think all of us were ready if it wasn't going to work out. If we didn't find some happy way of owning the place together in the future we were ready to sell it.

AMT: Okay, roughly what age group are the three of you in?

GORD CAMERON: We’re in our 50s and 60s.

AMT: Okay, and your kids, how many cousins are there now?

GORD CAMERON: There are 12 or 15 cousins depending on how you count and they grew up there, too. They had their summers there too, so they are cousins who knew each other by playing games, and building forts, and sitting around the campfire, not just by talking to each other on Facebook.

AMT: And are you already talking about who gets the cottage when you guys hand it over?

GORD CAMERON: I think they're going to have to work that out by themselves. I mean, eventually the numbers get too big to manage and probably the people just get so diverse, and their interest in what the cottage should be to them is going to get so diverse that it's hard to see it lasting into another generation or another one after that. But maybe they will find some way of working it out.

AMT: Okay, well Gord Cameron, thanks for your story.

GORD CAMERON: Thank you.

AMT: Gord Cameron, co-owner of a cottage in Ontario. He joined us from Ottawa. Now, his family came up with a resolution that works for them but it's not always the case. According to my next two guests, cottages are often the most contentious part of estate planning. For more on how vacation properties can strain families, I'm joined by two people Rachel Blumenfeld is a lawyer and partner with Miller Thompson. She specializes in trust estate and tax planning. She's also on the board of society of trust in estate practitioners. Barbara Benoliel is a psychologist and mediator who helps many families resolve succession disputes. They're both with me in our studio. Hello. You’re smiling as I'm asking about the family dynamics. Barbara, why is that? How familiar are fights over cottage properties?

BARBARA BENOLIEL: Well, the cottage really represents the whole issue of family because that's where families have joined together to enjoy each other's time. Dad’s not at work, mom’s not busy, that's where families have actually met. So that's where their history is and that's why it's so important.

AMT: It’s not about the property at all, it's about some memory and that kind of thing. Rachel Blumenfeld, how much acrimony do you see when families are working through what happens to the cottage?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: Thankfully I get involved earlier on, so I help with the planning to try to avoid some of that that acrimony, but we certainly see quite a few situations where there are fights over silly things like who gets the boat and who gets the sofa that's been at the cottage all those years. As Barbara said, those kinds of memories are caught up in the cottage and so we do see quite a bit of tension among the kids. Like Gord's family, I think where he mentioned there were some tense moments there. I think that happens quite often.

AMT: So it's not solely the structure, it's also what's in the structure. Who wants the favourite chair—

BARBARA BENOLIEL: [laughs] Exactly. I know of a case where there's the rocking chair that's being transferred back and forth across the country every six months. That's how they decided to share this one rocking chair that was THE chair at the cottage. There are all kinds of creative ways of doing it, but the property is not just the actual property, it's the contents.

AMT: That's interesting and so Barbara, if Rachael starts early with estate planning and tries to head people off at the pass on this, if you're a mediator and you're a psychologist, I'm guessing they come to you and there is already trouble.

BARBARA BENOLIEL: Yeah, I mean sooner or later you have to do something and that's when people come. They haven't done the pre-planning. They've talked perhaps, but they haven't resolved it and things change after parents pass away. The relationship as a family changes when that generation goes. Now who sleeps in the main master bedroom of the cottage? Very different story.

AMT: So tell me a little bit more about the kinds of-- give me some more examples of what you deal with.

BARBARA BENOLIEL: Usually when families are coming there because they are in a dispute. They've recognized that they can't resolve it, they don't want to take each other to court, that's not the way families like to work, but they are unhappy and the fear is really driving them, the fear of what could happen. I truly believe you can buy and sell college, but families are hard to come by as Gord mentioned. The family relationship is really important to people, so they really don't want to risk the family and they're willing to try to negotiate. My experience is families get really generous when they all sit down together and have the opportunity to actually make decisions themselves and not feel things are being forced on them, so that's what the mediation does, it give them that chance.

AMT: So Rachel, to try to avoid some of that, what's the first thing you tell clients when they start to plan who gets what?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: The first thing I think is to communicate, to have that family meeting to make sure you as the parents understand who's interested in the cottage, and sometimes people have come back to me and said we had this meeting at the cottage, we brought everybody up last week and we were shocked. You know, the daughter wants it and the son doesn't and we thought it was going to be the other way around. A lot of what helps though is to also work through the financial side and to try to make sure there's going to be, whether it's using life insurance to fund maintenance on an ongoing basis, or to fund the capital gain, the capital gains tax, and one of the things that Benjamin Tal was talking about in that wealth transfer what happens at that point is there's a big tax hit and as cottages have increased in value from when the parents bought them in the Sixties and Seventies for $50,000, or $80,000, you can add a zero to that and that creates a big tax bill. Where there's planning going into that and how to fund that, I think the fights at the end of the day may be a little bit mitigated.

AMT: And also how to buy out, then. Again, these could be properties that were inexpensive, even less than $50,000 in the Fifties or Sixties, and suddenly are worth a fortune, the cost of a city home.

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: On that note, I dealt with somebody where surprisingly there was this huge desire to keep the cottage and we were in a situation where we were into generation three or four, so 15 cousins, two of them really wanted it. They were in the US and nobody had actually done any of the transfers over the years, it was still in the name of the dead aunts and uncles. We started working through all of that and it turned out it was a fishing cabin. It was worth about $40,000 [laughs], but these guys really wanted it. They were so attached to it.

AMT: It’s interesting because Barbara, it’s not about the property, it’s about something else.

BARBARA BENOLIEL: Our history is our identity, so what we're really challenging is the family identity when we say this actual memory or this thing that we all share is going to now belong to one person. Would you weigh your family history to anyone? Of course not, so it’s an issue.

AMT: And when you say you get together with the family, who should be at that meeting?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: It really depends on the family dynamics. I would usually, depending on the situation, would recommend that that initial meeting does not include the spouses, so it's the parents and the kids and not their—

AMT: [laughs] And why would that be?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: [laughs] Because that, I think a lot of times is where some of the issues come in. Where it's fine to share your cottage with your brother and sister but if something happens to your brother, do you want to be sharing it with your sister-in-law? And those kinds of things you can really only talk about without the in-laws.

BARBARA BENOLIEL: [laughs] Now, in mediation, we do it differently.

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: Okay. [laughs]

BARBARA BENOLIEL: I want everybody at the table, particularly the in-laws, or out-laws, depends on how people call them [laughs]. The in-laws are the ones who you have to go home and tell, you know this is what I decided. They're going to say what? You decided without me knowing? So I like everybody at the table.

[ALL LAUGH}

BARBARA BENOLIEL: I want everybody who's going to be impacted by that decision, including grandchildren, to be there so that it's really a family making the decision.

AMT: And how much of this is also about inheritance? You can talk about the emotion, but we are talking about those people lucky enough to have a cottage that has been there for a long time. It's a lot of money, so if one opts out now that could be worth a lot more money later. How much does that play into family dynamics?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: This issue of fair versus equal comes in and how do you divide up assets in a way that's fair. And I always say you can be an equal when your kids are alive, you can't be an equal when you when you've passed away because that creates the issue for the kids. You've created a problem for your kids.

AMT: So in other words, if some siblings want a cottage, other siblings maybe should get something else?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: I think you really have to figure out early on how you're going to value those. Is there a process to get an evaluator in and take an average of a number of different valuations, and if that's in writing and the parents have thought that through, then I think you can mitigate some of those fights.

AMT: I have another example. We spoke to Joanne Dickinson about her family cottage. When her parents raised the issue of inheritance with Joanne and her brother, she says he said he didn't want the cottage so the parents changed the deed to add her as a co-owner of the cottage. When her parents die, her brother will be compensated for half the value of the cottage at the time that she's added to the deed. Right now she shares some of the expenses of the cottage with her parents and it seems fairly clear cut, but Joanne Dickinson has a few concerns. Listen to her.

SOUNDCLIP

My brother, once he had a grandchild, started wanting to go up to the cottage, which I don't mind at all. I always told him that he could do that, but I think it was when he started to say things like, well we should knock this wall out, and do this, this and this. Well, why would I do that? Well, because there would be more room for all of us, meaning all of his family. It's an awkward kind of position to be in that it's going to be my cottage. Would my brother have any claim or could he legally contest the fact that I'm the owner and say that he wants to own half the cottage as well?

AMT: Rachel, what do you think?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: I think from a legal, strictly legal point of view, I think it would be very difficult for him to make a claim. He would have to come forward and make a claim for example, that the sister forced the parents into making that change. Those are really tough arguments to make, especially if he was aware of it all along and he was involved in these decisions. He could perhaps say that the parents transferred it into joint names with her strictly for probate planning so that they wouldn't have to pay probate fees on their debt. Again, if they've been up front, if the parents have documented what they've done, if when they went to the lawyer to actually do that transfer the lawyer understood what they were doing and has good notes, I think that will mitigate that and cut that off. So I don't think she has a whole lot to worry about there, but I understand her apprehension.

AMT: Barbara, how often do you see situations where siblings want to continue to have access to a cottage without choosing the ownership?

BARBARA BENOLIEL: I think that's pretty common because of that history of thinking of it as our cottage and the family talks about it as a group possession, and that's really difficult transition to make. So I think the communication really is the key here and the fears that come up from not talking to each other, not clarifying what are the goals and the outcomes, that's where the problems really start.

AMT: Is there a season for this kind of, like you find yourself busier at a certain, like now or is when?

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: It's now. I'm actually dealing with two or three of these right now. One is an interesting one where it's not family members. Friends have gotten together to purchase a cottage and we're going through the process of putting together an agreement, a co-ownership agreement that deals with things like how do you make up the schedule of who gets to go when? How do you deal with expenses, bank accounts, those kinds of things? And also restricting who you can transfer to. No, I don't want to be partners in this with you, or grandchildren, or your spouse, or whatever--

AMT: [laughs] That other friend.

RACHEL BLUMENFELD: Those other friends and building that into the agreement.

BARBARA BENOLIEL: And I find also, like the proactive and the reactive. In the fall for me is busier because people are at the end of the season now, how did this work? It didn't work, what are we going to do about this? Let's do something before the next year, so it can get really busy in the fall after the season is over.

AMT: So when you hear that number, $750 billion in asset transfers, wealth transfers over the next little while, a lot of that is going to be cottage apparently.

GUESTS: Yes.

AMT: Fascinating. Who knew? Thank you very much both of you for coming in.

GUESTS: Thank you.

AMT: I've been speaking with Rachel Blumenfeld, lawyer and partner at Miller Thompson, specializing in trust estate and tax planning. Barbara Benoliel is a psychologist and mediator who helps many families resolve succession disputes. We do want to hear from you on this. Do you have a cottage that you share with family? Are you dreading the negotiations over succession? Are you worried about leaving behind a cottage to your kids? Let us know. Tweet us @thecurrentcbc, comment on this story on our Facebook page, email us by clicking on the Contact link, cbc.ca/thecurrent. That's our program for today. I'm an Anna Maria Tremonti and thank you for listening to The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

June 22, 2016 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode