The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50228
Law TiMes • March 21, 2011 What was behind C big payout to Ouimet? The hristiane Ouimet got a $530,000 kiss-off from the federal government and a promise never to talk about what she found out during her disgraced three-year tenure as in- tegrity commissioner. Who investigates the integrity of the integrity commissioner when she's not doing her job? Th e auditor general, of course. Th at's just what Sheila Fraser did. What she found out wasn't pretty. Of the 220 cases that came to Ouimet, she investigated seven of them. Of those seven matters, she never found a single bit of wrongdoing by the government. Th at's some integrity detec- tive. But Ouimet made lots of tele- phone calls to the prime minister's offi ce and the Treasury Board. Who knows what she talked about or who she talked to. She can't say. Th at's part of her depar- ture agreement. Is that why she got that kind of money? Did Prime Minister Stephen Harper sign a deal be- forehand? Was that in her original termination clause when he hired her? "No, it wasn't," Harper has responded. Th e severance deal was simply the cheapest option available. Who says? Since when, opposition MPs have asked, do people who walk out the door of their own free will, as Ouimet did, get half a million bucks for leaving? Th e excuses aren't good enough for the Liberals, who say that if there was an agreement, they want to see it. In their view, the gov- ernment should make it public. Th ey want to know who decided the deal was the cheapest option. Was it Harper himself, an aide, a cabinet minister or a lawyer? Hopefully, it wasn't Ouimet herself. Did Harper get legal advice? Did he hire a lawyer? Ottawa is full of good employment law practitioners. Ask former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall. When Harper fi red Dingwall in 2006 from his comfy job as head of the Royal Canadian Mint, he hired lawyer Janice Payne, one of the very best out there. She got $325,000 for Dingwall as well as some money for the nice parking spot he was losing outside the Roy- al Canadian Mint on Sussex Drive. So who did Harper have for legal advice on Dingwall back then? We know Harper likes to de- cide things himself, such as the time he challenged the Elections Act back in the late 1990s. He wanted private fi rms to be able to spend as much money as they wanted for whatever cause they chose at election time. Th ey have a system like that in the United States. You don't advertise for the candidates; you simply advocate for everything they stand for and let the voters fi gure it out. Harper went all the way to the Supreme Court and got clob- bered. So he went back into pol- itics and has been bad-mouthing Hill By Richard Cleroux the judiciary ever since. Maybe that's why he chose to go the "cheapest" route to avoid a court case by paying Ouimet instead. But with something as puz- zling as the current scandal, espe- cially when Fraser has already es- tablished that Ouimet had a cosy relationship with Harper's offi ce, one might think the prime min- ister would want to have some solid legal advice to back him up, something he could point to. "If they did receive legal advice or legal opinion, then table that," says Liberal MP Navdeep Bains. He wants to see the document. Lawyers, of course, are like that as well. Th ey put lots of faith in signed documents. Th e issue is why Harper felt he had to pay off Ouimet with $530,000 when she had quit on her own volition. It's true that it happened just before Fraser came out with her most damning re- port. But Ouimet was only partly through her seven-year term. Ouimet made a point of telling the House of Commons commit- tee that she had never quit. She was forced out, she said, presum- ably by Harper's people. So that, along with the fact that she had been a deputy min- ister before Harper hired her as integrity commissioner, may ex- plain the big payout. Such pub- lic employees don't come cheap and they don't leave for nothing either. But is there any proof apart from Ouimet's assertions? If there is, Harper won't say. He's as mute as a carp. What does Ouimet know about those 220 complaints that she isn't discussing? We know that when Harper dumped former cabinet minis- ter Helena Guergis, he had good legal help from Arthur Hamilton. An able Toronto lawyer, he's one of the Conservative party's fa- vourites. Hamilton played a signifi cant role in Guergis' ouster. Hamilton has never breathed a word about the party's decision. We still don't know why Harper dumped Guergis as neither he nor Hamilton is talking about it. Was it the drugs police said they had found in the pocket of her husband's coat? Or was it the fi t Guergis threw at the Charlotte- town airport? Guergis ended up leaving without a penny. Harper had the good sense to let Hamilton handle the matter and escort the lady out the door. Could he have done the same with Ouimet? Or was there some- thing else that required a pot of money? Richard Cleroux is a freelance reporter and columnist on Parliament Hill. His e-mail address is richard cleroux@rogers.com. www.lawtimesnews.com COMMENT Letters to the Editor A FATHER'S PERSPECTIVE ON JOINT CUSTODY Th e real problem in family law is the beliefs expressed by some lawyers that predominate in the family courts. Such views (see "Debate fi res up over presumption of joint custody," Law Times, Feb. 7) are wrong and discrimi- natory. But those who discriminate never see what they do as discrimination. I've faced that sort of discrimination. De- spite that fact, I am one of those lucky dads who won custody. I overcame unbelievable diffi culties in the legal system due to the same sorts of attitudes by lawyers, profes- sionals, and judges. Th is led me to found Fathers Resources International, become a law clerk, and lead the side of the debate for the presumption of shared parenting as executive director of the National Shared Parenting Association during joint commit- tee hearings on child custody and access 13 years ago. Today, our kids have grown up. Unlike some lawyers, I'd never refer to my ex as an assistant parent. Th at's hateful and disrespect- ful. Despite any adult disagreement we might have had, she will always be Mom and I will always be Dad. I chose not to be angry about what hap- pened but instead took the high road. Any- thing less would have been shameful when measured through the eyes of our children. I set a higher standard as a parent in the hopes that the children would learn from my exam- ple. Fortunately, they did. It was the greatest gift I could ever give them as a parent to heal their broken hearts. As adults today, they are well-adjusted, happy, and productive. Th ose who see the rights of women and children as bound to each other as opposed to having separate identities are promulgat- ing a position that is hateful. Th ey are driving a wedge of hate between parents. Shame on lawyers who spread such beliefs. Th ey harm children when they are most vulnerable and need their parents to make peace, not go to war. Despite the concerns, my bet is that things will be business as usual because that's the prevalent perspective in family law even though feminism raised boys to become men like myself who assist their children by being involved, caring, and sensitive to their need for our love, guidance, and attention. How sad it is that our most educated and privileged members of society just don't get it. Th at's why I carry on my work with fathers for whom there are no services in Ontario when the legal system insists on waging war for profi t. Th is is what I know to be true: • Parenting is all about love. Th e family court too often escalates hate for profi t; encourages HATEFUL DRIBBLE I am off ended by this article (see "Debate fi res up over presumption of joint custody," Law Times, Feb. 7). Does Law Times advocate the opinion that dads are assistant parents and that trying to have a child for equal time is a ploy to get out of child support? What planet expediency over solid investigation; and in- volves a tired judicial attitude that we cannot legislate human conduct when in fact that's the basis of the law. • We don't need more or revised Family Law Rules, procedural changes, new forms, ad- ditional money, revised statutes or added services. What we truly need is an attitude shift. • We've institutionalized child abuse. Kids today lose their right to love, security, and family. We say this is the best we can do. Th at's because we forget that parenting is all about love and self-sacrifi ce rather than hate or the exploitation of vulnerable cli- ents when ultimately so many of them can- not aff ord a lawyer or soon lose the ability to fund one. Th at's what's true. Th e court dockets prove that. Yet we sweep that fact under the carpet while blaming anyone but ourselves along with our role in fostering this reality. Yet judges say we need more money. At- torney General Chris Bentley says new proce- dures have improved the family court. Law- yers say only they can help. All of them are deeply wrong. We need to embrace that less is actually more by beginning with the right premise. Having been an adult child of divorce, stepfather, divorced dad who raised the kids, reform activist, educator, law clerk, counsel- lor, and coach in family law, my suggestion is to consider that the ultimate best interests of the children is a home with two parents in love who provide security, guidance, and well-being. Th at is the standard from which all others must be measured. Th at is society's duty to our children by parents, profession- als, lawyers, legal organizations, judges, and legislators. When parents can't do that, they must do it in two homes. Th at's their duty of care to their children. It's also society's duty of care to foster and encourage that as the starting place in every discussion or decision. When any parent veers off this course, it is our duty to make it clear with every tool at our disposal that this will not be tolerated in Canada. Finally, we must also end the fi ght over child support. Th ose who receive it are trust- ees. When we are awarded support, we must insist on transparency and accountability. After all, dead people get as much in estates matters. Our children deserve that in the fam- ily court as their automatic right. Anything less than acting according to the highest standards of adult conduct is institu- tionalized child abuse. Danny Guspie, executive director, Fathers' Resources International are you people from? I will not be reading anything from your company or this author again. I hope you don't publish this kind of hateful dribble any- more. Liam Jones, Aurora, Ont. PAGE 7