A recent Star story about retired judge Gregory Evans’ appointment as Ontario’s interim integrity commissioner has posed some questions about ethics and interviews. Evans replaced Robert Rutherford, who left after controversy over a report on the Premier’s role in the Adams Mine project. The Star story on Evans’ appointment was appended with wire service files, noting Evans himself had a “brush with controversy” three years ago.
The wire copy said Evans resigned as head of a review of the province’s dealings with the Dionne quintuplets after publicly saying it was not exploitive to display the sisters for tourists and that the sisters’ $4 million settlement was adequate payback. Evans later “backed away” from the comments, saying they were off the record, said the wire. This rankles Evans since he says his remarks, besides being off the record, were distorted.
In May, 1998, the wire service issued a partial transcript, saying it stood by its story.
This is not a debate about Evans’ suitability for the review, whether he’d prejudged its outcome or should have spoken to the media. It is a look at how his comments were, in my opinion, massaged into what became a story of national prominence three years ago and how this ended up in the recent Star piece. The transcript shows when asked directly if the $4 million compensation figure was fair, Evans replied: “I don’t know” – saying the sisters and their lawyer had already agreed to the figure. He did add he thought the sisters were “well-paid” but he qualified this immediately adding “these people are 65 years old – it’s (the money’s) not for the benefit of their children and grandchildren.”
Now, is saying the sisters were “well-paid” considering their age the same as saying the $4 million was fair compensation for what they endured as children? Not to me. In fact, in the same interview Evans was again asked if he meant the $4 million was enough. He said: “It came very late, but I cannot say (italics mine) they should have got more.” Does not being able to say something should be more, mean a person thinks it should not have been more? Not to me. Especially when earlier Evans made it clear he didn’t know if the compensation was fair.
Later Evans spoke about visiting Quintland as a youth and was asked if it was exploitive. He said he didn’t because no one bought tickets, but the transcript shows he was recalling his opinion at the time. He did utter a damning quote saying “to stick them in between a sword swallower and a dwarf” at the World’s Fair would have been exploitive. But he was speculating. And he said as a youth he felt the family needed help raising 10 kids and the government had to step in. Asked if he’d changed his views now that time had passed, he said “that’s hard for me to say.”
“So you haven’t changed your views, then, over the years, about the exploitation or the fact the government shouldn’t have maybe interfered in their raising?” was the last question asked.
“I think they should have turned the kids back a lot earlier than they did. I think there came a time when these people could well have looked after the children,” Evans said.
Sounds like he’d changed his thinking. He got a raw deal even if the words were, as the wire service says, for attribution. And he got slammed again when the wire copy was added to the latest Star story.
