• Home • Table of Contents • General News •

YouTube  site
where my videos are posted

Pages  of  Special  Interest;

In Defence of Canadians Rights & Democracy

* Hazel McCallion - Mayor of Mississauga *
- 2009 -
* Conflict of Interest & Judicial Inquiry *

* Public Question Period Index *
!! A Mississauga Democratic Tradition Lost !!

• Defense Fund for Donald Barber •

• Sound Clip Gallery • Video Clip Gallery •

• Byron Osmond Pleas for Mercy • Peel police Wrong Doings •

• Hazel McCallion - Mayor of Mississauga - her Misdeeds • The Culham Brief •

• Order of Canada & its Corruption •

• End of Suburbia & Continuous Communities as the Solution - JOBS FOR LIFE •

Other  Table  of  Contents;
• Events • Archive of Links •
• Media - News Articles & Letters to Media • Literature & News Letters •

• Elections Results in Mississauga • Political History of Mississauga • Political, Democratic & Legal Issues •

• Political Methods • The Meaning of Words & Phrases • Political Satire & Parody •
• City Mississauga Committees • City Mississauga By-Laws & Policies •
• Security Insanity • Police Issues, Complaints & News Articles •
• FOI - Freedom of Information Results & Issues •
• Legal Issues • Unions Issues •

• Political Players & Persons of Interest • Ratepayers Groups & their Issues in Mississauga •

Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections:

Opening comments:  More at the end.

To the main Judicial Inquiry page - to the Hazel McCallion page.

Comments by others to this web-page 4.

Mississauga News - Oct. 1, 2009 - By ?

Inquiry the only choice

It’s not a witch hunt:  It’s a smart move, the only move City Council could make, really.

Mississauga Council voted 6 to 4 Wednesday to ask for a judicial inquiry into Mayor Hazel McCallion’s involvement in a land deal with her son’s company.  And, rightly so.

Although an independent law firm hired by the City to investigate McCallion’s actions found the mayor, in its legal opinion, had contravened conflict of interest laws, one councillor suggested not acting on the firm’s report, an absolutely insufficient and totally unethical response.

An investigation by the City Clerk proved McCallion, who has already been convicted on conflict of interest charges once before, did not declare her conflict when the matter was discussed, even though she later insisted she had.

The entire issue reeks of interference, attempts at damage control and power struggles on Council.

Many questions need to be asked — and asked by individuals imbued with the legal authority to demand honest answers.

Was McCallion using her influence as mayor to secure a deal for her realtor son, Peter, when she attended meetings with him?

Why did a municipal clerk discard hand-written notes about the May 21 council meeting, the meeting in which McCallion claimed to have declared a conflict, when those notes are typically kept for a year?

Did the clerk being blamed for adding a notation that indicated the mayor had declared a conflict of interest act on her own accord?  Or, was she prompted, asked or coerced into doctoring council meeting minutes?

Did the clerk who tossed our her hand-written notes from the meeting keep her notes from other council meetings prior and after?

Did the mayor or any City staff or manager suggest the minutes be altered to reflect the mayor’s non-existent declaration?

Where are the checks and balances that should ensure historical records and documents such as council meeting minutes are accurate and reflect events as they happened, and not left to the discretion of a lone clerk?

And, last but not least, why did city councillors approve the minutes of the May 21 meeting if they contained such a “significant error,” as City Clerk Crystal Greer defined it?

Seldom has there been an issue at Council that more clearly demanded a judicial enquiry than this one.

Seldom has there been a council so clearly divided along loyalty lines, a council that so readily resorts to personal insults and accusations.

Seldom has there been a time when a long, hard look at council procedures, actions and attitudes was more warranted.


* This editorial, published Friday, Oct. 2, suggested a City Hall clerk discarded her notes prematurely. In fact, the clerk kept the notes for the prescribed amount of time.  The News regrets the error.

Comments by others, 4, to this web-page;

The Mississauga Muse     Oct 3, 2009 10:49 AM

Regarding MissyNews CLARIFICATION. Records Destruction By-Law is NOT followed (I guess unless convenient)

MissyNews writes, "CLARIFICATION *This editorial, published Friday, Oct. 2, suggested a City Hall clerk discarded her notes prematurely. In fact, the clerk kept the notes for the prescribed amount of time. The News regrets the error." Over $2,000 worth of Freedom of Information shows that Mississauga Staff that I've been researching DO NOT COMPLY with the Records Destruction prescribed amount of time. While the City claims, for example, that Youth banning letters are destroyed in seven years (going on memory here), Freedom of Information in 2008 retrieved Youth ban letters going back to the 90's and the earliest from 1993. Here's another fact (irrefutable through Freedom of Information). If it's in Staff's interests, documents used to support bans are downright FABRICATED. Other documents claimed to esist, DON'T. And to be clear, these problems I've uncovered are in Corporate Services --Keepers of the "Records".

* Agree 1

The Mississauga Muse     Oct 3, 2009 10:36 AM

No Choice. The other alternative was to be accused of sweeping it all under the rug.

Mississauga News concludes, "It’s not a witch hunt: It’s a smart move, the only move City Council could make, really." Yep. And let me quote Councillor Nando Iannicca, mover of the motion (video transcript) “And the highest level of obligation that I have to constituents, they had better know the integrity of this place is the most important thing to me. So on behalf of them, on behalf of my council colleagues including the Mayor, on behalf of my senior staff, on behalf of all of our employees I’ve said in moving the motion, we’re gonna [sic]come clean, let some other party review it and let that course unfold as it may. To do anything other than that in my opinion, in moving the motion makes you unworthy of public office.” Now I can’t use the YouTube URL directly here but to view Councillor Iannicca’s entire “This is Mississauga. It’s not Vaughan” address, please see to “Get It”.

* Agree 1

Therese Taylor     Oct 2, 2009 4:47 PM

You're right to say that an inquiry is the only choice.

There are too many unanswered questions here and contradictions. I use to admire Hazel, but the first time I became involved in municipal politics in 2002, her halo quickly evaporated. She said one thing at a public meeting defending a woodland and did the exact opposite when it came time to rezone the property, setting the stage to clear cut rare, mature trees. Clearly Hazel's made many mistakes. Too bad too many citizens are asleep at the democratic wheel. This is the second time she's been embroiled in serious conflict of interest charges, yet some will give her another pass. She should have been removed from office in the 80s, the first time this happened. At her age, she should know better. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Besides, anyone who knows anything about power and corruption understands that 31 years as mayor is an abuse of power. If Hazel cared a fig about the citizens of Mississauga, she would have released her stranglehold on democracy long ago.

* Agree 4

Stephen Wahl     Oct 1, 2009 10:52 PM

Right ands Wrong

Focus not on who is right and who is wrong. Look at what is right and what is wrong. The path to truth will become clear.

* Agree 1

Home Page   -  Main Table of  Contents  -  Back up a page  -   Back to Top


Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated
and Very Much Needed to Ensure the Survival of

Donald Barber Defense Fund
Needs help right now
Now Accepting Pay Pal.

• Home Page • Main Table of Contents •

Back to Top

• About This Web-Site & Contact Info •