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. Mississauga News - Aug. 26, 2010 - Letter by Ed Bavington, Mississauga. Still behind Hazel Dear Editor:Re: Anwar Khan’s Aug. 13 letter, “Don’t run again, Mayor” Mr. Khan disputes Mayor Hazel McCallion’s degree of capability, caring and efficiency in office and questions whether she retains any “dignity” or “self-respect.” I will await the final word from the commissioner as to a conflict of interest. I have not always agreed with the mayor. However, I have great respect for her economic sense that has kept taxes low. I’m thankful for her caring attitude demonstrated through her presence at endless charitable events. Regardless of the verdict, I will continue to support Hazel for mayor. What troubles me about this whole situation is a word called love: love for a mother and love for a son. I don’t know Peter McCallion. However, I can’t bring myself to think he wouldn’t come clean if he had deceived his mother. As for a mother? There is no limit to her defence of a child. Comments by others - 35 - to this web-page at time of posting; bettyyeti Aug 25, 2010 12:36 PM Still behind hazel??? Regarding the above letter from Ed Bavington, "Still behind Hazel". Sir, it is regrettable that common sense and love for our beautiful city of Mississauga are not on your priority list. Capability? Don't you mean "Getting things done with Arrogance and Bullying"? Caring? the proper adjective is "Self-Serving" Efficiency in Office? Never having witnessed her day-to-day performance in office, no comment. However, I can provide you with a number of reasons why our fair city has been grossly short-changed while McCallion busied herself with useless China trips and ??able fund raising: For one, a city with this large a population is grossly under-served for public transportation, libraries, parks, and cultural attractions. I could go on and on. With regards to your comment "love for a mother and love for a son" -give me a break. The choice to serve in public office comes with the requirement to serve with integrity and resist, at all costs, the temptation to gorge at the trough. * Agree 6 Streetsvillian Aug 25, 2010 11:53 AM @bettyyeti AND ConcernedResident Hello bettyyeti! In my heart, I hope you are right! Although the Inquiry will not be completed before the election, I hope that other Mississaugans come to the same conclusion as I have, and obviously yourself. It is so blatantly obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper or watches cable. Sadly, I do believe that ConcernedResident makes a valid point. One can only hope that the voting public gets off their butts, gets into a voting station to help those of us who DO care about the integrity of our governance and make a wholesale change at the top. Thank you both for your input. * Agree 5 ConcernedResident Aug 25, 2010 11:14 AM Correction Meant to say "By your retort to Mantis." * Agree ConcernedResident Aug 25, 2010 11:13 AM @Uatu By your retort to Uatu, I have to assume you do not live in a glass house. Your use of "insults, namecalling, or condescending language" is right up there with anyone who uses this forum. * Agree ConcernedResident Aug 25, 2010 11:11 AM @Therese Taylor You have not responded to your reasons for targeting ONLY anonymous people who disagree with your POV. You said, "I will continute(sic) to mark comments offensive if individuals call posters names, spout riduculous (sic) lies and post their comments annonymously (sic)". Who are you to judge what are lies and what is the truth? Are they lies according to you, or lies according to proven facts? Or is it that you are just trying to suppress contrary opinion? I find people like you to be very scary and a threat to freedom of speech. Glad you're not on my side. * Agree 1 ConcernedResident Aug 25, 2010 11:03 AM @Bettyyetti It depends on the circle of friend you have, I guess. Most of those I speak with don't share your sentiments. As for "Hazel heavies" getting their opinions in first, that may be the case in this case, but you can be sure that one will make sure her posts are seen most. If she run's (and I am sure she will), she'll win. * Agree 1 bettyyeti Aug 25, 2010 10:15 AM Sorry Streetsvillian! Not sure what statistics you base your comments on, but I beg to STRONGLY differ with your opinion that "..if there is a record turnout for the election, the majority will be pro-Hazel". Let me assure you that McCallion will never have the opportunity to become Mayor EVER AGAIN after this. I would suggest that you go to the Mall, Go station, Park, or any other Mississauga location and elicit public sentiment about returning McCallion as Mayor. (Be sure to avoid Hazel's heavies - they seem to always get their opinions in first). We've had enough!!! No more!! For the record, in my Mississauga neighbourhood, residents are livid - this is a constant topic of discussion, and we are collectively determined to kick McCallion out once and for all. * Agree 3 Mantis Aug 24, 2010 3:26 PM @Uatu Did you also count your own use of odious terms such as "hazelbots"????? Holy hypocrisy Batman! * Agree 1 Uatu Aug 24, 2010 2:58 PM Comments posted at the Mississauga News by Mantis in the month of August I just counted, and Mantis used insults, namecalling, or condescending language in only 20 of 28 posts. That's only 71.4% but in tribute to Hazel let's call that 75%. We know, of course, that the actual percentage is higher because some Mantis posts have been deleted--for insults, namecalling, or condescending language. I found the results surprising because I expected the percentage to be higher. I originally expected a lot more posts too, but it became quickly obvious that Mantis mostly avoids the articles that reveal how badly the Mayor and her cronies have been behaving, and there have been a LOT of that kind of story. * Agree 5 Therese Taylor Aug 24, 2010 2:26 PM It's the lies and the livid name-calling, coupled with the annonymity That I find so offensive. And not worthy of the opportunity to share ideas and facts in this forum. The Mississauga News has decided that 3 "Offensive" marks warrant offensive comments being sent to the trash bin, not me. It's not that anyone need post their comments with their real name, unless you malign the character of others by lying and name-calling. And for the record Carolyn Parish has not paid me a red nickle for my postings. * Agree 5 Streetsvillian Aug 24, 2010 10:11 AM @The Mississauga Muse You make some very valid, insightful points in your response. Thank you. Sadly, I must agree that if there is a "record turnout" for the election, the majority will be pro-Hazel. The media (ALL forms) has done an exceptional job over the years of convincing people that our Irish gnome of a Mayor is as bulletproof as the Tasmanian Devil, and can do no wrong. Geez, there IS a similarity there! MM, I couldn't help but notice that in your reply you stated "...SHE'D ever beat her for Mayor!" Subliminal message maybe? * Agree 4 The Mississauga Muse Aug 24, 2010 9:48 AM @ Streetsvillian, you don't know the Power of MYTHissauga First off terrific comment! Second, sorry but you're wrong. Increased voter turnout (record-setting turnout) would not "clear the air". I want to demonstrate I know what a fact is. It's a fact that the sky is blue, the grass is green, the sun rises in the east, today is Tuesday. It is ALSO A FACT that a challenger to Hazel McCallion will win the 649 jackpot the week of October 25 before she'd ever beat her for Mayor. It is far far more likely that MYTHissaugans will post record VOTES for her instead of wanting to clear the air and invite Truth in. You asked, "Do people really not understand the direct impact that local politics has on their day-to-day life?" That's not the issue. So long as *their* family's wallet is snug and content --keep things status quo. The quote about people deserve the government they get is wrong. A corrupt local government is actually a *Reflection* of the People residing there. * Agree 3 The Mississauga Muse Aug 24, 2010 9:28 AM @ Therese, you are 100% correct We *should* be able to mark something Offensive here. I also agree that ridiculous lies should be marked Offensive (my gawd the number of times I've been lied to by the City --you *bet* that lying is offensive, especially ridiculous ones). But because of how things are set up right now, racking up Offensives isn't all that happens to an offensive comment. It gets deleted at Three. And that sets up Censorship and Silencing through deletion. And something worse. Changes the RECORD. * Agree 4 Streetsvillian Aug 24, 2010 4:32 AM Finally.....some voter passion! I must say that I have been following the inquiry rather diligently. Accordingly, I have also been following along with the Miss News and reading comments from other obviously concerned residents of this city. Bravo to all of you! Let us hope that it all translates into a voter turnout in October that will set a new high for municipal politics. The disinterest displayed by the citizens of Mississauga in previous elections is pathetic. Do people really not understand the direct impact that local politics has on their day-to-day life? A fair & impartial election, with record setting turnout, will go a long way in "clearing the air" in this fine city of ours. * Agree 9 Therese Taylor Aug 23, 2010 8:07 PM Freedom of Expression does not come without responsibiltiy. It is the responsibility of every individual who makes statement of fact or opiniion to stand behind their words. That means being honest about who you are. Therefore, I will continute to mark comments offensive if individuals call posters names, spout riduculous lies and post their comments annonymously. * Agree 5 The Mississauga Muse Aug 23, 2010 7:46 PM @ ConcernedResident, I have Mantis' comment saved if Mantis didn't manage to keep it. And while I agree that I attracted an "Offensive" it really only is just one and it's for my comment, calling the two people who hit "Offensive" on Mantis as "**CREEPS**. That's likely what's done it. I can't see why MissyNews can't follow The TorRag's example and let whatever gets flung up on here stay. One thing these Deletions have taught me is it's better to see racist/sexist/vile stuff up than to chance a comment deleted just because someone didn't like that person's political view. Deletion really does suck worse than anything. * Agree 1 ConcernedResident Aug 23, 2010 7:04 PM Too Late Mantis's comments are gone. Looks like Muse is next. * Agree 3 The Mississauga Muse Aug 23, 2010 4:17 PM WHAT **CREEPS** ARE HITTING "OFFENSIVE" ON MANTIS?! He's already at 2! * Agree 1 The Mississauga Muse Aug 23, 2010 3:28 PM Quote, "As for a mother? There is no limit to her defence of a child." Part 1 Mother McCallion showing no limit in the defence of her child August 19, 2101 COURT TRANSCRIPT from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website. "A" is Michael Kitt (Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement System/OMERS who worked the deal) "Q: And indeed we've heard testimony with regard to Mr. DeCicco being in touch with her at least seventeen (17) times, or attempting to reach her seventeen (17) times in that same period. So would you agree with me that the Mayor's micro-involvement in this project was certainly picking up in the autumn of 2008, and that's around the time, culminating in December 2, when Mr. Coleman said, I want to know exactly what Peter McCallion's role is here? Would you agree with me that those events were occurring at the same time? A: Well, I'd agree with you that -- that factually they had their third extension deposit due in November --" * Agree 3 The Mississauga Muse Aug 23, 2010 3:27 PM Quote, "As for a mother? There is no limit to her defence of a child." Part 2 Mother McCallion showing no limit in the defence of her child August 19, 2101 COURT TRANSCRIPT from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website. "A" is Michael Kitt (Ontario Municipal Employee Retirement System/OMERS who worked the deal) "Q: And you've also, in your memoranda, expressed concern with respect to the optics of Peter McCallion's involvement, whatever it was. A: Right. Q: Whether he was a principle or an agent, you weren't happy with the fact that he was involved? A: Right. Q: And you certainly weren't happy with the fact that his mother was involved, not at a macro level in terms of her vision for a downtown Mississauga, but at a micro level in terms of her advancing the commercial interests of WCD? A: That's true." * Agree 2 Streetsvillian Aug 23, 2010 12:01 PM re: Ed Bavington comment 08/19/10 Mr. Bavington please, "gag me with a spoon!" "love for a mother and love for a son!" How about love of your bank account. I must ask, have you not listened to any of the testimony at this inquiry? Or in the case of Peter McCallion and Tony DeCicco NON-testimony. It is so blatantly obvious from the testimony to date, that at the very least, this is a bona fide case of "conflict of interest!" In my opinion, I think a real case of Breach of Trust is more in order. A cast of characters and relationships the like of which Hollywood has never seen. What a stench at City Hall. * Agree 7 Uatu Aug 22, 2010 3:45 PM @Therese: Bang on! I had much the same thought. The editors seem to think that the Act is applied a lot more narrowly than my reading leads me to believe. It really doesn't matter though because I think the general point they make is correct: this Inquiry will force some reforms to be implemented. Only time will tell if they will be effective. The last time the province passed an Act that applied to the municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario--with Hazel at the forefront, we must not forget--got pretty much everything their way. It will be interesting to see how AMO tries to control the fallout from the Inquiry, especially since their de-facto leader, Hazel, has brought this upon them. * Agree 4 Therese Taylor Aug 22, 2010 2:19 PM More from" Municipal Conflict of Interest Law: A Law in Conflict Based on Interest" "This enactment, like all conflict of interest rules, is based on the moral principal, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no man can serve two masters. It recognized the fact that the judgment of even the most meaning men and women may be impaired when their personal financial interests are affected. Public office is a trust conferred by public authority for public purpose. And the Act, by its broad proscription, enjoins holders of public offices within its ambit from any participation in matters in which their economic self-interest may be in conflict with their public duty. The public’s confidence in its elected representatives demands no less." * Agree 5 Therese Taylor Aug 22, 2010 2:15 PM Editorial's final statement is troubling That the Mayor thinks all you need do is declare conflict in council and then do whatever she can behind the scenes is obvious. What's troubling here is that the Toronto Star seems also to believe that to be true. Take a look at pages five and six of "Conflict of Interest Law" at http://www.weirfoulds.com/files/5107_ConflictLaws.pdf#pagemode=none. “As stated by a panel of the Ontario Divisional Court in an early case which came before it under the Act: ‘The obvious purpose of the Act is to prohibit members of councils and local boards from engaging in the decision-making process in repsec to matters in which they have a personal economic interest. The scope of the Act is not limited by exception or proviso but applies to all situation in which the member has, or is deemed to have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest….’” * Agree 6 The Mississauga Muse Aug 22, 2010 8:50 AM Great Editorial in the Toronto Star, "More troubles in Mississauga" at http://tinyurl.com/36hocfp The Editorial GETS IT about the Mayor thinking all you need do is declare conflict in Council and then go and wheel-deals for your buddies/relatives once the Rogers cameras shut down. What Torstar fails to raise is 1. Just how many OTHER deals did the Mayor schlep-negotiate for her "People" in her three-decades in office? 2. What about the Brampton and Caledon mayor --is this their modus operandi too? 3. How about Ontario mayors? 4. And is this *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* private behaviour typical of mayors across Canada? Torstar, "If nothing else, this inquiry has provided a valuable public service by showing the limitations of narrow conflict of interest rules that simply require politicians to state a declaration and refrain from action in a city council or committee meeting." Like believing it doesn't matter what the evil, you can always rinse your sins away at Sunday's confessionals. * Agree 4 Streetsvillian Aug 23, 2010 12:01 PM re: Ed Bavington comment 08/19/10 Mr. Bavington please, "gag me with a spoon!" "love for a mother and love for a son!" How about love of your bank account. I must ask, have you not listened to any of the testimony at this inquiry? Or in the case of Peter McCallion and Tony DeCicco NON-testimony. It is so blatantly obvious from the testimony to date, that at the very least, this is a bona fide case of "conflict of interest!" In my opinion, I think a real case of Breach of Trust is more in order. A cast of characters and relationships the like of which Hollywood has never seen. What a stench at City Hall. * Agree 7 Uatu Aug 22, 2010 3:45 PM @Therese: Bang on! I had much the same thought. The editors seem to think that the Act is applied a lot more narrowly than my reading leads me to believe. It really doesn't matter though because I think the general point they make is correct: this Inquiry will force some reforms to be implemented. Only time will tell if they will be effective. The last time the province passed an Act that applied to the municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario--with Hazel at the forefront, we must not forget--got pretty much everything their way. It will be interesting to see how AMO tries to control the fallout from the Inquiry, especially since their de-facto leader, Hazel, has brought this upon them. * Agree 4 Therese Taylor Aug 22, 2010 2:19 PM More from" Municipal Conflict of Interest Law: A Law in Conflict Based on Interest" "This enactment, like all conflict of interest rules, is based on the moral principal, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no man can serve two masters. It recognized the fact that the judgment of even the most meaning men and women may be impaired when their personal financial interests are affected. Public office is a trust conferred by public authority for public purpose. And the Act, by its broad proscription, enjoins holders of public offices within its ambit from any participation in matters in which their economic self-interest may be in conflict with their public duty. The public’s confidence in its elected representatives demands no less." * Agree 5 Therese Taylor Aug 22, 2010 2:15 PM Editorial's final statement is troubling That the Mayor thinks all you need do is declare conflict in council and then do whatever she can behind the scenes is obvious. What's troubling here is that the Toronto Star seems also to believe that to be true. Take a look at pages five and six of "Conflict of Interest Law" at http://www.weirfoulds.com/files/5107_ConflictLaws.pdf#pagemode=none. “As stated by a panel of the Ontario Divisional Court in an early case which came before it under the Act: ‘The obvious purpose of the Act is to prohibit members of councils and local boards from engaging in the decision-making process in repsec to matters in which they have a personal economic interest. The scope of the Act is not limited by exception or proviso but applies to all situation in which the member has, or is deemed to have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest….’” * Agree 6 The Mississauga Muse Aug 22, 2010 8:50 AM Great Editorial in the Toronto Star, "More troubles in Mississauga" at http://tinyurl.com/36hocfp The Editorial GETS IT about the Mayor thinking all you need do is declare conflict in Council and then go and wheel-deals for your buddies/relatives once the Rogers cameras shut down. What Torstar fails to raise is 1. Just how many OTHER deals did the Mayor schlep-negotiate for her "People" in her three-decades in office? 2. What about the Brampton and Caledon mayor --is this their modus operandi too? 3. How about Ontario mayors? 4. And is this *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* private behaviour typical of mayors across Canada? Torstar, "If nothing else, this inquiry has provided a valuable public service by showing the limitations of narrow conflict of interest rules that simply require politicians to state a declaration and refrain from action in a city council or committee meeting." Like believing it doesn't matter what the evil, you can always rinse your sins away at Sunday's confessionals. * Agree 4 The Mississauga Muse Aug 22, 2010 8:21 AM @ Ernst too true, too true You wrote, "I think it will take a lot more than this inquiry to bring Hazel down. She could be caught red-handed throwing babies into ovens, and still be re-elected by a landslide...That may make me incredibly unpopular, but, you don't win election after election on luck alone." EXACTLY what I've been saying! You need a hypocritical complicit-electorate who let their wallets cast the vote! We are the Best City in Canada and we don't care if our Mayor is caught red-handed throwing babies into ovens, we will STILL re-elect her by a landslide! That's why that youth who wrote me was right when he said, that the System “is CORRUPT there is no way to fix it”. We accept *any* behaviour from our politicians --so long as they protect our property values and keep our taxes down, *we* keep them on! We are such shining examples for Youth. * Agree 2 Ernst Blofeld Aug 22, 2010 3:44 AM Well... I think it will take a lot more than this inquiry to bring Hazel down. She could be caught red-handed throwing babies into ovens, and still be re-elected by a landslide. Love her or hate her, I shudder to think of what this city would be without her. That may make me incredibly unpopular, but, you don't win election after election on luck alone. * Agree 1 Think About It Aug 20, 2010 11:18 AM It's not like Peter was in Dire Straights when mom put $4 million on the table then turned the fan on high That ain't workin', that's the way you do it Money for nothin' and your checks for free, Lemme tell ya them guys ain't dumb, Maybe get a blister on your little finger, Maybe get a blister on your thumb, shoulda learned to play the guitar, shoulda learned to play them drums, Look at that mama's on the MTV * Agree 2 The Spudder Aug 20, 2010 11:08 AM Taxes The Mayor led the charge on keeping taxes low at the cost of our infrastructure. She built her reputation on the fact that people couldn't see the forest from the trees. She doesn't care about this City; all she cares about is herself and her friend The reason taxes were kept low was not because of an economic plan but a political plan. s. The City's interest was just a by product of her interests. Where was the succession planning? Why did the Mayor spend so much time pressuring OMERS on the WCD deal instead of pressuring them to bury that Square One parking lot and build an Urban City Center? Where was the foresight for public transportation when this City was being developed in the 80's and 90's? 'A love for her son'. Come on. Are you for real? This is a family business, don't kid yourself. * Agree 4 The Mississauga Muse Aug 20, 2010 10:06 AM @ Everybody, regarding Hazel McCallion even now is smarter than 95% (or more) of the population. That's not the problem. I've been researching her since June 2006. And MY the video I have! The Freedom of Information on her lying employees! She KNOWS the chronic lack of compliance to Corporate policies! She knows Staff doesn't inform Council of things they should be aware of! She's bemoaned those problems on numerous occasions at Audit Committee meetings (aka away from Real-cameras/media). I'm truly trying to understand why she won't demand Accountability from her employees. I mean REALLY demand. Like Audit Committee delivering a bad report are drearily predictable. And surely to God senior staff now know this just like I do. Auditors find some new clusterbungle. McCallion crabs about "This is the worst report I've ever seen" "Boy there's got to be some serious changes around here!" "So we're going to set up a policy. Fine! But if we set one up it better be followed!" But it won't be... Uatu Aug 20, 2010 9:47 AM @Tony I disagree with your statement about the Mayor's age-related issues. She still has all the enthusiasm, drive, and energy she had when I first met her in 1976. If you watch her at Council you would not think she has memory-loss problems either, but there's something about sitting in that witness chair... we will see. Frankly, I predict Hazel will NOT go for the David O'Brien defence. As for Mr. Bavington, he's either not paying attention or is pretending he doesn't know about her conflict of interest. The telling thing here is that HE WILL VOTE FOR HER REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME! I'm not saying this will happen, but in other words even if it is shown that she has lined the pockets of her son and friends to the detriment of taxpayers, he won't care. This idiotic approach to voting is why we have MYTHissauga. * Agree 4 The Mississauga Muse Aug 20, 2010 9:29 AM HOLY WOW! Check out this truth wrote to explain Hazel McCallion's World Class Developments "micro-managment" with Kitt/Nobrega/O'Brien/OMERS Last line: "As for a mother? There is no limit to her defence of a child." * Agree 2 Tony Jackson Aug 20, 2010 9:08 AM YOu may still love her, but do not entrust the MAYOR's Office. "As for a mother, There is no limit to her defence of a child." She should quit public office and live with her son for the rest of her days. Efficiency in office? It's gone long ago. Her age related issues (loss of memmory, enthusiasm/drive/energy) all affecting her performance in the Mayor's office. The city staff often have objectives other than sincere public service. The City's affairs are getting more and more complex too. We need a mayor who's 100 percent alive and functional. * Agree 5 Page 7 of 7 Prev Next Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top [COMMENTS BY DON B. - ] |
Your Financial Donations are Greatly Appreciated The • |