Scanned, recopied or Internet copy, if there are errors, please e-mail me with corrections:
Opening comments: More at the end.
Hay look - I am in the Missing News picture, taking a picture! Note the Judge in not sitting, pictures at start, not during.
To the main Judicial Inquiry page - to the Hazel McCallion page.
Torstar Network - Aug. 4, 2010 - By
$250,000 more for mayor
More of the Mayor. Mississauga councillors voted today to give another
$250,000 to Mayor Hazel McCallion to cover her legal bills during the judicial inquiry. File photo
After a 40-minute debate, Mississauga city councillors voted today to give another $250,000 of taxpayers’ money to Mayor Hazel McCallion to cover her legal bills during the ongoing judicial inquiry.
The motion was tabled by Councillor Sue McFadden and passed unanimously by Council. The mayor excused herself from the vote just ahead of the motion.
Ward 6 Councillor Carolyn Parrish, a vocal critic of the mayor, raised some vital questions about soaring costs at the inquiry, but acknowledged that “we have no choice but to accept it.”
She said councillors are caught between a rock and hard place, “but the mayor will have to explain it to the taxpayers.”
Council voted on the motion after City solicitor Mary Ellen Bench said she did not anticipate the mayor’s legal bills to exceed $400,000, a point raised by Ward 7 Councillor Nando Iannicca.
McCallion has already spent $185,000 on legal bills at the inquiry, which is expected to continue at least until September. She also asked Council to allow an additional lawyer be present on her behalf when “evidence of important witnesses is scheduled.”
That was also cleared today by Council.
Justice Douglas Cunningham is probing the extent of the mayor’s involvement in a major land deal brokered by her son, Peter McCallion, amid questions about whether it represents a conflict of interest. At the end of the inquiry, Cunningham will give his recommendations to City Council.
Council initially cleared $100,000 for McCallion’s legal bills, but it was bumped up to $150,000 a month ago. Then she asked to have the limit raised to $400,000.
Yesterday, McCallion’s lawyer, Elizabeth McIntyre, told the Star that her client is asking “for reasonable reimbursement of legal expenses.”
“If the City Council wants to set up an inquiry that targets the mayor, then it is critical in the interest of fairness that she be provided with full funding for adequate legal representation,” McIntyre said.
The cost of the inquiry has become a bone of contention in recent weeks, when it was learned the bill had ballooned to $5 million, twice the amount originally approved by Council. About $1 million has gone toward hiring a forensic investigative firm and a law firm that helps Cunningham conduct the inquiry.
Comments by others - 8 - to this web-page at time of posting;
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 5, 2010 9:53 PM
Video. http://tinyurl.com/2eqdvb9 Carolyn Parrish explains why Council has no choice in covering the Mayor's lawyers' fees.
PARRISH: [ Councillor Iannicca] said if you give them $400,000 you've set a target, not a, not a, you know, a reasonable goal. So, the other thing that, I mean, we're over, we're in [sic] a rock and a hard place because the Mayor's requests, we have no choice but to accept it. I'm not doing it with a great deal of enthusiasm, I'll tell you. This cost is very very high and I think the Mayor herself will have to explain this to the taxpayers. I'm not going to try. But given the position we're in, if you were to say no, there would be an immediate application for a judicial review and the whole thing would come to a halt. CITY SOLICITOR BENCH: That is certainly quite possible —an application to the Commissioner. It's been my recommendation that you do approve the request, yes. PARRISH: Thank you.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 5, 2010 7:06 PM
Hazel McCallion has time for tactics at Council but no time for the truth!
Hazel was a shocking display of arrogant this Wednesday. This town is waiting on her apology for truly outrageous behaviour for abusing her office yet none was forthcoming. We are waiting Hazel?
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 5, 2010 12:35 PM
Mississauga Council okays $250,000 more for Hazel McCallion’s lawyers fees. (Video of debate highlights)
at: http://tinyurl.com/32ulvwj I urge you to watch the video of an exchange between Councillor Nando Iannicca and City Solicitor Mary Ellen Bench. Iannicca transcript: "It’s very tough under that circumstance to say we rolled up and said give me twenty bucks worth of gas. You’ve got to say Fill it Up. Wherever that journey takes you. And so I’m a little disappointed in the sense that we look at these reports and this is what it costs and it’s costing you 40 hours of work. What is somebody thinking? That if you come back and say that we’ve reached five million, we’re going to say Stop?" And then he said, "And the last thing I’d want to do is stop if we’re trying to seek the truth and politicians are involved." Iannicca GETS IT.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 5, 2010 11:46 AM
@ BigE --an aside comment at Council yesterday made me laugh and go "Ah HAH!"
People here will recall that Peter McCallion's World Class Development got a $4 million settlement on the land deal. MissyNews writes that the City did not get ripped off in the deal by having to pay more. So I've been wondering how OMERS got that $4 million. Well yesterday Hazel McCallion announced that OMERS rates are going up for employees. Now to cover those increased pension rates, Mississauga Council puts that in the Budget. So guess who's footing that $4 million? TAXPAYERS! HAHAHAHAAhahahah. So True. The City did not get ripped. And like I've said for years, it's what they don't tell us that we need to know. It's *us* who will ultimately cover that $4 million to Peter et al.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 5, 2010 11:41 AM
@ JanetL --Toronto vs MYTHissauga. YOU are so right
You wrote, "The real question and interesting fact will be answered on Oct 25th..will the morons in Mississauga vote in a Mayor that has obviously let 30 years of power go to her head, and thinks nothing her or her family does is wrong. Unfortunately I think they will." Um. What choice do voters have? How do you guarantee any mayor's incumbency? No viable challenger. And aside from that Innocent Watat guy (who I'm leaning to be voting for based on a brief video) there's no one.
* Agree 1
Big E.
Aug 5, 2010 10:01 AM
Keep funds flowing: McCallion
Hillarious the generated link "Keep funds flowing: McCallion". Hazel has no problem spending other people's money as long as it does not impact her own pocketbook.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Think About It
Aug 5, 2010 9:22 AM
Much like the juggling of Ashley Smith, from 1997 McCallion spent $66 million a year evacuating anti-McCallion voters out of our Mississauga ridings
http://www.peelregion.ca/news/archiveitem.asp?year=2005&month=6&day=26&file=2005626d.xml
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
JaneL
Aug 4, 2010 10:02 PM
The Real question will be answered on Oct 25
Muse, you are so right in your final statement. The real question and interesting fact will be answered on Oct 25th..will the morons in Mississauga vote in a Mayor that has obviously let 30 years of power go to her head, and thinks nothing her or her family does is wrong. Unfortunatly I think they will. Imagine if this was Toronto, there would be a riot asking for the Mayor's head.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 4, 2010 7:47 PM
For those interested, in the Judicial Inquiry lawyer-funding issue
check out the Toronto Star's "McCallion wins access to $400,000 for legal bills" at http://tinyurl.com/2v9xwr5 I stayed until the all-day suckers was finished (9 am through 4:30 pm) and my brain cells are still trying to recover! What's interesting and what neither article pointed out was that the Mayor's #1 supporter wasn't there the entire day! Maja Prentice was HUGELY significant in her absence! At one point none of the four Councillors were there during the debate. Saito and Mahoney took off together. Mullin came back first. Then Mahoney. Get this. Mullin STILL says she's opposed to the Inquiry! That means she wanted to HIDE all the info about David O'Brien being a trustee of the McCallion family trust. HIDE that Dave O'Brien can't-remember-can't-recall the specifics of the Enersource veto clause, HIDE World Class Developments and that we have "leaders" in this community who think it's okay to wheel and deal millions for your family in secret meetings provided that you declare conflict of interest at a C
* Agree 3
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]