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 - Jul. 2, 2010 - By Louie Rosella - lrosella@mississauga.net
Inquiry hits another roadblock
Clarification.
The lawyer for Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion has asked the Commissioner to
clarify the meaning of "conflict of interest" for the second part of the judicial inquiry. File photo
The second phase of the Mississauga judicial inquiry has hit a roadblock as Mayor Hazel McCallion's lawyer has asked the Commissioner to clarify the meaning of "conflict of interest."
This phase of the inquiry, slated to begin next week, is supposed to probe conflict of interest allegations against the mayor and the role her son, Peter McCallion, played in a $14.4-million failed bid by his company, World Class Developments Ltd., to purchase a 3.5-hectare parcel of City Centre land owned by OMERS (Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System).
WCD hoped to build a hotel and convention centre on the site.
The deal, which eventually fell through, reportedly involved private meetings between Mayor McCallion, the developer and OMERS, while zoning of the land was still before Council. OMERS subsequently sold the land to the City, which, in turn, leased it to Sheridan College.
But, inquiry officials now say McCallion's lawyer, Elizabeth McIntyre, has raised a question about the meaning of "conflict of interest" in the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.
Commissioner Douglas Cunningham will make a ruling dealing with this question. But until he does so, the inquiry will not hear evidence that touches upon questions surrounding the conduct of the mayor and other people that could be seen as a conflict of interest, inquiry officials say.
The City's Conflict of Interest Policy does not apply to elected officials and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act doesn't capture the alleged conduct in this case, according to inquiry officials.
"In light of this, counsel for the Mayor has asked the Commissioner for clarification regarding what may constitute a conflict of interest in this case," an inquiry spokesperson said in a statement.
The second phase of the inquiry will still get underway next week. Ed Sajecki, the City's Commissioner of Planning and Building, is expected to testify July 6.
Other previously scheduled witnesses will testify after the Commissioner's ruling on conflict of interest.
Commission Counsel William McDowell will make a brief statement on Tuesday outlining his position.
McCallion and her son are expected to testify during the second phase of proceedings.
Comments by others - 11 - to this web-page at time of posting;
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 9:37 AM
Please somebody help me out. The 2001 Municpal Act
I've just scanned it for "meeting" and "minutes" just to see how many loopholes municipalities have to avoid Accountability. I can't see anywhere that deals with meetings held by one member of Council and his entire family with (say) lobbyists to discuss land deals or crafting changes to a City's by-laws. I kept saying legislation pertaining to municipalities were just pieces of paper --window dressing. Will today be the day that we find out the magnitude of the holes that municipalities lobbied for themselves? And the Liberals allowed.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 6, 2010 9:23 AM
The Mississauga Judicial Inquiry resumes today at 2:15 pm
The Inquiry's website states, "The power outage makes it impossible for counsel involved in the inquiry to circulate the submissions that they plan to make in time for a morning start.)" Inquiry website at: http://www.mississaugainquiry.ca
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 4, 2010 12:41 PM
On how municipalities lobbied to guard their fraud and secrecy...
Regarding Bill 130 somehow making municipalities more accountable, "The province blew it. Let me tell you how it blew it. The province blew its mission of bringing more accountability to the municipal level by caving into a powerful municipal lobby which were against bringing in any significant changes." Andre Marin, October 31, 2007. Entire video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1491843989868151388#
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 4, 2010 12:30 PM
On closed meetings and lack of accountability.. (in Mississauga's case ZERO MINUTES/RECORDS KEPT --EVER)
"Now it's a little hard to talk about open meetings and municipalities and be touched by it --think that it's a very stimulating topic. It's an area that is very esoteric and theoretical until it hits one of us. When it hits one of us, we look in the rear-view mirror, hit the rewind button and try to find out how the heck did this happen. And that's when you realize that things have happened in municipal council that either had no public accessibility or no public record." Andre Marin, October 31, 2007. Bill 130 was passed in late December 2006. That's what good it did citizens of Ontario.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 4, 2010 8:50 AM
Still pondering and pondering
As late as October 2007, Andre Marin pointed out that "meeting" is still not defined. And I was at the Bill 130 standing committee deliberations when that Liberal idiot Duguid brushed an an oh well when the legals said that minutes of meetings were left up to municipalities to interpret. We also know that municipalities lobbied (had major input) into both pieces of legislation (avoiding accountability). So it's occurred to me that it's entirely possible that THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL with Mayor McCallion going out for a power dinner to negotiate a land deal that favours her son and then push for that "vision" at Council! Why? Power dinner is not a "meeting"! Is that how they'll play this?
* Agree 1
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 3, 2010 9:40 PM
@ Uatu I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT!
I attended the evening Standing Committees of Bill 130 back in December 2006. And they were all fussing about what constitutes a meeting. Here, HANSARD "Mr. Scott Gray: Scott Gray, municipal affairs, legal branch. Yes, I think our interpretation of the Municipal Act, as it is written now, is that minutes should be kept of all meetings, whether they're closed or open, but some municipalities have interpreted it as not being required when meetings are closed. This is an effort to say both with council meetings, where that ambiguity exists, as well as with local board meetings, that there will have to be some form of minutes kept. There will obviously be some standard. If challenged, courts will say that minutes have to reach a certain minimum standard. What exactly that is isn't set out in legislation." Translation: LOOPHOLE!
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 3, 2010 9:20 PM
The light goes on and the picture is not pretty
I just read this article carefully again, and then looked at the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. I think they're claiming that the meetings weren't meetings of Council or a committee so the Act doesn't apply, nor does the city's Conflict of Interest Policy. In other words, they will claim that there was nothing to forbid her from attending such meetings, and the Inquiry has no jurisdiction over her being there. I'm thinking that in fact, the Mayor knows the law quite well. Attending was morally and ethically wrong, but she is trying to slip through a loophole and might well succeed. If she does, I will bet that she repeats the performance she gave after her Conflict of Interest conviction, namely, she'll claim vindication. Of course it would be nothing of the sort but if it happens, watch how her worshippers spin it.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 3, 2010 8:02 PM
@ Tony, I sympathize
You wrote, "Other relevant terms needing definition are “corruption” and “nepotism” as applied to politicians and government officials, and “misuse (of office)” for campaigning by incumbents: And fraud which is big in MYTHissauga. BIG. Especially deliberate withholding of facts/information for one's direct and indirect gain. Of course won't happen. I've said it for years now. The Law does not apply to Hazel McCallion.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 3, 2010 7:57 PM
@ Tony and Uatu
Tony you wrote, " Let the judge define “conflict of interest”. I still can't believe I'm reading this. It's clear to me reading the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act: "Interest of certain persons deemed that of member 3. For the purposes of this Act, the pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, of a parent or the spouse or any child of the member shall, if known to the member, be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 3; 1999, c. 6, s. 41 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 45 (3)." That sucker's been around since 1990!
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 3, 2010 7:54 PM
@ Spudder
You wrote, "After 32 years in office shouldn't McCallion be able to give her lawyer the definition of what a conflict of interest is?" No frikkin' kidding eh? I mean can it get any more absurd? This is the woman who EXPECTS youth/minors to know and follow City rules. Now we find that McCallion ain't all that clear on what conflict of interest is?! Conflict of interest is one big matzoh ball she's unsure about in her soup. Does that mean she also doesn't know how conflict of interest applies at the Region of Peel? And remember, McCallion sits on the Board of Directors of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, plays BIG in the Canadian Federation of Municipalities! She goes from *I as Mayor am accountable!" to "Gosh-golly, conflict of interest, I'm not sure I understand..." And it gets better. If McCallion doesn't know what conflict of interest is, how can she claim to have held staff accountable for proper implementation of the City's Conflict of Interest policy?! (I got an answer to the last one. She d
* Agree 1
Tony Jackson
Jul 3, 2010 4:21 PM
Hazel McCallion (and her lawyer) abusing the legal system and public funds..!
They are manipulating the legal system by all means. Let the judge define “conflict of interest”. Other relevant terms needing definition are “corruption” and “nepotism” as applied to politicians and government officials, and “misuse (of office)” for campaigning by incumbents
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 3, 2010 3:06 PM
@Spudder
The lawyer's request for clarification raises interesting questions. If McCallion can't tell when she is in a conflict of interest, how can she claim not to have been involved in one? What has she been using for a guideline for the past 30 years? How often has she been in conflict of interest because she didn't know better? Ignorance is not an acceptable excuse, particularly since she was convicted under this law once before. It is her duty as Mayor to know when she is breaking the law. If McCallion has never fully understood conflict of interest then she has betrayed the public trust.
* Agree 7
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Spudder
Jul 3, 2010 2:21 PM
@Mantis
Let's see, in the 1975 inquiry McCallion said that if you have nothing to hide why not welcome an inquiry. They have had a year to ask about the definition of conflict of interest, why now? Maybe because her lawyer has seen the mounting evidence against her and wants to delay until after the election, they tried it once already. After 32 years in office shouldn't McCallion be able to give her lawyer the definition of what a conflict of interest is? This is all stall tactics trying to get her through the election.
* Agree 7
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 2, 2010 11:15 PM
"The City's Conflict of Interest Policy does not apply to elected officials"...
which balances perfectly the City of MYTHissauga's proposed "integrity commissioner" which won't apply to Staff! HAHAHAHAhahaha *snork*
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 2, 2010 11:01 PM
@ The Genesearcher
I wonder why if tell-it-like-it-is Mayor McCallion needs a lawyer AND to redefine the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act...
* Agree 3
ComeOn
Jul 2, 2010 6:45 PM
Why $500000 to go tell an inquiry what you know if you have nothing to hide...
Mayor Hazel McCallion has asked for hundreds of thousands of dollars to go tell some folks what she knows. My guess on the definition is that the inquiry could her the Mayor and say CONFLICT (hard not to as she admits to inappropriate meetings to save her sons deal) so her lawyer asks for their definition so that they structure her bahaviouras outside the inquiry's definition. I hope that is not too confusing. How is this stuff a debate? How did Peter McCallion sign a deal worth tens of millions with a major corporation and he is essentially penniless (except for the OMERS secret settlement that he and OMERS will admit exists but will not divulge)? Where is the media to ask he hard questions like how much did Pete get when the city stepped in and bought the land? Why the rush to buy the land? Why with hundred of acres available did it have to be that land WHEN IT WAS CONTTAMINATED!!!! None of this stuff makes sense unless you look past the BS and ask who is getting what out of this SET of dealings.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 2, 2010 6:41 PM
@ The Genesearcher
Regarding conflict of interest, you wrote, "Do I detect a reading comprehension problem here or just a sly way of increasing billable hours and sucking more cash out of citizens' pockets." The latter. Plus zero shame on the part of McCallion --unless this is another case of McCallion's lawyer not consulting with the Mayor to confirm that McCallion knows what conflict of interest is. After all, we're talking here about a mayor (and Staff) who've insisted for years just how rigorous they are about following all legislation (and we're talking as recently as Wednesday!).
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Genesearcher
Jul 2, 2010 3:51 PM
Conflict of interest clarifiaction?
Do I detect a reading comprehension problem here or just a sly way of increasing billable hours and sucking more cash out of citizens' pockets.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Stephen Wahl
Jul 2, 2010 12:56 PM
It MUST be a DUCK ‘cause it. . . .
floats like a dead fish, looks a dead fish and smells like a dead fish. Why all of a sudden the confusion?
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 2, 2010 12:45 PM
But, inquiry officials now say McCallion's lawyer, Elizabeth McIntyre, has raised a question about the meaning of "conflict of interest" in the Inquiry's Terms of Reference.
Pssst! Try the definition in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.50. Everyone knows what direct pecuniary interest would be. Here's indirect. Indirect pecuniary interest "Interest of certain persons deemed that of member 3. For the purposes of this Act, the pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, of a parent or the spouse or any child of the member shall, if known to the member, be deemed to be also the pecuniary interest of the member. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 3; 1999, c. 6, s. 41 (2); 2005, c. 5, s. 45 (3)." Like. What's not to get? Frank Dale declares conflict of interest in refusing to move Budget Committee through because his wife is a part-time City employee. Refers to it as declaring in the side of caution.
* Agree 3
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 2, 2010 12:36 PM
The City's Conflict of Interest Policy does not apply to elected officials and the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act doesn't capture the alleged conduct in this case, according to inquiry officials.
Yep. But that doesn't really matter. Freedom of Information as well as the Audit Committee both confirm the ghastly degree to which City of Mississauga staff fail to comply to policies. Moving Forward...
* Agree 1
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]