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.
Torstar Network - July 30, 2010 - By
McCallion should pay: Parrish
Land deal. A file photo from 1998 demonstrates Peter McCallion's long-time connection with real estate transactions within the city core.
A city councillor wants McCallion to pay for his own legal fees in the current judicial inquiry. File photo
Mississauga Councillor Carolyn Parrish wants the mayor’s son to pay his own legal bills now that he is aware of his ownership in a company that received a $4 million out-of-court settlement last year from a failed land deal.
Parrish, an outspoken critic of Mayor Hazel McCallion, said the revelations at a judicial inquiry this week suggest Peter McCallion is entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars from his company, World Class Developments, and shouldn’t need to rely on taxpayers to cover his legal bills. The inquiry, which adjourned Thursday until Aug. 9, is probing the extent of the mayor’s involvement in her son’s land deal amid questions about whether it represents a conflict of interest.
If Peter McCallion doesn’t pay voluntarily, said Parrish, she will also ask in a motion at council this week to request that the commissioner reconsider his decision to have the taxpayer foot his fees.
“When Peter McCallion filed his affidavit, he was unaware he stood to gain … part of the World Class Developments settlement,” said Parrish. “Given his circumstances have changed, I would suggest he should voluntarily give up his request for the taxpayers to pay his legal fees.”
Councillor Sue McFadden, who said she had been getting complaints from residents that taxpayers were being forced to pay his legal fees, said she would second Parrish’s motion.
However, commission counsel William McDowell told the Star that Justice Douglas Cunningham, who is conducting the inquiry, considers the funding recommendation he made closed.
“Whatever the ins and outs of the evidence, nothing to date persuades me that at the end of July 2010, Peter McCallion can afford to retain council,” said McDowell. “If anything, the evidence demonstrates that he has continuing financial difficulties.”
Parrish’s comments drew a rebuke from Councillor Maja Prentice, a supporter of the mayor, who said she believed it was more appropriate to wait until the inquiry ends to take action: “I believe in hearing all sides of any issue prior to making a decision.”
Parrish’s jibe at Peter McCallion followed two days of examination this week in which he claimed he had not realized he held an ownership share of World Class Developments until a month ago.
He testified that he thought he was simply the company’s real estate agent, hoping to make money selling more than 2,000 condominium units as part of a hotel and convention centre project the company hoped to build in downtown Mississauga. This despite a 2007 trust agreement, witnessed by Hazel McCallion, that that made him a beneficiary of the company, with his shares held “in trust” by the original investor, Thornhill-based businessman Leo Couprie.
McCallion still lives in the house he sold to Couprie when financially strapped.
“If McCallion gets his money, he can pay his legal bills with some of it or buy back his house,” said Parrish. “He would still have an asset, ergo, he could put a mortgage on it and pay back his legal fees.”
How much Peter McCallion could obtain from the $4 million settlement between the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System and World Class Developments remains unclear. So far he has received nothing, and although about $1.4 million of the money consisted of deposits, he could receive part of the remainder. But during examination, he seemed unhopeful about getting any money and not eager to pursue a claim.
The question of Peter McCallion’s finances has been a mystery since the affidavit he filed to seek help with his legal bills was sealed. He said he earns about $50,000 to $60,000 a year selling homes for De Zen Homes Mississauga.
The inquiry was told McCallion had financial difficulties and had been unable to make about six months of house payments.
If the land purchase his mother vigorously championed had gone through, he stood to make millions of dollars on the hotel/convention centre/condo complex planned for the site.
The mayor’s position is that by declaring a conflict when the project came up at city council meetings, she was fulfilling her obligations under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
Cunningham has said he intends to cut a wider swath, probing the mayor’s behind-the-scenes involvement and the use of the mayoral chair for the benefit of friends and family.
Comments by others - 81 - to this web-page at time of posting;
ComeOn
Aug 3, 2010 4:58 PM
Hazel McCallion Scandal Grows
Guess what Hazelites... I noticed you like to erase my comments as the truth hurts so I have a new deal for you. If you erase me from now on I repost twice. Explain that to her majesty. By the way what should the punishment be for a Mayor who was convicted of conflict of interest before and now has abused her office again? She did not learn the first time so what should be done?
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ConcernedResident
Aug 3, 2010 10:40 AM
@Therese
So what part of my statement was a lie? The part that said you are soliciting contributions to Barbers defence fund on a web site, and therefore are contributing to his candidacy for mayor? Or the part that you did not identify that in your letter to the Star. Who left you judge of whether my comment was offensive? Or, whether your "freedom of expression" is more "correct" than yours? You know damn well what the "offensive" is there for. You are using it to silence opposition. Which is contrary to what you supposedly stand for. That, IMHO, is hypocracy.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive 2
Therese Taylor
Aug 3, 2010 10:23 AM
@Muse and Uatu
I agree with you about leaving the “threads”, but freedom of expression and rational debate do not include insults and lies. Personal attacks without attribution should not be allowed with impunity. Some newspapers are considering making it mandatory for those who wish to comment to attribute their comments with their names. I agree with this. So if I find Mantis or ConcernedResident attacking me with lies and insults, forgive me, if I mark them offensive for the third time and send their comments to the trash bin where they belong. Without attribution their insults and lies do not deserve freedom of expression. Normally a moderator would remove slanderous remarks, but because the News operates without one, it's up to us to moderate the discussion. Even in sewing, sometimes threads get jumbled and zig zag all over the place and need to be cut off.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
JaneL
Aug 2, 2010 10:07 PM
Pay Up PETER
He needs to pay. How much more has this family ripped off the city of mississauga? We are such suckers to vote her worship in time after time.
* Agree 6
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Think About It
Aug 2, 2010 9:43 PM
There's a Fall federal election looming where Mantis and it's ConcernedResident have represented the conservative party with rhetorical insults
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 1
@ Uatu We do NOT disagree --and for precisely the reasons you give
The point his this. Right now two people have chosen to hit "Offensive" to ConcernedResident's 2:20 PM comment. I have no problems with that except-- right now we know that the Mississauga News comments section is back to the way it was. Right now no one has any business hitting "Offensive"! And why am I sticking up for ConcernedResident that way he treated us? Remember, he treated ME the worst! He refused to let me back on PERIOD! But he's right and I'm agreeing with him this time. I've not been paying attention to deletions but to my eye, he and Mantis are getting nailed not me --or you. That's all I'm saying. And the deletion discussion is distracting from this thread. I got TONS of better things to do. And more important. I'm confident that MissyNews will revive all lost comments.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 2, 2010 4:17 PM
@Muse: Say what?
Excuse me Muse, but why should I be ignored? Why are you sticking up for ConcernedResident after the way he has treated us? He claims inside knowledge that, if true, PROVES that the hazelbots have been using what they like to call sock-puppet accounts to censor me AND you, among others. The karma in that is both funny and satisfying. Did you notice how condescending and insulting his response was? For the record, I also want the ability to mark comments offensive without having them disappear. I agree with others who have said in the past that it is preferable to keep the behaviour of the hazelbots on public display. I've shown some of these threads to others, and the unanimous reaction is that the hazelbots are moral degenerates without shame. I have no desire to delete anything that leads reasonable people to draw that conclusion.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 3:06 PM
Question. Why would the lawyer allow Peter McCallion to get away with a partial answer?
Watch this. (I had to Google what the "A" in "ASO" meant") "12 If we could scroll down to the signature 13 on this, we see, sir, there are two (2) signatures. We 14 see that, first of all, on behalf of World Class 15 Developments Limited, we have a signature. 16 Whose signature is that? 17 A: That's mine. 18 Q: Per Peter McCallion, ASO. Is that 19 correct, sir? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Now, you apparently signed this on 22 July 27th, 2007? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: At the time, did you understand what 25 ASO meant? 1847 1 A: Yes. 2 Q: What did you understand it to mean? 3 A: As signing officer." See that? ASO does not mean "As signing officer" but "Authorized Signing Officer". "Authorized" is one big matzoh ball left out of the soup and the lawyer let him. So he signed as "Authorized Signing Officer" and then signed his name to the right of that again. And he's outside warbling to the Media "I did nothing wrong"?...
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 2:40 PM
@ ConcernedResident, ignore Uatu, please
You're *absolutely right* that comments are getting deleted! I have no idea when hitting "Offensives" had only the effect of being just a number to going back to deletion at 3. But I can *confirm* that it's back to the way it was. I noticed that yesterday when I hit the third on you. I believe what you say MissyNews wrote. I'm not enough of a techie to understand that stuff. All I want is your comments back. And Mantis' too (I saw two of his teetering at 2 Offensives yesterday) so I'm not surprised they're now gone. It's one thing to do what I did --hit that third and not know deletion was back. Quite ANOTHER if it's intentional. That's despicable! And if done by one of "us", hypocritical! It's being fixed, ConcernedResident. And I want to thank you for not responding in kind and escalating things.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 2, 2010 2:16 PM
They call that "hoisted on your own petard"
So after all the accusations of "barberites" using multiple logins to delete posts, now ConcernedResident claims that the only way to delete a post with 3 offensives is to have three different "urls". (I'll assume he means IPs because as someone explained, the only URL involved is the one for the story.) What this basically means is that despite their accusations, people from at least three different IPs find them offensive. I happen to know that there are more than three people who have been finding the hazelbots offensive so it doesn't surprise me at all. Apparently it leaves them in shock, but their world has been crumbling around their ears for a while now. Incidentally, the fact that the so-called "barberites" AREN'T being knocked off is a strong indicator that the hazelbots WERE using multiple logins since, according to CR, that no longer works.
* Agree 1
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 2:15 PM
Help me out here. I've been re-reading the Peter McCallion testimony transcripts
I start a company and get some rich guy to up the bucks. Lots of stuff happens in between but I'm bleeding money, and am down to a point where I've no pot to pee in and need to pay bills. So I borrow $50,000 that I could pay back that $50,000 if demand was made on it. I also sign affidavits as ASO (Signing Officer) even though I know I don't have the authority. And then I sign beside my own name as well. Is it just me? But I'd expect Peel Police to come 'round knocking on my door. I don't get it.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
pacroust
Aug 2, 2010 2:05 PM
@ConcernedResidentSloppyKissyFace
Dearie, the connection exists only in your poor sweet deluded head. Just because Therese Taylor was involved in the same community work as Don Barber and he has cut&pasted some of her comments onto his website does not prove any connection whatsoever. I hate to break it to you snookums, but he also cut&pasted some of YOUR comments too. By your own logic you're a Barberite! Nice of you to see the light gorgeous XXXOOOXXX meet me behind the shed honey
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 2:01 PM
@ ConcernedResident, yes, I know comments are still being deleted
Like I said, I hit Offensive on you and only because it was the 3rd, it disappeared! I was *shocked*! Everyone should remember Offensives going up to 5, 6... don't know how high it'd go. But yesterday, I clicked the 3rd and you were gone! I sent your comment to Gerry Timbers and I'm sure he'll fix stuff. You wrote, " @Muse You are mistaken. I have been told that if (paraphasing here) comments are not being deleted after 3 "offensive clicks", utilizing three different urls, than that is a techinical issue that the News will correct. In other words, comments can and are still being being deleted. " Look ConcernedResident, I'm not about to test that theory. The Mississauga News DID fix stuff when I'd contacted them. Things were going as high as 6 Offensives. I find it OFFENSIVE that people would hit "Offensive" knowing that a comment will be deleted! And it's INFINITELY WORSE if it's people who believe in Freedom of Expression! Haven't checked to see if any of mine are wiped. Am working up videos of the Mississ
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 1:54 PM
July 27, 2010 testimony (If we were to do this too, what would happen to us?)
"12 If we could scroll down to the signature 13 on this, we see, sir, there are two (2) signatures. We 14 see that, first of all, on behalf of World Class 15 Developments Limited, we have a signature. 16 Whose signature is that? 17 A: That's mine. 18 Q: Per Peter McCallion, ASO. Is that 19 correct, sir? 20 A: Correct. 21 Q: Now, you apparently signed this on 22 July 27th, 2007? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: At the time, did you understand what 25 ASO meant? 1847 1 A: Yes. 2 Q: What did you understand it to mean? 3 A: As signing officer. 4 Q: To the right of that we see co- 5 signer. We see your signature, or what appears to be 6 your signature again; is that correct, sir? 7 A: Correct, yes. 8 Q: You signed that as well? 9 A: Yes"...
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ConcernedResident
Aug 2, 2010 1:52 PM
@Muse
You are mistaken. I have been told that if (paraphasing here) comments are not being deleted after 3 "offensive clicks", utilizing three different urls, than that is a techinical issue that the News will correct. In other words, comments can and are still being being deleted.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive 1
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 1:48 PM
July 27, 2010 testimony (If I were to do this couldn't I be charged with fraud?)
10 Q: Now, when you borrowed the fifty 11 thousand (50,000), or when you guaranteed the debt of -- 12 of World Class Developments, personally, you knew that 13 you did not have the wherewithal to order that guarantee 14 if demand was made on it? 15 A: Correct.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 1:43 PM
@ ConcernedResident, -regarding deleted posts.
You wrote, " Where did the posts go? Mantis had three posts here that have gone missing?" Yes, I know. I noticed it yesterday. I had found one of your posts Offensive and it already had 2. I hit the 3rd thinking it would do nothing but add a 3rd. As you know, Mississauga News had fixed things so Offensives didn't matter. They were going up to 6 Offensives and nothing. To my horror my 3rd Offensive deleted yours. I immediately wrote Gerry Timbers at Mississauga News telling him exactly what I've told you. I included your comment in the email to show its deletion! I haven't said anything because I'd hoped Mississauga News would fix it lest you start your massive deletions again and wiping me right off as you did before. Remember your "a leopard never changes its spots" comment as justification for not allowing a single one of my comments thereafter. Mississauga News is looking into it and will resurrect all comments like last time. No idea why it went back to 3 Offensives. Email to Mississauga News sent Sat, Ju
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
ConcernedResident
Aug 2, 2010 1:32 PM
Where did the posts go?
Mantis had three posts here that have gone missing? Whey are the Barbarians suppressing other opinions?
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 2
fomm
Aug 2, 2010 1:06 PM
Do not feed the trolls
Seems that we all need to remind ourselves that the Fiends of Hazel are not interested in debate or reason. They are only interested in smearing and oppressing anyone who dares to criticize the Mayor, and by extension the Corporation of the City of Mississauga. They will not hesitate to lie to accomplish their objectives, and they constantly try to provoke by making inflammatory (usually untrue) statements. I repeat (futile though it might be) IGNORE THE TROLLS.
* Agree 7
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 1
Therese Taylor
Aug 2, 2010 12:53 PM
@ConcernedResident
Whoever you are? Don Barber has reported on community efforts I was involved in. So what? This isn't about me, it's about our Mayor and the person we've been paying to run our city for the past 31 years.
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive 1
ConcernedResident
Aug 2, 2010 12:49 PM
@Therse
How about the fact that you are connected on a website is raising funds for his defence?
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 4
* |
* Offensive 2
Uatu
Aug 2, 2010 12:48 PM
@Therese
Ah I see. This is a different trust from the McCallion trust of which David O'Brien is a trustee. By the way, you should just ignore anything ConcernedResident has to say. He and Mantis have been lying and inventing their own reality for a long time now.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Therese Taylor
Aug 2, 2010 12:40 PM
@ConcernedResident
What is my connection to Donald Barber and his candidacy for Mayor?You seem to know so tell us?
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Therese Taylor
Aug 2, 2010 12:37 PM
@Come On & @Uatu
Thanks. I appreciate the feedback. I wish more of us would be clear about who we are. And I remain hopeful that the time has come for the citizens of Mississauga to see things clearly. @Uatu - Why does it matter whether the money went to the family trust or is being held so that Peter can collect later? Mayor mom signed the Declaration of Trust (See it at http://www.mississaugainquiry.ca/exhibits/pdf/Exhibit_190_COM001002778.pdf). It's only a one page agreement.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Aug 2, 2010 12:14 PM
@ComeOn
Yes, I know we learned about the McCallion trust. It stinks that David O'Brien is a trustee of that fund, given his behaviour concerning the Enersource shenanigans, BUT I have not seen anything that indicates the Mayor was using her office to fatten that trust. Perhaps you are following more closely and can point me to something that shows the connection. Until then, the Mayor gets the benfit of my doubt.
ComeOn
Aug 2, 2010 11:40 AM
Therese Taylor Steps Up
Congratulations on a well written letter to the editor of the Star! The content was on target and concise. It should get some to think and get past a simple emotional response to extremely serious issues of abuse of office by Mayor McCallion.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 1
Therese Taylor
Aug 2, 2010 11:30 AM
"Hogtied in Hazel McCallion Country"
Thanks for sharing this Muse. Not sure how I missed it yesterday, but Hume is hilarious.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 10:33 AM
@ ComeOn --If it weren't for the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry...
Were it not for the Inquiry we'd never know what Michael Nobrega, president and CEO of the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS), MEANT when he told us at that January 22, 2009 Enersource meeting that "the company viewed the ongoing conflict as a 'squabble among family members.'” And I bet he thought he was being funny when he said it. Like an IN-joke. Here's another IN-joke. City of Mississauga writing "that was not substantiated" (means it was never investigated). Testing this other IN-joke. (a reporter got it). What do I mean by the "Dave O'Brien Defense"? :-)
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 2, 2010 10:13 AM
Toronto Star's Chris Hume: "Hogtied in Hazel McCallion Country" [quote]
"Howdy partner. Welcome to Mississauga. If you’re aimin’ to get funny, you can leave right now. But if you’re lookin’ to settle down in a nice little homestead next to a mall, you’ve come to the right place. Just head on down that six-lane trail. This here’s McCallion Country; Boss Hazel runs things ’round here. Always has. For as long as anyone can remember, Boss Hazel has worn the sheriff’s badge. Her word is law in these parts. Folks here love that woman. Tough as nails she is; even at her age, she makes grown men quake in their boots. Cross her and you better just hightail it out of Mississauga, the sixth largest town in the West. A word, friend: keep an eye out for the son. Boss Hazel’s son, that is. He’s the one in the big black hat, big black boots, big black shirt and big..." http://tinyurl.com/2a6v85c
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 2, 2010 10:10 AM
Hazel Fund
We learn of the fund from the Inquiry. We learned that David O`Brien former city mgr and former head of Enersource helps administer it. The fund is for the benefit of the McCallion family. Peter makes millions from a hotel that Hazel pushes through. I am not seeing where `too far`has been reached. Unless applied to this Mayor using her office to help her family.
* Agree 1
Uatu
Aug 1, 2010 3:27 PM
@ComeOn
I think you're getting a bit carried away there. I don't recall anything that indicated that the Mayor abused her office "to fill the coffers of the McCallion trust fund." She abused her office, that part I agree with.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 1, 2010 3:01 PM
Hazel McCallion Scandal is Hazel McCallion`s Fault
Yes Peter is a bad son for involving mommy if you buy that this was not mommy`s business with a Peter frontman. More on that later. For now we need not focus on who wants to be mayor next but instead what to do with the one who has abused her office to fill the coffers of the McCallion trust fund. Hazel has been convicted of conflict of interest before so is she capable of abusing her office -- we know that answer and it is yes! We need to keep reminding our neighbours and colleagues that this Mayor has got to go.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 1
Therese Taylor
Aug 1, 2010 1:14 PM
Muse is right, Parish did a good thing for Mississauga shining the light
First on the compensation paid to councillors for being on the board of directors of Enersource. She lead the charge to have the sums reduced. That's what opened the can of worms on the Borealis 10% veto. Now she’s going to ask council to get P. McCallion to pay his own legal fees. Kudos to Parish for trying to put money back into taxpayers pockets.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 1, 2010 12:01 PM
Here's all Hazel McCallion has to say, “It sounds like maybe I should talk about taxes and assessment” and she's Good to Go
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 1, 2010 10:17 AM
[Worth repeating] Royson James "Step one: End the denials."
"To the army of Hazel McCallion apologists — many itching to re-elect her Oct. 25 — testimony out of the Mississauga judicial inquiry must be painful. At best, Peter McCallion used his mom, the good graces of her Streetsville home and the tax-supported res...ources of the mayor’s office to feather his own nest." "At worst, he was aided and abetted by the powerful mayor mom who seems to have her hand in every deal, a finger in every transaction, and bared knuckles at the ready to drive hesitant developers to the altar." "Whatever you believe, the public process is badly broken in Mississauga." "'I didn’t do anything wrong. There is no conflict of interest here.' Maybe McCallion believes this, after almost a half century in the public eye — a peculiar “see no evil” focus that exists in Mississauga." " Such behaviour is clearly forbidden in most municipalities. We hope."
* Agree 3
The Mississauga Muse
Aug 1, 2010 10:16 AM
Never forget, regardless of what happens to Carolyn Parrish. She helped shine an INDEPENDENT LIGHT into Mississauga City Hall
and the truth. Everyone understand that had the economy not soured, and the deal gone through, we'd have never known *any* of this. Or why David O'Brien "didn't ask" or why Hazel McCallion "nor was he invited" to the Enersource public meeting ostensibly called to inform the public about that Strategic Alliance contract.
* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
pacroust
Aug 1, 2010 9:16 AM
@ComeOn
SnapCutie and MantisSweetums aren't the same person, SnapCutie and ConcernedResidentHuggyBum are.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Mad Max
Aug 1, 2010 9:08 AM
Stink at City Hall
The only thing that smells worse than Hazel's lack of judgement is Parrish's motives. This woman was an embarassment as MP and would make a mess of this city. Besides Parrish's nose isn't so clean (remember the restaurant hissy fit incident?). Hazel should not run again, but she will to save us from Parrish. I don't get it - there are several potential successors but none have come forward. The only one who has is Parrish who is a legend in only her mind. I have NEVER heard any real person say they want Parrish as mayor.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 5
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 1, 2010 8:39 AM
Hazel McCalllion Scandal The Ins and Outs
SNAP/Mantis (same person) and Missy2 and any other McCallion family members I ask you what should be the penalty for a repeat offender here? As you know so well Mayor Hazel McCallion was convicted of abusing her office previously. She appealled and lost. Now there is mounting evidence of an even bigger scandal. For argument's sake, she's found to have abused her office -- what do you guys say should happen? I am going to remove a few of your options here 1) No I do not think taxpayers should give her a cruise around the world 2) she has one statue to her herself in city halll already so lets toss that one 3) Enough buildings will have to have their names changed post scandal that adding one more would just be mean 4) a big bad of cash and a thank you? You do realize that she is subject to the same laws as the rest of us?
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Aug 1, 2010 8:31 AM
Hazel McCallion Scandal Grows -- Tony is Bang On Here
Look at history -- After Hazel was convicted of conflict of interest the last time she came out and declared victory. She did not apologize or chane her ways. How do I know that -- she is back before an Inquiry in 2010. Far from "scaring her straight" she went Pro instead. This scandal trumps her previous violations of the law. However, this time there is significant abuse of public funds, trust and office. When the judge reports the bad behaviour I doubt she will get a well she did not get away with millions so it is all good. You heard it here first but I think she will be called out for her abuses and for not being forthcoming in explaining her behaviour. Then the media circus will be vicious until she tries to fog everything with another declaration of victory. This time it will not cover over her bad deeds. This time the damage to her reputation will be dramatic and deep. I here those who think it will be business as usual but even the News will have to deliver the bad news to all.
* Agree 2
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 11:31 PM
@ Tony, Uatu, ComeOn, Canadians, ThinkAboutIt, Therese et al. There *are* Heroes.
Just for inspiration, I share --one of the first video I ever created. I uploaded "Edward R. Murrow. My Hero" over three years ago and it sure has relevance now. http://tinyurl.com/28u7j35 Two vital messages from Mr. Murrow regarding our governments. 1. "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty." and 2. "The fault dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves." Good Night and Good Luck.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 10:18 PM
@ Tony, You wrote, "Eventually, that corruption/nepotism will take over everything we live in."
"Eventually"? Tony, it's **NOW**! From a 'bad' youth's email, "…the system is CORRUPT and this is why there is youth violence this is why there are guns on the street and drugs in the hands of children the youth are fighting with the system because it is CORRUPT there is no way to fix it because the people higher up are sitting nice in their big leather chairs, driving their nice cars, living their perfect life when some people in this world have to work hard to get by and even by doing so they get nothing, and after they realize how hard they have to work to get by they break down and no longer want to live life being part of the system because they realize that living life by the rules of the system gets you no where because it is CORRUPT!"
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Tony Jackson
Jul 31, 2010 10:09 PM
Tha's HOPEless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we are willing to TOLERATE Hazel McCallion (associated corruption, theft of public funds and nepotism), why don't we tolerate those actions of Street Criminal Gangs (almost always read like: Male, black, 5’10” tall wearing black hoods and carrying handgun, mugged…..). A corrupt mayor will recruit a band of corrupt officials at the city and regional level (like City Manager, Integrity commissioner, the chief of police etc.). Eventually, that corruption/nepotism will take over everything we live in. This is not a hypothetical scenario, but the reality in most “third-world Nations” today.
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 31, 2010 8:07 PM
@Tony
Based on the 90% that the hazelbots keep throwing in our faces, we HAVE the government we deserve. If McCallion runs again, and she has said repeatedly that she will, then she will still win. Despite the Inquiry, most voters will do nothing to educate themselves about the Turst, Qualty, & EXcelents people. No doubt some will vote for another candidate, so her majority won't be as big--but it will still be a majority. That's because most voters will continue to vote in ignorance and just vaguely recall "Hazel, bestest mayor evair, and now they're picking on her." They keep hearing it, must be true. Hence, the government we deserve.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 7:59 PM
@ Tony you wrote, "The inquiry has helped to uncover so much information that otherwise will not be obtained by FOI request or by an investigation by journalists."
Absolutely true. As you know, the documents revealed are exempted in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. And get this. Perhaps, had it not been for a downturn in the economy and the deal souring --and litigation begun, Peter McCallion would today be a multi-millionaire and Big Shot. And NONE of us would know any of this. So you got to wonder how many other development deals in MYTHissauga have elected officials/family as "principals" buried into deals through a trust of a trust. I now wonder if this happens in Brampton. In Caledon. How, I also 100% disagree with your last comment. "WE DESERVE BETTER". No! The citizens of MYTHissauga DESERVE the Lies, Denies and more Lies. And fraud. DESERVE to get felt up in their sleep. Seem even to like it. Horrid admission but I suspect that this city couldn't operate without its galloping corruption. (based on Freedom of Information and nothing to do with Inquiry revelations)
* Agree 2
Tony Jackson
Jul 31, 2010 7:38 PM
Judge with your own conscience!
Justice Cunningham is obligated to make his judgment based on the Law as it is written and the testimonies as it is presented (e.g. “I don’t recall”, “I didn’t know if I was a Principal”). The inquiry has helped to uncover so much information that otherwise will not be obtained by FOI request or by an investigation by journalists. Based on those revelations of truths, not-the-whole-truths and outright lies, we the citizens must judge Hazel McCallion, with our own expectations of ethics, honesty and impartiality. People get the government they deserve! WE DESERVE BETTER
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 7:25 PM
@ Therese (and others) HUGE apologies. (so many careless typos)
Therese, my 4:34 PM message reads incorrectly. It says, "I suspect that despite our back and forth you still think that taxpayers should foot Peter McCallion or the Mayor, right? Me, I'm hanging tough the other way." "should" should read "shouldn't". Correct sentence. "I suspect that despite our back and forth you still think that taxpayers shouldn't foot Peter McCallion or the Mayor, right? Me, I'm hanging tough the other way." (and there so many typos in the 4:42 pm comment that I'm embarrassed. But worst is, writing, "I've frequently said that the Mississauga voters would learn that the Mayor entertains herself by tossing puppies into wood chippers and there'd be barely a ding in her popularity." That should read, "I've frequently said that the Mississauga voters could learn that the Mayor entertains herself by tossing puppies into wood chippers and there'd be barely a ding in her popularity." Makes a difference...
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 31, 2010 5:33 PM
@Therese
That's a common error. Close the page and reopen it. The error *probably* will go away. If not, rinse and repeat. Now, I'm with you that it is glaringly obvious, no matter what the Inquiry finds, that McCallion has violated the public trust. That was a given as soon as she attended a single meeting involving this deal. It's a farce to claim she represented the City, especially since she didn't inform Council. This is a messed-up situation, though. It's MYTHissauga. It would not surprise me in the least if the finding is "Errors were made, but no harm was done. Nothing to see here, move on." In fact I already predicted this. If that happens, Hazel and her hazelbots will claim vindication. That's because they cannot or (more likely) refuse to distinguish between illegal and immoral.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 4:42 PM
@ ConeOn I'm not naive. But I know this mentality of the MYTHissauga voting public
I agree when you write, "Fortunately, the tall tales of I did not know and how did that get there have a paper trail phone messages and signatures to dispute the la la la version we are to believe. If you want to ignore the facts and listen to after the fact BS you are on your own Muse." I agree! You take those transcripts and assign different names and hand them to people they'd see the same BS. (and "BS" is being charitable) I've frequently said that the Mississauga voters would learn that the Mayor entertains herself by tossing puppies into wood chippers and there'd be barely a ding in her popularity. She has an endless supply of sympathizers ready to defend her every transgression. She's even got Don Cherry. HAHAHAHAhaha (sorry, couldn't type that one with a straight face). I'm going to let Judge Cunningham made the decision.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 4:34 PM
@ Therese, you provided a valuable resource so thanks
I suspect that despite our back and forth you still think that taxpayers should foot Peter McCallion or the Mayor, right? Me, I'm hanging tough the other way. Regardless, I can see your points and it's sure clear that you did your homework. This entire thing plus finding out (although zero surprise) that three provincial ministries are being investigated by the OPP's got me wondering about public service in general. Video/Freedom of Information strongly suggested that no one was minding the store in MYTHissauga City Hall... but it looks like the lack of authentic oversight is all over Ontario.
Therese Taylor
Jul 31, 2010 4:30 PM
Something wacky going on with the website, ComeOn
I just tried to agree with your comments at 4:25 and was given the following error message from http://www.mississauga.com "You can't agree or disagree or disagree with your own comments" But ComeOn I know you're not me.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 31, 2010 4:25 PM
Tons of Evidence and Poor Explanation = Bad Story for McCallions
Stop listening to one and not readng the other. The paper trail is damning and disgusting at best.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
ComeOn
Jul 31, 2010 4:22 PM
Hazel McCallion Scandal Exists in the real world
Fortunately, the tall tales of I did not know and how did that get there have a paper trail phone messages and signatures to dispute the la la la version we are to believe. If you want to ignore the facts and listen to after the fact BS you are on your own Muse. They are not going to slide away from this one. Motive -- ownership or commission take your pick or both. Inappropriate involvement -- in spades with signatures to boot. Affadavits and bizarrely strutured deals. I am betting on guilty with ease.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Therese Taylor
Jul 31, 2010 4:22 PM
Yes, Postings at 4:01, 4:02 and 4:03 all Municipal Conflict of Interest
I missed copying the quote marks from the posting at 4:02. Sorry.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 4:18 PM
@ Therese. re Municipal Conflict of Interest Law (is it conflict of interest all the way down?)
Thanks for those cut-and-pastes and especially the URLs. And that's the way most reasonable people will see it too. I've seen Councillors beg off moving a motion to increase salaries because a wife/relative is a temp worker at the City or Peel Region. What? Announce that and then wheel, wine and dine for months before to get raises for your "people"? That's not the public mood I'm reading. And they just found out that Hydro's going up --can jump to 16 per cent when their next bill arrives. (Not sure if Enersource rates will go up but) Now that I know how closely Hydro is linked to OMERS (municipal pension funds) there's a part of me that figures at least some of that is going into municipalities for pay raises and benefits. Not sure if that's true, but it's sure got me wondering.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 4:08 PM
Cut off, Therese
It is up to Judge Cunningham to decide whether the Mayor used her political office to aid The Peter. It *is* possible that Judge Cunningham might not find that the Mayor used her political office. I keep telling you. After what I've documented happening at City? The only explanation is the conviction by Staff that Hazel McCallion is Above the Law.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 4:07 PM
@ Therese (I'm going to play devil's advocate here)
You wrote, " It is not fair to the taxpayers of Mississsauga to fund P. McCallion's fees. He recruited his mother in his business dealings" "Alleged" recruited. Peter McCallion is denying it, remember --even though he doesn't. You wrote, "by first in asking her to witness the trust agreement" True. You wrote, "There was no need for mother Mayor to witness the trust agreement since Leo Couprie's wife was at the dinner and presumably could have signed." Agree 100%. You wrote, "We don't have to wait for Justice Cunningham to say that there was wrong doing here. Using her political office to aid her son's business interests was morally wrong. You cannot serve two masters." Disagree. Agree. Agree. Only one thing. While the statement "Using her political office to aid her son's business interests was morally wrong" is true. It is up to Judge Cunningham to decide whether the Mayor used her political office to air The Peter. It *is* possible that Judge Cunningham might not find that the Mayor user her political offic
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Therese Taylor
Jul 31, 2010 4:03 PM
Municipal Conflict of Interest Law: A Law in Conflict based on Interest (cont’d) From http://www.weirfoulds.com/files/5107_ConflictLaws.pdf
“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 respect to matters in which they have a personal economic interest. The scope of the Act is not limited by exception or proviso but a applies to all situations in which the member has, or is deemed to have, any direct or indirect pecuniary interest.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Therese Taylor
Jul 31, 2010 4:02 PM
Municipal Conflict of Interest Law: A Law in Conflict based on Interest (cont’d)
This enactment, like all conflict-of-interest rules, is based on the moral principle, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no man can serve two masters. It recognizes the fact that the judgment of even the most well-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 it broad proscription, joins holders of public offices within its 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 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Therese Taylor
Jul 31, 2010 4:01 PM
Municipal Conflict of Interest Law: A Law in Conflict base on Interest
"Accordingly, the Act is a statutory codification of the principle that elected or appointed municipal officials must never engage in conduct which has even the potential to affect matters in which they have a financial interest – regardless of their motives or whether the outcome was actually affected. The standard has been held to be a very high one, and Courts have repeatedly emphasized that the public interest in ensuring that members of council do not act in their own self-interest demands no less.”
* Agree 3
Therese Taylor
Jul 31, 2010 3:57 PM
It is not fair to the taxpayers of Mississsauga to fund P. McCallion's fees
He recruited his mother in his business dealings, first in asking her to witness the trust agreement, then in attepting to push the deal through. There was no need for mother Mayor to witness the trust agreement since Leo Couprie's wife was at the dinner and presumably could have signed. We don't have to wait for Justice Cunningham to say that there was wrong doing here. Using her political office to aid her son's business interests was morally wrong. You cannot serve two masters.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 1:26 PM
@ Therese regarding taxpayers paying McCallions lawyers. It's about Fairness
It's about at the end of this no one other than the usual suspects can claim that the Mayor and Son were not treated fairly. She's been our Mayor for over thirty years and Hazel McCallion (and her son) deserve this financial support. Why? Because the Judicial Inquiry has not concluded any wrong-doing and Justice Cunningham hasn't delivered his findings and recommendations. Here's how I look at it. Put yourself in the Mayor's place right now. Empathize. And put yourself in the place of others who may be watching (other municipalities --and even the world). This has *got* to be done right! So while Peter McCallion might squawk after, he can't credibly say he wasn't superbly-represented by lawyers *and* funded by us-citizens. Municipal researchers/academics are carefully watching this Inquiry because of its governance/policy implications.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive 1
Therese Taylor
Jul 31, 2010 1:09 PM
P. McCallion should pay for his own defense
Carolyn Parish is correct in asking council to have Peter McCallion reimburse the taxpayers of Mississauga for his legal fees. He may not have money in his account at the moment, but when World Class Developments gets around to paying out Peter’s portion (in the hundreds of thousands), he’ll have plenty. What's the hold up, by the way? Why should taxpayers pay for the mess he and his mother have gotten themselves into? If he can’t pay for it himself now, perhaps David O’Brien could direct the McCallion family trust to reimburse us.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 12:21 PM
@ The Spudder. And then there's David O'Brien...
At the "clear things up" Enersource public meeting (January 22, 2009) I asked the question that no one else did. Including Traditional Media.Where is former city manager, David O'Brien? Mayor McCallion said that David O'Brien "didn't ask" to attend that public meeting -"nor was he invited". And then we find out in July 2010 (and only because of the Judicial Inquiry) that David O'Brien is "a trustee of the McCallion family trust." Leading me to ask the Mayor a year and a half later, "Is there anything ELSE you'd care to share?..." www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN_bRaHMnb0
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Spudder
Jul 31, 2010 12:08 PM
@Missy2
Please tell me what mind altering substance you are on because I need some. Fact, Mayor moved a motion at Region of Peel to delay development charges by 3 months as he son was involved in WCD and the hotel lands, this is a conflict Fact, if hotel in the City core was so important to her why was she lobbying OMERS/AIM to have the hotel portion removed? Fact, she was concerned, as per testimony on Monday from Lusk, that someone else was looking at putting a hotel in the core. Why not try to work with that group to see who has the best means to accomplish her dream of a hotel? Fact, as per her own schedule she spoke to the WCD group about 'in camera items'. 'In camera items' are privileged and are not to be discussed in public. There are plenty of facts that have come out, let alone the inferences that can be drawn, that prove this Mayor stepped well beyond the lines. This notion that the Mayor should be given a pass because she was trying to do what is good for the City has to disappear. The ends do not justif
* Agree 4
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 8:45 AM
@ ComeOn, Uatu, Joe Chin... Wednesday's Council agenda"R-28 Judicial Inquiry – June 2010 Expense Report (two lawyers for the Mayor)
[BEGIN] R-28 Judicial Inquiry – June 2010 Expense Report and Update. Corporate Report dated July 26, 2010 from the City Solicitor Recommendation: 1. That the report of the City Solicitor dated July 26, 2010 entitled “Judicial Inquiry – June 2010 Expense Report and Update” be received for information. 2. That Council consider: (a) increasing the cap with respect to funding Mayor McCallion’s legal fees to $400,000; and (b) adjusting the criteria to allow for two counsel to be present on behalf of Mayor McCallion at the hearing on days when the evidence of important witnesses is scheduled in order to enhance the efficiency of the process, as requested by counsel for Mayor McCallion in their letter dated July 26, 2010. Motion MG.01.JUD" I [END] Interesting reason. "enhance the efficiency". I prefer the use of the word "fairness" instead. "enhance the fairness".
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 8:41 AM
@ Uatu. And don't you love this photo of Mississauga City Hall? Crooked? :-)
Good ol' MissyNews. It says "File photo". I wonder if Steve Nease took this pic. (or at least selected it for this article).
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 8:38 AM
You wrote, "I don 't need to read Royson James or anyone else in the media looking to use this as good column fodder, to tell me what and how to think."
Me either. "cannon fodder"? Royson James? Keep denying! Next, I not only read the transcripts, I'm often right there in the courtroom. AND I attended all Enersource public meetings (have them on videotape to refer back to). You wrote, " Dismiss me as a Mayor supporter, but once your frustration has subsided, be specific about what finding you think proves there was wrongdoing." "Frustration"? GOOD GAWD no! I can't be happier! Joyous. Googling "hazel mccallion" sure is different now. Far more powerful voices (and especially minds) are now turning their attention to MISSISSAUGA INC. Cunningham. McDowell. Lax. And media, Gombu, James, Morrow, O'Toole. And especially researcher Tom Urbaniak. You asked about Peter McCallion doing no wrong. How do you know? He has no memory of ANY of the 20 meetings. You understand that right? Self-described "visionary" of the City Core hotel/condo extravaganza and NO MEMORY of what transpired!
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 31, 2010 8:31 AM
@Missy2
This is really simple. It is not disputed that the Mayor attended meetings that involved her son and the City's financial interests. That is such an obvious conflict of interest that the hint of it made AIM leery of completing the deal. The McCallions are claiming that this didn't break any laws. This is much like your way of arguing, in that it sidesteps the issue of MORAL wrongdoing. Assume that the sloppy legislation foisted on the public really doesn't forbid a conflict of interest unless it happens at a formal Council meeting (the McCallion claim) rather than at a steakhouse or the Mayor's home. Are you so morally bankrupt that you would then say that therefore the Mayor did no wrong? We know others here are.
* Agree 4
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 8:14 AM
@ ComeOn --the reason for the Inquiry and why no Dave O'Brien in either?
You wrote, "Do you get that seven councillors, the majority of Council launched an Inquiry because our Mayor Hazel is blurry on where her office ends and Peter`s business begins. You want to blame anyone call the Mayor." A reminder. That's what the seven councillors claim. It's just that. A claim. Just like Hazel McCallion claims her breakfast/lunch/dinner meetings strong-arming and threatening for the hotel was "for the interests of the City". I attended/videotaped much of the Enersource topics before Council and all public meetings. I went up to the podium to ask "Where is Dave O'Brien?" Why was it up to me to ask that question? Never mind the question how the City could credibly announce that its outside lawyers conducted a thorough $42,000 worth investigation. They never interviewed Dave O'Brien! No mention of Dave O'Brien. You understand that, right? I mean REALLY get that, right?
* Agree 2
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 31, 2010 8:02 AM
@ ComeOn (regarding the Judicial Inquiry)
You wrote (to Missy2 or SNAP), "I am fascinated how you are driven to view the Inquiry as a plot and those who oppose your dillusions as possessed." And if Missy2 or SNAP are correct, that will be reflected in the ultimate findings of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Justice Cunningham may well conclude that Mayor McCallion did nothing wrong. I've participated in the process. As a speaker, interviewee and right there in the courtroom. It was Clifford Lax however who confirmed 100% in my mind that the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry IS the real thing. (And not like a City of Mississauga "investigation" of Pretend-Cover-Up)
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Missy2
Jul 31, 2010 5:48 AM
@ Muse and UAta
I don 't need to read Royson James or anyone else in the media looking to use this as good column fodder, to tell me what and how to think. I need to do what I already do which is read the inquiry transcripts in detail everyday and make up my own mind based on the facts. And you can say what you want and I'm sure you're frustrated by it, but so far there is nothing there that proves that the Mayor did anything but her job. To be clear, I'm not saying my mind is made up, the inquiry still has a ways to go. I'm simply stating the truth, that nothing that has been presented to date can be used to find any wrongdoing, and if it stays like this those who pushed for this inquiry will have some explaining to do. Dismiss me as a Mayor supporter, but once your frustration has subsided, be specific about what finding you think proves there was wrongdoing. Not what you think COULD have happened in one of those meetings, what proof of what DID happen, let's stick to the facts shall we????/
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive 1
ComeOn
Jul 31, 2010 12:34 AM
Hazel McCallion Scandal Shocks Residents
Missy2 or SNAP I really do not care which McCallion you are but you are worth a giggle. Here is a free tip -- at the next friends of Hazel party (might just be u in the room) try checking to see if everyone is dealing with reality by asking them what day it is. I am fascinated how you are driven to view the Inquiry as a plot and those who oppose your dillusions as possessed. Do you get that seven councillors, the majority of Council launched an Inquiry because our Mayor Hazel is blurry on where her office ends and Peter`s business begins. You want to blame anyone call the Mayor.
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 30, 2010 8:18 PM
@ Uatu. Regarding Peter McCallion and Hazel McCallion. I've been scouring the News
Googling "Google News" for all articles on Peter and Hazel McCallion to find JUST ONE article, report, column that is defending their conduct. I can't find one. National Post. Globe. Toronto Star. CBC. Even a Toronto Sun columnist. Not a one is suggesting "Move along nothing to see here". Even Twitter. I found only one Tweet remotely sympathetic. [BEGIN] "revolver__Just left the court house and walked past Peter McCallion going in. Too many effing cameras, honestly." [END] Disagree too many cameras (CBC, CTV, CHCH, ROGERS). But yes, too many effin' click click click click click clicks! And David Culham made that observation too. As did I. It was like they were gorging.
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
Uatu
Jul 30, 2010 7:53 PM
@Missy2
You seem fond of straw men. Perhaps you haven't been following along, but the inquiry has turned up lots of things we didn't know. To assert otherwise is dishonest. For example, who knew Peter McCallion was a principal of WCD? Nobody, apparently, until the inquiry turned that up. What about David O'Brien as a McCallion trustee? Who knew about that? I could go on, but the straw man I really wanted to point out is your claim that the evidence thus far shows "a Mayor who aggressively pursues the City's interest". That's nonsense. Everything so far points to a Mayor who aggressively pursues her son's interest.
* Agree 3
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 30, 2010 7:42 PM
(Needs repeating here) Royson James to MYTHissauga (the highlights) "Step one: End the denials."
"To the army of Hazel McCallion apologists — many itching to re-elect her Oct. 25 — testimony out of the Mississauga judicial inquiry must be painful. At best, Peter McCallion used his mom, the good graces of her Streetsville home and the tax-supported resources of the mayor’s office to feather his own nest." "At worst, he was aided and abetted by the powerful mayor mom who seems to have her hand in every deal, a finger in every transaction, and bared knuckles at the ready to drive hesitant developers to the altar." "Whatever you believe, the public process is badly broken in Mississauga." "'I didn’t do anything wrong. There is no conflict of interest here.' Maybe McCallion believes this, after almost a half century in the public eye — a peculiar “see no evil” focus that exists in Mississauga." " Such behaviour is clearly forbidden in most municipalities. We hope."
* Agree 3
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 30, 2010 7:42 PM
@ Missy2 Thanks for your comment, it's appreciated!
You wrote, "Parrish is desperate. This inquiry that she fought so hard for is turning up nothing except what we already knew: a Mayor who aggressively pursues the City's interest and isn't shy to set certain expectations for developers who operate in this City. " WOW. You need to read Royson James' "End of Denial". (see above)
* Agree 2
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 30, 2010 7:31 PM
Regarding Councillor Maja Prentice
MissyNews writes, "Parrish’s comments drew a rebuke from Councillor Maja Prentice, a supporter of the mayor, who said she believed it was more appropriate to wait until the inquiry ends to take action: 'I believe in hearing all sides of any issue prior to making a decision.'” I've been observing/videotaping/researching Mississauga Council since June 14, 2006. While it might be true that Maja Prentice believes "in hearing all sides of any issue prior to making a decision" her actual DECISIONS are not based on "hearing all sides of any issue". I'd like to add that it's good that MissyNews put Prentice into context, "supporter of the mayor" but I would have added "and opposed to the Judicial Inquiry". Tom Urbaniak described her thus, "Prentice has proven herself to be an unflinching McCallion loyalist". Still. She's almost right. Wait til the end and you make it the call of Cunningham and McDowell.(and yes, I respect/trust them that much).
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive
The Mississauga Muse
Jul 30, 2010 7:15 PM
@ Big E. Please! What's happening isn't right
Don't know how much you've been following the Inquiry but I've attended them as well as watched missing just a few. First, Carolyn Parrish says, “When Peter McCallion filed his affidavit, he was unaware he stood to gain … part of the World Class Developments settlement.” I don't believe that one bit. Remember, he describes himself as the "visionary". A visionary expects to hit a long ball. I'm convinced that he KNEW from the Get-Go he was principal and that's why he set up a trust. (or maybe a trust inside a trust --believe me tough to follow). Second. I agree with William McDowell when he says "Whatever the ins and outs of the evidence, nothing to date persuades me that at the end of July 2010, Peter McCallion can afford to retain council.” This HAS to be a fair process. Cunningham. McDowell. They're finestkind. I trust their judgment.
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
* |
* Offensive
Missy2
Jul 30, 2010 7:14 PM
Parrish is desperate. This inquiry that she fought so hard for is turning up nothing except what we already knew: a Mayor who aggressively pursues the City's interest and isn't shy to set certain expectations for developers who operate in this City. Parrish sees her butt on the line when taxpayers soon realize that we paid $5MM to feed Parrish's political aspirations. She is looking for a diversion and can squirm, but won't avoid her share of the responsibility for this farce. In the end, this inquiry may work in the Mayor's favour, finally removing her foes from Council in the next election.
* Agree
* |
* Disagree 7
* |
* Offensive 1
Big E.
Jul 30, 2010 6:20 PM
Now That's Entertainment!
Good idea but I'm sure there's a precedent in law against making the criminal having to pay the hangman. I wonder what the income of other people living in $800,000 dollar homes is?
* Agree 1
* |
* Disagree 1
Home Page - Main Table of Contents - Back up a page - Back to Top
[COMMENTS BY DON B. - ]