MISSISSAUGAWATCH
MississaugaWatch Mississauga Watch

Hazel McCallion leaves Brampton courthouse after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013) –the PANORAMA

April 12th, 2013  

Today’s video, complete with transcript.

Hazel McCallion leaves courtroom after conflict of interest testimony (April 12, 2013)

 VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS

MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

It is Friday, April the 12th, 2013 and Mayor McCallion has just finished with testifying.

That’s the car, ready to whisk her away.

Let’s see. Who is driving her?

Oh. And I should say that when I ran to get the camera, Harold Shipp had just arrived. So it’s like the “Friends of Hazel” all over again.

That’s Louie Rosella coming out. Mississauga News.

And it looks like the media here are poised to, perhaps ask some questions —I don’t know.

Oh, and I should also say that if you remember, in 2010 [municipal election], one of the things the Mayor asked was to give her councillors that she could work with. And the councillors that she could work with showed up in court today.

Katie Mahoney, Pat Saito —I think that was all though. Am I missing somebody? [Forgot about Pat Mullin]

Going to give this guy privacy [aims camera down just as Mayor McCallion leaves the courthouse…]

Mayor Hazel McCallion leaves Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013

[Video of the media and then the Mayor leaving in a Buick Enclave, that drives right past the camera]

And there’s the Mayor going.

Safe trip to Portugal. And I mean that.

And she’s gone.

And here we —oh, that’s right. Mullin, Pat Mullin is also here.

Councillor Pat Saito leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Hi Ursula. How are ya?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Fine. How are you?

Councillor Pat Saito leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

I’m good thanks.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

And here we have Katie Mahoney [followed by CTV cameraman and towards yet another.]

Katie "It's not hard to support our Mayor. Trust me." Mahoney leaves Hazel McCallion's conflict of interest trial (April 12, 2013)

Councillor Pat Mahoney leaving Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Okay Pat! Help me out here!

MISSISSAUGAWATCH outside Brampton courthouse, April 12, 2013 Hazel McCallion conflict of interest trial

Actually, what’s interesting is that is [sic] three of the four women who were the councillors at the “Friends of Hazel” Rally. The only one missing is Maja Prentice who has since retired.

And I love what Katie Mahoney said on December 2, 2009. “It’s not hard to support our Mayor. Trust me.”

And there’s Harold Shipp.

Okay. Any bets “witch hunt” appears twice in his interview?

And just to be clear, he’s making comments though he wasn’t in the courtroom —as far as I know.

And there’s Parrish…

And… this person’s running over.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS
Music: Don’t Crash the Ambulance/Mark Knopfler

 And for those who wish to do their homework?…

Bonnie Crombie and her “same two hundred” Friends of Hazel –THE COMEDY

And here’s what I was doing in September 2007.

ROYSON JAMES, TORONTO STAR 2007 billboard "MISSISSAUGA, WHERE THE MOST OVERPAID MUNICIPAL POLITICIANS RESIDE"

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 8, 2013

April 10th, 2013  

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100341223971604704180/RandomPics#4992822450712150034

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
(removed from Internet)

 

This is a summary of notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house on April 8, 2013. For the record, I’m not all that confident as to their accuracy (Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh talked too fast for me to keep up at times). And I’m ashamed to admit that just before the afternoon break I actually dozed off right in the courtroom.

Next, while accredited media are permitted access to the Internet (to tweet live, for example) I have no such luxury. It would have been nice to examine minutes of meetings that I knew to be online at the Peel Regional Council website.

For readers genuinely interested in the Hazineh v McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, I encourage you to read Toronto Star, San Grewal’s tweets at:  https://twitter.com/sangrewal1


NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 8, 2013

10:10 am Justice John Sproat grants me permission to take notes using my laptop.

Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh, up with some housekeeping issues.

Freya Kristjanson, lawyer for Mayor Hazel McCallion, now up

Straight out the gate, Kristjanson raises issue regarding credibility. Asks to hear evidence from Hazineh orally —to get him on the stand. Kristjanson refers to a newspaper article Tab 1b p 11 of the record. Article dated July 10, 20(10?) by Megan O’Toole.

Kristjanson asks Justice Sproat to find that Hazineh had knowledge of the Conflict back in July 2010. So Kristjanson insists that there’s a direct contradiction between what Hazineh had stated in his sworn affidavit and what he said during cross-examination.

Kristjanson says that the legal question then becomes what can you do between a conflict between affidavit and cross-examination. Kristjanson insists that there’s a specific credibility issue re Hazineh’s knowledge and time he had it. Then refers to Hazineh as a “straw man” (implication “straw man” for Carolyn Parrish).

Thomas Richardson, the lawyer representing Elias Hazineh, now up

Richardson reminds Justice Sproat that Hazineh was cross-examined in December 2012 and that McCallion’s lawyers raised no concerns regarding time Hazineh had knowledge then or the months afterwards. That McCallion’s lawyers waited until yesterday at 3 pm to raise their contradiction concern.

Richardson then states that given the lateness (McCallion’s lawyers had four months to advise them of a problem)  “we oppose the request” (to put Hazineh on the stand today).  Richardson then suggests Kristjanson/McIntyre’s intent is to disrupt the case.

Judge Sproat then admits that he has not read all of the Hazineh cross-examination —or might have— but didn’t recognize significance of the knowledge contradiction at the time.

Richardson then dissects the July 2919 O’Toole article that Hazineh might or might not have read.

Richardson then asks that Kristjanson’s Application to call Elias Hazineh to the stand be refused or at least delayed.

Freya Kristjanson back again…

Kristjanson perfectly content to leave decisions regarding Hazineh giving testimony completely up to Judge. Justice Sproat was loathe to call Hazineh to testify cold, said Hazineh has had no preparation from his lawyer.

So the Judge won’t make a ruling on this motion as to when/if Hazineh will testify right away.  Judge Sproat said he’ll inform Richardson later today or tomorrow.

Thomas Richardson, lawyer for Elias Hazineh is now free to present his case.

Richardson now presents his case and some background.

Richardson states that Hazel McCallion, not only voted on Peel’s Development by-law, she also proposed two amendments to that by-law. This, Richardson points out, would have benefited her son, Peter McCallion.

Richardson states that at the September 6, 2007 Peel General Committee, Regional mayors/councillors considered new development charges/rates as well as grand-fathering any existing applications.

Richardson states that on September 13, 2007. Peel Council approved the September 6, 2007 General Committee recommendations and that Mayor McCallion participated in that vote. In addition to voting McCallion suggested amendments that rate increase deadlines be extended 18 months to Nov 1, 2009 “in areas of intensification” ie: Mississauga’s “urban growth centre”.

These areas of intensification and the urban growth centre included her son’s World Class Development (“WCD”) lands.

Richardson states that at the  September 27, 2007 Peel General Committee, Peel Staff recommended against grand-fathering existing application since that meant a $28m in lost revenue to the Region.

Richardson states that at the October 4, 2007 Peel Council meeting, McCallion voted to pass the Development rate increase bylaw  in a recorded vote.. The Mississauga Mayor participated in debates and voted on all by-laws and amendments. The amendments were even seconded by her. By doing so she saved her son Peter as much as $11 million dollars in rate increases.

Richardson states that McCallion knew two years before that son was involved in WCD.

Richardson states that he intends to prove, that Hazel McCallion participated in and voted on the Peel development fees by-law and related amendments in September and October 2007. Amendments, Richardson said, had the potential to save World Class Development millions. Richardson also intends to prove that Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest was known —and that it was not a “general interest”.  Richardson insists that the Mayor’s failure to declare a conflict was not a result of error or inadvertence as the defense suggests.

Richardson states that he seeks the following relief: That Hazel McCallion has contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. That Justice Sproat declare McCallion’s seat vacant in Mississauga and Peel. And to disquality McCallion as a member of Mississauga/Peel Councils for 7 years.

Richardson then quotes President John F. Kennedy. “No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior by those who conduct the public business. There can be no dissent from the principle that all officials must act with unwavering integrity, absolute impartiality and complete devotion to the public interest.”

Richardson points out that Ontario’s first Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCOI) was enacted in 1972.

[Ed. Richardson quotes from several cases and I can’t keep up. This portion of my notes has a big hole in it.]

Richardson then reminds the court that “No man can serve two masters” –that even well-meaning people can become impaired when personal interests are in play. He coaches that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act must be construed broadly. Richardson also reminds us that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act was in force the entire time that Hazel McCallion was Mayor of Mississauga and before that, when she was Mayor of Streetsville!

Richardson now refers now to Hazel McCallion’s 1982 Conflict of Interest case.

Richardson then details the MCOI Act: that the MCOI imposes a duty on Council. That where a Member, either on his own or someone else’s behalf, has any pecuniary interest direct/indirect, that Member has three obligations. 1. Disclose the interest 2. Shall not take part in discussion or any vote. 3. Shall not attempt in any way to influence voting.

Richardson tells the court that pecuniary interest is not defined in the Act. But that pecuniary interest is not to be narrowly defined. Richardson states that pecuniary interest is not just clear and very significant interest –but ALL.

Richardson states that “indirect pecuniary interest” is defined in Act. He says that there will be some evidence with respect to Peter McCallion’s involvement as “indirect pecuniary interest” of the Mayor because her son, Peter had DIRECT pecuniary interest in World Class Developments.

Section 3 of Act says “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.”  So Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest in WCD is also a pecuniary interest of the Mayor.

Richardson states that a key consideration of this court is what knowledge the Mayor had back in Sept/Oct 2007 of her son’s involvement in WCD. Items voted on must have the potential of affecting the pecuniary interest of the Member –but it’s also important to gauge how this pecuniary interest is perceived by the public.

Richardson states that the test is an objective one —that it doesn’t matter how a member votes, the Act demands that public duty not conflict with economic self-interest.

Richardson points out that the Act has exceptions and may be raised as a defense. 4(j) –”by reason of the member having a pecuniary interest which is an interest in common with electors generally”.

Defined in Section 1 of the Act “’interest in common with electors generally’ means a pecuniary interest in common with the electors within the area of jurisdiction”.

Richardson says that the votes in question relate to the Region of Peel development by-law and that this by-law applies across Peel. But doesn’t apply to voters at large but only to those who had applications subject to development charges —if the developer was able to bring in transition period.

So, Richardson concludes, those benefiting from the Peel Development by-law grand-fathering was a select group. Only those able to build in the time constraints of provisions.

Richardson states that the word “generally” in the MCOI Act means that ratepayers might benefit from the Peel Development By-Law in some way, but in fact, that doesn’t preclude a smaller group from benefiting much more. So the concept of “community of interest” deals with kind but not degree of interest.

McCallion’s lawyers will claim the Mayor to be exempt and have two bases for this claim. 1. There was no potential for World Class Developments to benefit. 2. That Peter McCallion was limited to real estate agent.

Richardson insists that the fundamental question is, would a reasonable electorate given knowledge of “apprised of all the circumstances” conclude there was a financial benefit depending on how the Member disposes of the subject matter? (Cited this test from a case.)

This is an objective test –must be reasonably viewed as having influenced the member. Richardson then refers to the Lorello case. [Ed. And I fall behind in my notes]

Richardson states that at time of the vote, there was a possibility that Peter McCallion and World Class Developments would have benefited.

Judge Sproat then asks for details relating to the concept of “remoteness”. Richardson cited a case where it was argued that a particular interest was “highly speculative and theoretical” but the court rejected this argument. It ruled that Conflict of Interest “Prohibition applies at every step.”

Richardson explained that remoteness relates to the potential for financial interest and not to whether the matter proceeds or not. The bottom-line question is: “Is there a financial interest?”, not: “Is the matter (project) likely to proceed?”

Richardson refers to a case where a councillor voted on a top soil removal application where he was actually the real estate agent for the land. The money could be considered insignificant but the public perception of a land deal must also be considered.

Even where a project is the “early step in a long process”.

[Ed. I missed what came next. Richardson citing lots of cases and quickly]

Richardson points out that the enforcement of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act is left to the Judge of a Superior Court. There is no public agency to enforce the Act. Or public funds. Laying charges under the Act is left exclusively to the electorate.

Richardson now tells Judge what the Act says is his duty and reminds all that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not distinguish long-serving or popular officials.

Court recess.

Judge Sproat enters at 11:55.

Judge Sproat revisits McCallion’s lawyers’ protests that there must have been some communication between Parrish and Hazineh. So the Judge asked whether anyone had asked Parrish if she communicated her knowledge to Hazineh. Judge then points out that some of the same arguments that apply to Hazineh also apply to Parrish.

Richardson still on.

Richardson repeats what he said before recess —that the Act does not distinguish between long-serving/popular members. And added that a judge can’t consider the effect his decision might have on municipality either.

Turning to his factum, Richardson says that the Act is “crystal-clear” and “harsh” since it deals with citizens’ “highest trust” The Act demands that elected officials are not just “unshirkingly-honest” but “be seen to be so”.

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act provides two savings provisions. If the Act is found to be contravened, the Judge can find inadvertence or error in judgement.

Richardson points out that inadvertence or error in judgement “is not a defense”. They only apply when a member has been found to contravene the Act. And only apply to penalties.

Richardson now refers to his Apply Factum.

Richardson explains that inadvertence refers to a failure to direct one’s mind to his duty.

He goes on to say that willful blindness cannot be applied as inadvertence. McCallion claims her actions were “honest belief” of general applications.

[Ed. Again…going too fast…. missed Richardson’s point]

Richardson reminds the court that every action can be claimed to be an error in judgement. Even criminal acts are errors in judgement.

Case law says this about errors in judgement: Acting in good faith that results in errors of judgement still requires “honesty, candour and complete good faith”. Members aren’t expected to be perfect.

Richardson says that there is a difference between honest belief and good faith —there must be some diligence to understand one’s obligation. Ford had an honest belief. However that judge stated an error in judgement must have occurred honestly and in good faith. Good faith ….means diligence to understand.

Ignorance of the law, willful blindness —both are incompatible with the error in judgement safety provision.

Richardson states that acting recklessly or being willfully blind can’t be error in judgement under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The member should demonstrate some kind of concern for conflict of interest –like getting or relying on a legal opinion.

Flawed understanding is not an excuse in Ford case. While Mayor Ford may have honestly believed –Richardson states that it would undermine the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act to rely on error of law. Good faith demands that Mayor Ford pursue clarification and not rely on his subjective interpretation.

Richardson says that a member must not just claim honest belief but must also show he/she took some reasonable steps –diligence— with respect to his duties under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

In cross-examination, Mayor McCallion explained that she believed that the Peel Development by-law was general application. McCallion said “it affects all taxpayers”. Yet the Mayor gave no evidence that she obtained a legal opinion on this.

Richardson said that (Applicant) Elias Hazineh is a taxpayer/resident in Mississauga. That Hazineh is heavily involved in advocacy and passionate about Canadian politics. He’s an immigration consultant as well. Over the last few years Hazineh has developed interest in McCallion’s conflict of interest issues. For example, he supported Judicial Inquiry.

Hazineh personally attended two Inquiry proceedings and watched others on TV.

Hazineh attended October 3, 2010 Cunningham report. Was present at the press conference as well. Richardson said that Hazineh has since reviewed press conference on YouTube. Now quoting what she said.

Hazineh then read an article (October 11, 2011) in Mississauga News by Clay Connor “McCallion may not be out of the woods”. From that article he learned McCallion may have been in breach at Peel October 4, 2007. Hazineh also determined that any Peel conduct/vote was outside the Judicial Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.

Hazineh learned about the grandfathering of development charges. Learned that World Class Developments would save $9M approximately. Learned Mayor McCallion did not declare a conflict at Peel meetings and also voted on the issues. Prior to that he was not aware of the voting.

Then Hazineh shared his concerns with Carolyn Parrish and contacted her. Parrish confirmed to Hazineh the that  Inquiry did not deal with Peel and the voting there.

Richardson then reviewed the legal requirements for standing. Must be an elector. Canadian citizen. At least 18. Reside in municipality. Allowed to vote under law.

NEXT SECTION –ON LIMITATIONS

Richardson stated that evidence of Hazineh’s knowledge was not challenged or rebutted by the Mayor’s legal team. An elector can apply to a judge within 6 weeks to when a suspected conflict of interest comes to his knowledge.

Richardson’s position is that Hazineh is in compliance under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

By contrast, the position of Mayor McCallion’s lawyer is that Hazineh ought to have known well before the application date –especially considering his relationship with Parrish.

The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act says, “No application shall be brought under subsection (1) after the expiration of six years from the time at which the contravention is alleged to have occurred”. Richardson submits that 2013 is within six years of events in 2007.

Richardson states that six years used because member of the public needs time to “get it” –a ratepayer in the first instance may have little knowledge in pecuniary interest in a member.

Richardson is still on the Reply Factum.

Richardson continues. The elector must have knowledge that the elected official was present at a meeting and that the member failed to disclose a conflict, took part in related discussion/vote. Or before/after any meeting, the member attempted to affect voting.

Richardson suggests that the savings World Class Developments could have enjoyed from the transitional provisions of the Peel Development by-law was more like $11M than $9M.

Richardson says Hazineh really didn’t “get it” til October 2011 reading the Connor article.

McCalllion’s lawyers defend that Hazineh should have known prior because of the knowledge of Parrish. Richardson states that there’s no evidence that is so.

Richardson states that the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act does not impose citizens the duty to monitor a municipal council.

The Act’s Sec 9 sub1 states, “Subject to subsection (3), an elector may, within six weeks after the fact comes to his or her knowledge that a member may have contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3), apply to the judge for a determination of the question of whether the member has contravened subsection 5 (1), (2) or (3). R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50, s. 9 (1).”

Richardson now ends the issue of limitations relating to the Act.

Judge Sproat now ponders whether additional witnesses need to testify. Says he wants to deal with that issue ASAP

Break til 2:15 PM

Court starts precisely at 2:15 pm

Richardson addresses Development Charges Act and states that prior to the Act, Mississauga had a system of levies stating that development had to pay for itself. Richardson suggests that Mississauga was even belligerent about “Growth must pay for itself“.

Now reading Act stating “The council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development of the area to which the by-law applies.” Richardson emphasizes the word “increased”.

[Ed. I can’t follow his argument re application/restrictions of the Act. Getting highly specific here]

Richardson stated that people “developing” their house (adding on) do not pay development charges.

The Development Charges Act says a by-law can allow for transition periods. Transition periods are intended to allow developments in process to continue to pay original charges.

Richardson then examines the specific of the Peel Development by-laTRATRw that McCallion voted on. Still working from his factum. Richardson states that both Mississauga and Peel impose development charges. But they are distinct from each other.

Richardson tells the court that development charges are linked to development –growth, not repair. So growth must pay for itself (to keep pace with infrastructure).

Richardson points out that in 2007 Hazel McCallion voted against grandfathering . In 2007 she voted for transition period stating, “It will have a negative impact for development in Mississauga.”

Regarding the Peel Development by-law, McCallion also said “It will add $7,000 to the cost of a condo unit”. Richardson points out that McCallion said that she can’t remember making that statement.

Richardson argues that the development charges are not general application but discrete –applying only to those applications on or before June 1, 2007 and issued on or before September 13, 2007 –applies where an application is sufficient by certain date. (Meaning the bylaw’s impact really starts to narrow it down).

Richardson states that development charges for a hotel would be 83.1% and condo units would be 88.9%.

Richardson states that around this time staff and politicians were keeping an eye on how they stacked up to other GTA municipalities.

Richardson maintains that the Development by-law applied to “a discrete group of possible beneficiaries”.

Now onto transition period.

Richardson says that Development Charges Act is silent on transition periods. Municipalities try to be fair and equitable. But clearly there was a change of thinking happening in presentations to Mayor/Councillors.

Then Richardson deals with Mayor’s involvement in the process. He introduces a letter from McCallion’s office regarding an arterial road saying this shows that the Mayor knows what’s what, is interested in what’s what —and is not thinking regionally but rather for Mississauga only.

Regarding the report on transitioning. Staff were also asked to ponder a phase-in (different from transitioning). It turned out that delaying implementation of Development fees for 1 year could results in a revenue loss of $80M.

Richardson made it clear that the issue is not whether the Peel by-law is one of general application but whether the pecuniary interest of Mayor/son is one with the general public. Meaning, is Peter McCallion’s pecuniary interest (and the Mayor’s)  in common with the electorate generally.

“Transition costs the taxpayers money” said Hazel McCallion under cross-examination.  “Costing money” is not the pecuniary interest of Peter/Hazel. His interest is paying as little as possible. “one of general issue” misses the point.

After recess  3:55 pm and beyond…

Richardson still up.

Richardson says that the September 6, 2007 Peel General Committee meeting is critical with respect to approval of Peel’s Development by-law.

[Ed. Something about acknowledged good relationship between Peel Staff and development industry. Couldn’t write what Richardson said fast enough]

Richardson says that McCallion moved a 90-day transition for non-residential. So the amendment extended to May 1, 2008.

In cross-examination, Mayor Morrison swore that she shared her concern that there were projects that would not proceed in Caledon if there weren’t a transition period.

[Ed. Then I couldn’t follow what Richardson said for about 10 minutes! Getting tired…]

Richardson then outlines a chronology of events.

Onto the September 13, 2007 meeting. At this meeting another staff report was received. 2007 Development Charges by-law. See Final Technical Adjustments re Developmental Charges by-law. Included amended adjustments and rates.

Fennell requested item in Sept 6th General Committee meeting’s minutes be reconsidered. Amended that 2007 residential and non-residential be adopted subject to the transition provision (the extended one). [Ed. He’s reading the amendment –can’t follow.]

That resolution took the recommendation from General Committee, move the recommendation with some amendments and also carries over the amendment by McCallion.

Richardson said that at same meeting, after Council approved, entries states, Fennell puts forward to reconsider resolution, carried by 2/3 majority vote.

Fennell moved and McCallion seconded –amended to include transition period for high density be extended to November 1, 2009! (Reminder, before this the transition period was May 1, 2008!) And that Staff devise plan for implementation.

Moved by Fennell/seconded McCallion Sept 6 resolution is amended Passed something  and then amended it and then?…  [Ed. Again, so convoluted I can’t follow Richardson’s arguments here.]

Richardson now summarizes. Peel Council approved Council minutes with previously proposed amendment. Then Fennell reopens previous meeting minutes. Then Fennell moves amendment to something already approved. Then extends transition from 3 months to 18 months. And eventually move that the minutes of the previous Sept meeting be approved!

Richardson points out that the two amendments dealt with that Council meeting were either moved or seconded by Hazel McCallion.

Richardson has come to a break in his submission.

Judge will be here tomorrow at 8 am.

COURT NOTES FOR APRIL 8, 2013 END

Last, I’d appreciate being advised of any errors.

Hazel McCallion's Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments' Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie

Hazel McCallion’s Thanksgiving Dinner with World Class Developments’ Peter McCallion (son) and Leo Couprie
Photo credit and special thanks to Peter McCallion, October 7, 2006.
https://picasaweb.google.com/100341223971604704180/RandomPics#4992822464988250130

Hazel McCallion’s Conflict of Interest hearing, Hazineh v. McCallion. Notes from Brampton Superior Court, April 3, 2013

April 7th, 2013  

Peter McCallion LinkedIn " Owner World Class Group Inc.  January 2010 – Present (3 years 4 months)" saved 130403 Brampton courthouse cafeteria

Peter McCallion LinkedIn “Owner World Class Group Inc. January 2010 – Present (3 years 4 months)”
saved 130403 Brampton courthouse cafeteria

 

The purpose of today’s blog  is to summarize notes taken during Mayor Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest hearing at Brampton court house.

For the record, it was a long session and by the end of it, the only Traditional Media still there was San Grewal, urban affairs reporter with the Toronto Star.

Grewal generated over 100 tweets from court room 201 yesterday from beginning:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 3 Apr

Hazel McCallion’s hearing #Missypoli about to begin. Will set up the players.

to end:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 3 Apr

#Missypoli Wrapping up. Back Monday with ruling on evidence and decision about when the mayor will take the stand

You can follow him on Twitter  @sangrewal1

NOTES from the Mayor Hazel McCallion Conflict of Interest hearing, Brampton courthouse, April 3, 2013

Freya Kristjanson, Hazel McCallion’s lawyer addressing Justice John Sproat

Issue 1

Kristjanson wanted only “relevant and admissable evidence”.

Kristjanson states court must be confident that documents are authentic.

Kristjanson asking for “evidence to be struck” and that documents be used as “truth of their content”.

Kristjanson states that Mississauga Judicial Inquiry transcripts are “limited as to truth”. [Ed. if you were at the Inquiry to experience some of those witnesses you’d understand why.]

Kristjanson urged that no evidence from the Inquiry shall be used or be receivable. [Ed. Beside this, I’d written the comment, “So nothing McCallion said at the Inquiry can be used now? Fuck me!” and “Fascinating how McCallion and municipal councils warble ‘We are accountable!’ —until it’s tested.”]

Kristjanson did not want the Inquiry report admissible as a public document. [Ed. Beside this, I’d written the comment, “Did I get that right?]

Kristjanson states that Carolyn Parrish relied on testimony of Marilyn Ball (David O’Brien’s wife) and wants that evidence struck too because it was not a civil proceeding and had there been cross-examination things might have gone differently.

Issue 2

Kristjanson asks for ruling as to the knowledge of the elector, Elias Hazineh.

Kristjanson states Marilyn Ball’s evidence should not be regarded as truth.

Issues 3 and 4 dealt together

Issue 3 “unattributed hearsay”

Kristjanson states “contentious matters”, defined as something that is in dispute or where there are differences between the parties, should be struck.

Kristjanson states “improper hearsay” or irrelevant information should be struck.

Kristjanson reference to paragraph 4, maintaining that to leave that evidence in the record can be “embarrassing”.

Issue 3 “no personal knowledge”

Kristjanson objected to the statement, “Many members of the public were calling for a Judicial Inquiry” as improper hearsay.

Kristjanson objected paragraph 52 as a broad, large statement regarding Mayor McCallion’s conduct and activities without attribution. She claimed it was also contentious and should be struck.

Kristjanson objected paragraphs 72 through 75, dealing with a legal conclusion to the Declaration of Trust —the controversial issue of the case.

Kristjanson turns to the Carolyn Parrish affidavit and insists Parrish has no personal knowledge and that Parrish’s statements are made without a source or referencing the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

Kristjanson calls statements by the City Solicitor as hearsay and even double hearsay.

Kristjanson states that the ownership of World Class Developments is a “highly contentious issue”.

Issue 4 Hearsay documents of contentious matters

Kristjanson frets about the issue of authenticity of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry exhibits/documents asking them to be struck because they weren’t authenticated.

Kristjanson stated that they conceded authenticity of certain Inquiry documents —but not their admissibility.

Kristjanson conceded authenticity of certain documents (emails, loan agreement, Declaration of Trust). And there was reference to Exhibit 22 and agreement as to authenticity because it was publicly filed and stamped. [Ed. Found it odd that Kristjanson (the same lawyer in the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry) never squawked about the authenticity of a single exhibit between July through December 2010… ]

At 11:25 am Kristjanson is still on the floor seeking for information to be struck…

Kristjanson now fretting about a version of the Application Record that has a Mississauga Judicial Inquiry stamp on it.

Kristjanson now objecting to the Emilio Bisceglia (Counsel to World Class Developments Limited) document from the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website as “replete with triple hearsay”.

Kristjanson seems to imply that there’s nothing on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website that can be trusted as authentic! Kristjanson states that “all fall in the initial hurdle of authenticity”.

And so, Kristjanson also asks that statements made by both Hazineh and Parrish be struck.

NOON BREAK OVER

Fascinating! Kristjanson now dealing with Peter McCallion’s sworn affidavit, saying a recanted affidavit can’t be relied on as truth. [Ed. Wondering how many others in the courtroom are wondering if the original affidavit is the truth and that’s why it was recanted!]

Kristjanson now insisting that it’s insufficient to rely on the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website for documents. Kristjanson states you can’t say, “I verily believe this to be true because I got it off a website.” [Ed. Yes. Kristjanson really implied that the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website was just any website and therefore not a reliable source! My notes states, “Looks like Kristjanson believes that for citizens to bring forth Conflict of Interest charges they must have personal knowledge   —aka be fortunate enough to be a fly on the wall.”]

Thomas Richardson, lawyer for Elias Hazineh now up.

Richardson responds saying that Mississauga Judicial Inquiry documents were confidential until they were made public by the Judicial Inquiry. That it’s not reasonable for an elector to ignore Mississauga Judicial Inquiry documents/information when it was through revelations in the Inquiry itself that Hazineh expected the conflict of interest took place.

Richardson then states there’s something of a conundrum. That there’s no real difference between reading something in a newspaper or at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry website except the Inquiry website is more reliable! Richardson points out that both parties at the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry used documents for cross-examination.

Richardson makes the point that the existence of a document or what it says it not contentious, but rather the conclusions that may be drawn. Richardson then asks Justice John Sproat to accept the evidence and weight them accordingly.

Kristjanson counters by reminding the court that there’s a difference between case law on Motion and case law on Application. Kristjanson states that no lawyer would ever concede a newspaper article as having been written as truth of their contents, and that when it comes to the Mayor losing her office, the documents have to be authentic. [Ed. I write in my notes, “Seriously. Is there anyone who thinks Hazel McCallion will lose this case?…”]

Regarding Issue 5, Richardson focuses on “the relevant date”, October 4, 2007, the date of her vote at Peel Regional Council. And what she knew about Peter McCallion’s involvement (“Owner”) with World Class Development at that time.

Richardson asks why the distinction between evidence post October 4, 2007 — [Ed. Then I can’t make sense of the notes.]

Richardson then introduces the concept of “probative value” (defined as: “n. evidence which is sufficiently useful to prove something important in a trial. However, probative value of proposed evidence must be weighed against prejudice in the minds of jurors toward the opposing party or criminal defendant. A typical dispute arises when the prosecutor wishes to introduce the previous conduct of a defendant (particularly a criminal conviction) to show a tendency toward committing the crime charged, against the right of the accused to be tried on the facts in the particular case and not prejudice him/her in the minds of the jury based on prior actions.” Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/probative+value)

Kristjanson now up introducing the concept of “viva voce” (defined as: “Latin, With the living voice; by word of mouth. Verbally; orally. When applied to the examination of witnesses, the term viva voce means oral testimony as opposed to testimony contained in depositions or affidavits.” Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Viva+voce)

Hazel McCallion will rely on two defenses in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act should she be found in contravention —inadvertence or error in judgement.

POST 4 PM BREAK

Richardson tells Justice Sproat that they’ll be challenging the credibility of the Mayor with respect to reliance their inadvertence or error in judgment defense.

There’s discussion about how long each of the lawyers will take to state their cases and Kristjanson suggests that there are plenty of disputes on material evidence among the 13 witnesses.

Richardson raises an issue about a letter from William McDowell, Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commission Counsel, and strongly objects to the letter. Richardson states that the letter is attempting to provide legal opinion in the form of an unsworn letter —that McDowell has put himself as an expert as Commission Counsel that he can’t cross-examine!

Kristjanson says that McDowell’s letter is in response to the Hazineh affidavit. There was also reference to an email from Naomi Loewith, also Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Commission Counsel to Clifford Lax, lawyer for the City of Mississauga during the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. [Ed. Can’t make sense of my notes. It was very late by then…]

Post 4:30 pm both lawyers were pondering amount of time needed to present their cases. Kristjanson estimated four days.

There was reference to a “bottomline decision” relating to whether Sproat would entertain evidence after Mayor Hazel McCallion’s votes on October 4, 2007.

COURT NOTES END

Update Sunday, April 7, 2013

I tried to take as accurate notes as possible during the April 3rd court hearing and then transcribe them here. If you notice any errors I’d appreciate correction.

On April 5, 2013 Toronto Star urban reporter San Grewal tweeted:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 5 Apr

#Missypoli A victory for HM. Judge in her conflict case has struck the sworn affidavit by her son. It would have hurt her defence.

and then:

San Grewal@sangrewal1 5 Apr

#Missypoli Looks like Mayor McCallion will be on the stand Thursday and Friday.

There’s no decision yet on whether post October 4, 2007 evidence can be used.

If you’re interested in accurate from-the-courtroom tweets, you can do no better than follow Toronto Star’s San Grewal at:  https://twitter.com/sangrewal1

 

Evidence (Peter McCallion's sworn affidavit) struck from Hazel McCallion's conflict of interest case --YOU decide....

Evidence (Peter McCallion’s sworn affidavit) struck from Hazel McCallion’s conflict of interest case –YOU decide….

Hazel McCallion’s “Friends of Hazel” spin doctors unethically-identical to Rob Ford’s “Ford Nation” spin doctors. Same-same Shame-shame.

December 11th, 2012  

On the third anniversary of the December 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally, MISSISSAUGAWATCH examined Rally photographs taken by Donald Barber —just to see what could be seen.

"Friends of Hazel" NOT "grassroots". Retrospective analysis of December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally. (Photos taken 6 seconds apart by Donald Barber)

Click here to examine Donald Barber’s original (5184 x 8000) size photos

Three years ago, neither Barber or MISSISSAUGAWATCH knew who organized the “Friends of Hazel” Rally –a rally to oppose and stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry.

The December 2, 2009 Mississauga News article, “Hundreds back mayor” simply reported that “The event was hosted by The Friends of Hazel, a grassroots movement comprised of concerned residents of Mississauga.”  Real estate agent Betty Merkley was heralded as a “key organizer” of the Rally but it’s more likely that her primary role was to be the Rally’s citizen-grassroots “face”.

Three years later, MISSISSAUGAWATCH can now confidently tell you there was nothing “grassroots” about the “Friends of Hazel” hosts!

Donald Barber’s photographs provided remarkable insights into that December 2, 2009 evening —the most important being those taken after the Rally was over. Barber’s photos show row upon row upon row of empty chairs —and two groups of people engaged in what appears to be urgent discussion.

Photographs by themselves only capture the briefest of moments. Photos may be worth a thousand words but they’re not that much to go on let alone draw any conclusions.

It was the Jun 14, 2011 Mississauga News Letter to the Editor by Rob Trewartha that proved instrumental in finally confirming exactly who organized the “Friends of Hazel” Rally.

Trewartha’s letter complained about the cost of the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry as “$25 per Mississaugan” and he wrote, “I want my $25 back.”

So I Googled “Rob Trewartha”.

Long story short back in June 2011 as Trewartha wrote his Letter to the Editor creating the illusion he was just a regular Mississauga concerned resident, he was in fact, senior consultant at (Liberal insider) Warren Kinsella’s  Daisy Consulting Group. Trewartha also worked at Daisy Consulting back on December 2, 2009 as well.

Rob Trewartha’s Facebook page provided a goldmine of political information —and Trewartha proved to be one of Betty Merkley’s just five Facebook friends. What luck! But by far the most important stepping stone to researching exactly who organized the “Friends of Hazel” Rally came from Trewartha himself.

DON CHERRY ROB TREWARTHA FRIENDS OF HAZEL RALLY

A November 26, 2010 Facebook entry has Kyle Kerr asking what Trewartha was doing in a photograph smiling next to Don Cherry. To which Trewartha replies:

“At last year’s rally for Hazel. I helped to organize it. Grapes was one of our guest speakers in support of the Mayor.”

Add to this confession photographs and video of Trewartha actively organizing at the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally and Warren Kinsella’s Daisy Consulting’s Rob Trewartha is quite the spin doctor.

For example, a YouTube video featuring Warren Kinsella sketching Stephen Harper as a silly cowboy turned into a Rob Trewartha “I am Canadian and Stephen Harper is not my leader” Facebook Group.

Warren Kinsella's YouTube video "INTERVIEW WITH ANGRY COWBOY STEVE", Rob Trewartha's Facebook page confirm "Friends of Hazel" not "grassroots"

And who can forget Patrick Mendes’ memorable words to his fellow Friends of Hazel when he proclaimed, “We are the wind in Hurricane Hazel!” Truer words were never spoken. “Friends of Hazel”: So much Wind. So little Truth.

Patrick Mendes, Candidate for Ward 10 at the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally

And Surprise! By December 2011 Trewartha became Councillor Bonnie Crombie’s executive assistant.

And Surprise! Surprise! By December 2012, the Toronto Star had its own experience with councillor assistants —this time Ford Nation’s.

Of a Rob Ford administration 26-name list of preferred appointees, the Star writes:

In an attempt at damage control, Ford’s backers on the civic appointments committee insisted they had no knowledge of that and accused Crean of conducting a politically motivated “witch hunt.” The mayor himself said the notion that his office had rigged the process by circulating a list was “an outright lie.”

Now, it turns out that assistants to councillors Giorgio Mammoliti, Michael Thompson and Jaye Robinson were all sent “the mayor’s choices for short-listing” by a Ford staffer. Emails, obtained through the freedom-of-information process, show the supposedly non-existent list had 30 names. All three councillors receiving the missive were on the mayor’s hand-picked executive committee and the civic appointments committee. As reported by the Star’s David Rider, all claim their assistants never showed them the list. And their assistants have somehow lost all memory of having received such an email from the mayor’s office.

It’s not the pathetic denials that shock in this case. Politicians, as a group, have a reputation for playing fast and loose with the facts. What rankles is that — even though a list had obviously been issued — certain members of the Ford administration set out to smear Crean’s reputation as an unbiased upholder of public integrity.

That’s unconscionable. These people have no shame.

Toronto’s Ford Nation Mammoliti, Thompson and Robinson’s assistants or Bonnie Crombie’s little red riding hood Rob Trewartha —identical. Identical…

"Friends of Hazel" Rally organizer Rob Trewartha (of Warren Kinsella's Daisy Consulting) stands mere feet from MISSISSAUGAWATCH Photo by Donald Barber December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally)

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion makes her grand entrance at the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally to stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry
Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion makes her grand entrance at the December 2, 2009 “Friends of Hazel” Rally to stop the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry

Mayor Rob “Above the Law” Ford and Ontario’s Purposely-Deceptive Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

November 29th, 2012  

Here’s my report on Mayor Rob Ford’s removal from Office as well as my take on the contemptuously-deceptive Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

This video also includes comments about the Act’s “Removal of Office” penalty by Justice Douglas Cunningham (Mississauga Judicial Inquiry findings, October 3, 2010).

Mayor Rob “Above the Law” Ford and Ontario’s Purposely-Deceptive Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (2:42 min)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

His chronic contempt for the City of Toronto’s Integrity Commissioner! The trampling of all of these rules!

It’s clear in Rob Ford’s behaviour —and his bully-boy-brother, Doug Ford— that rules are for other people. Not for them. It doesn’t apply to them.

He’s Above the Rules.

To me, Rob Ford did violate the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. And he did it on purpose.

But as God is anyone’s witness, I never thought that the Judge would therefore drop down the hammer and vacate the Mayor’s seat.

Never in a million years.

And a lot of people are in shock.

You know, that’s kind of the stupidity of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act—that there was only one penalty, which is removal of office.

Commissioner Douglas J. Cunningham, statement regarding findings of Mississauga Judicial Inquiry. Mississauga Council Chambers, October 3, 2011

There is still a role for the MCIA, the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Having said that, where a member has acted in contravention of the conflict of interest provisions in the Act, currently removal from office is the only sanction. I believe that lesser sanctions should be made available, for example, suspension of the member, a form of probation or a public reprimand.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Mississauga Council Chambers, November 29, 2012

And the other thing about the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. It was first passed in 1972. And 1972 is an interesting time.

You had John Robarts being the Premier of Ontario in 1971 and then 1972 you had Bill Davis take over the Premiership.

But it was clearly kind of something—a piece of legislation that’s passed in 1972. Guaranteed it will have been talked about and kneaded and molded as early as 1970-71.  But—

I don’t know what those people were thinking back then—the only penalty is going to be removal of Office?

Removal of Office is—is something I don’t think any judiciary really wants to go with.

Was it willful?

In Rob Ford’s case, it’s willful. because pretty much every day he does this—

ROB FORD MIDDLE FINGER

—to the rules and the standards of behaviour at the City of Toronto. Including the Council Code of Conduct.

This guy does not do Rules.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Last, I just want to add, for the record, this video of Peter Akman, ‏CBC News Reporter & Video Journalist, asking Hazel McCallion, Councillors Pat Mullin and Nando Iannicca about the Mayor’s upcoming Conflict of Interest hearing.

And gets almost some answers.

CBC NEWS interviews Hazel McCallion, Pat Mullin and Nando Iannicca about Conflict of Interest (3:00 min)



(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

 

 

 

 

Mississauga Power Plants, Dalton McGuinty, Charles Sousa, Bonnie Crombie’s “Friends of Hazel”, MYTHissauga Summit, Land Transfer Tax….

November 18th, 2012  

All I want to do for today’s blog is to share all recent videos. Just for the record in the order I uploaded them to YouTube.

Hazel McCallion re: her discussion with Premier Dalton McGuinty on Mississauga Power Plant
(June 22, 2011 Mississauga Council meeting)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

MISSISSAUGA POWER PLANTS: Charles Sousa addresses Council opposing Power Plant in Clarkson
(April 8, 2009 Mississauga Council meeting)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Mississauga South MPP Charles Sousa and MYTHissauga’s Politics of Power Plants
(September 30, 2009 Mississauga Council meeting)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Mississauga Summit + Friends of Hazel = MYTHissauga’s “same 200” (THE COMEDY)


(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Toronto Star Interviews Hazel McCallion about the Land Transfer Tax (also Pat Saito and Jim Tovey)

(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

I see too that the National Post’s Megan O’Toole has come out with “Even in her ‘last’ term Hazel McCallion grip on Mississauga council still solid”.

Have to laugh at Councillor Pat Saito claiming, “I don’t see anyone on council at this point in time that I think could step in as mayor in two years” —given she’d be highly familiar with just who mobilizes the “Friends of Hazel”…

Photographs/video of "Friends of Hazel" Rally confirms "Friends" NOT a "grassroots movement" as claimed

That’s it. Enjoy this sunny Sunday.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

Mississauga Summit + Friends of Hazel = MYTHissauga’s “same 200” (THE COMEDY)

November 15th, 2012  

Returned to MYTHissauga Council yesterday. Here’s the video I prepared to commemorate the non-occasion.

Dedicated to all City of Mississauga staff and senior staff who worked so hard on the Mississauga Council Code of Conduct to make it (according to Councillor George Carlson) a “Made in Mississauga” Code!

Mississauga Summit + Friends of Hazel = MYTHissauga’s “same 200” (THE COMEDY)


(Click here to go directly to YouTube)

Video Transcript
Music/Lyrics by Abney Park:The Story That Never Starts

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference parking lot, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

This is at the Hazel McCallion announcement. We already have this piece-of-work right here. Ted Woloshyn.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

They’re waiting for Hazel McCallion to make her announcement, that she will be running for Mayor, for, I think it’s the 12th term now.

And we’ve got the usual suspects over here —including Harold Shipp.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

From the time we are born, the time we’re alive
Waiting for our story to start
We practice all day, we practice all night
But we’re waiting for our story to start

Then we’re taught what is true, we’re taught what is right
We’re taught not to follow our heart
And then, the next thing we know, we’re trapped in a place
Where the story will never start

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

—voted for the Mississauga Judicial—

Alex Crombie, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

Good afternoon everybody.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

—here we go.

Alex Crombie, Hazel McCallion press conference, Streetsville, September 8, 2010

Could I have your attention for a minute? My name’s Alex Crombie and this is Betty Merkley and we’re both volunteers for the Mayor.

On this trip we all bend; we bend and we break
We break all our pacts with ourselves
We merely try to survive and we drop all our goals
And put our dreams all on our shelves

And we’re told our new goals, we’re told our new dreams
They’re nothing like the dreams we once held
And now to follow our dreams we have to buy all this crap
Fulfill the dreams of someone else

But don’t let ’em check you, they’re sucking the wrong brew
The cowards should not steer your life by their own fear
care what you are dreaming; the future is teeming
With stories that want to start

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

From the time we are born, the time of the life
Waiting for our story to start
We practice all day, we practice all night
But we’re waiting for our story to start

Then we’re taught what is true, we’re taught what is right
We’re taught not to follow our heart
And then, the next thing we know, we’re trapped in a place
Where the story will never start

Don’t let ’em check you, they’re sucking the wrong brew
The cowards should not steer your life by their own fear
care what you are dreaming; the future is teeming
With stories that wait to start

Don’t let ’em check you, they’re sucking the wrong brew
The cowards should not steer your life by their own fear
care what you are dreaming; the future is teeming
With stories that wait to start

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

 Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

“Friend of Hazel” Patrick Mendes, “Friends of Hazel” Rally to Stop the Judicial Inquiry, December 2, 2009

My fellow Mississaugans —WE are the wind in Hurricane Hazel! (CHEERS! APPLAUSE!)

“Friend of Hazel” Harold Shipp, “Friends of Hazel” Rally to Stop the Judicial Inquiry, December 2, 2009

Which person will you vote for next time? (CHEERS! APPLAUSE!)

“Friend of Hazel” Councillor Katie Mahoney, “Friends of Hazel” Rally to Stop the Judicial Inquiry, December 2, 2009

I think something that I’d like to really impart to you is, it’s not hard to support our Mayor. Trust me.

Councillor Bonnie Crombie, Mississauga Summit Series April 24, 2012

I have this theory about —it’s only the same 200 people that [sic] are involved in everything in Mississauga.

Video ends with “Friends of Hazel” Rally footage (organizational activity)
and
Scroll of all 1624 signatures on the Cancel the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry Now online petition.

2 Slides shown at the December 2, 2009 "Friends of Hazel" Rally. Rob Trewartha of Warren Kinsella's Daisy Consulting Group helped organize the Rally.

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

MISSISSAUGAWATCH "MISSISSAUGA MUSE" new "The War Room"/Ontario Ombudsman avatar

 “Politics is a nasty, unpleasant, mean-spirited business, which is presumably why some of us are drawn to it. (Many of us are nasty, unpleasant, and mean-spirited people.)”  —Warren Kinsella, 2007

 

City of Mississauga Corporate Security: Mayor Hazel McCallion’s Secretive Police Force

June 26th, 2012  

For the record, the following video documents the Digital Ally video event recorder tucked inside each City of Mississauga Corporate Security Response Unit as well as March 18, 2012 footage of two City of Mississauga Response Units parked outside Peel Police 11 Division at Dundas and Erin Mills Parkway.

As usual, we provide a video transcript.

City of Mississauga Corporate Security: Mayor Hazel McCallion’s Secretive Police Force (6:27 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, reporting from inside City of Mississauga Corporate Security “677” Response Unit,  June 19, 2012

It is Tuesday, June the 19th, 2012 and you won’t believe this, but I’m leaning against and inside a City of Mississauga “knob unit” —”677″. And I’ve come primarily to check on the Digital Ally that was, that I noticed, I guess it was Friday, when I was videotaping it at Celebration Square.

And I was very fortunate because I’ve had the opportunity to talk to Peel Regional Police as well as the OPP. And both Peel Police and OPP do not use video systems in their cruisers.

In the case of the OPP; however, they said they’d love to have them, but you know the problem with money.

But what we have here are security guards that are using Digital Ally in their Police Package Dodge Chargers!

And what I want to do is I just want to take some pictures here. And especially of this.

And of course, I’m videotaping myself because it’s—

I tell you something. It’s really hot in here too.

[to cute little kid 9/10 years old now sitting in the passenger seat] Thank you. That’s cool.

Cute little kid 9/10 years old seated in the “677” Response Unit passenger seat

Where did you get that?

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, photographing Digital Ally from inside City of Mississauga Corporate Security “677” Response Unit,  June 19, 2012

What? My camera? Or the computer?

Cute little kid 9/10 years old seated in the “677” Response Unit passenger seat

The computer.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, photographing Digital Ally from inside City of Mississauga Corporate Security “677” Response Unit,  June 19, 2012

Oh. They have all kinds of interesting stuff on that computer, guy.

Cute little kid 9/10 years old seated in the “677” Response Unit passenger seat

[regarding Digital Ally] I wanna go on YouTube.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, fiddling –you know, inside a City of Mississauga Corporate Security “677” Response Unit,  June 19, 2012

It’s not that kind of camera.

Cute little kid 9/10 years old seated in the “677” Response Unit passenger seat

[inaudible]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, finished photographing Digital Ally inside City of Mississauga Corporate Security “677” Response Unit,  June 19, 2012

I’m not sure you want to push those buttons or not. Okay. Good meeting ya.

[DIP TO WHITE]
[Footage detailing Digital Ally inside City of Mississauga Corporate Security “677” Response Unit]

Includes the following warnings.

Do NOT engage City of Mississauga Corporate Security guards or their bosses without at least an audio-recorder going!

and

Procedure for self-protection following any incident involving Mississauga Corporate Security or City of Mississauga Staff

MOST IMPORTANT!

For your own protection regardless of whether you are in the wrong, as soon as practical after an incident, file a Freedom of Information form requesting:

All records, emails, and any other documents pertaining to [your name].
All records, emails, and any other documents including any video surveillance footage

pertaining to the incident of [date] at [location] involving [your name] and [Mississauga Corporate Security or City staff].

The filing fee is $5.00.

Forms are available at City of Mississauga ONLINE FORM:

Access / Correction Request – Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.


[CROSS DISSOLVE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, driving south on Erin Mills Parkway to Peel Regional Police 11 Division,  March 18, 2012

It is Sunday, March the 18th 2012, —day after St. Patrick’s Day.

And it just occurred to me that I need to file a report.

And I’m going to go here at the Peel Police 11 Division because the Response Units —two City of Mississauga Response Units, that I had seen earlier— I’d gone to buy a Subway in Streetsville and noticed one of —the Response Units —were going together along, let me see, Britannia.

And the one that was following actually had its lights going. And I found that suspicious.

And then later on, I’m driving, just because I like to drive my Dodge Charger [turns off car] and was going this way —let me just do this a little bit here on an angle. There we go.

It’s the —can’t see it from here, I think it’s the “677”, “678” car. It doesn’t matter.

The thing is that I’ll be filing Freedom of Information on what the incident is. And it has to be because like I said, one of those Response Units had their back lights flashing. And now that they’re here I can only assume that —just go back a little bit— that they may have brought a prisoner. And dropped him off here at Peel Police.

And one thing I want, for the record, and it’s important to say —when anybody gets confronted by these security guards, you’re in big trouble. They lie.

[DIP TO WHITE]
[interview with Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

City Staff lie!

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

No. This is on video.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 28, 2012

It is your opinion that City Staff lie and I take exception to that.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH interview with Ken Owen, March 26, 2012

Okay.

Ken Owen, Director, City of Mississauga Facilities/Property Management and Corporate Security, March 26, 2012

City Staff are professional, honest and hard-working and your allegations of lying are completely without foundation.

So stop saying that they lie. They do not lie.

[DIP TO WHITE]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH, driving south on Erin Mills Parkway to Peel Regional Police 11 Division,  March 18, 2012

They have nothing! Nothing in the way of Ethics. Or oversight. And I mean the two go hand-in-hand.

So. One thing I do not want is now for [starts car] you know, to be here and having those security guards walk out and see me here.

So. It’s time to bugger off.

 

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Last. Had to laugh when I was working up this video. As I was examining the June 19th footage, the audio picked up a City of Mississauga Security guard refer to the Digital Ally as a “Digital System” rather than a “Video System”. Or more accurately an on-board video event recorder.

Even funnier (and absolutely shameless) was the City of Mississauga Security guard who told the public “We’re a great service”.

HAHAHAHAAHAHA!

Normally I’d file a complaint but I know the City’s Security public complaints process is totally fraudulent! (And yes, I’m laughing as I type this.)

 

Signed,
MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

Who at City of Mississauga authorized purchase and use of City of Mississauga Corporate Security "Digital Ally" video systems in Security cars when neither Peel or Ontario Provincial Police use video recorders in cars?

Click here to access (2797 x 9616) original sized image on Flickr.

Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police website HACKED by “hacktivist” organization, Anonymous “Snoop on to them as they snoop on to you”

February 25th, 2012  

It’s truly rare that I get to do a quick, fun video.

Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police website HACKED by “hacktivist” organization, Anonymous (1:51 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]
Music: Coyote by Mark Knopfler

MISSISSAUGAWATCH reporting February 25, 2012

It is Saturday, February 25th, 2012 and this is what the Toronto Star looks like.

And just a bit earlier this morning, The Globe and Mail tweet here, “Hackers take down Ontario police chiefs’ website” and when I clicked on the Globe article, and it says:

[The] website of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police has been shut down following an apparent attack by hackers.

A terse message posted on the website says “Under Maintenance.” It was not immediately known who was responsible for the attack.

So, I thought, well, let’s check this out.

So I went to Google and I typed in “Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police”.

It came up immediately —the website. And notice? It says, “Under Maintenance”. So even here in Google, it gives that display. And when you click on it, just go back just a little bit, like so.

That’s all that you’ve got.

Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police  "Under Maintenance" PRINTSCREEN, February 25, 2012

That’s pretty impressive.

Really. That’s pretty impressive that you can do that at the website of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

I AM impressed!

Yep, I’m impressed.

Turning camera off.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Gotta love Anonymous’ mantra, “Snoop on to them as they snoop on to you”.

Here’s an animated GIF of The Misstapo, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion’s own Corporate Security hacks snooping down on her! And during all this, Jamie Hillis, their Security Hack Boss, insisting, “Corporate Security will proceed under all existing guidelines and laws.”

It’s why Canadians have to fight Bill C-30!

Fighting Big Brother is NOT about “if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about”!

Canadians must resist C-30 and internet surveillance because there are plenty of “Jamie Hillises” in Policing and Security! Plenty of “Jamie Hillises” lying about how they will “will proceed under all existing guidelines and laws.”

For IDIOTS (or fascists) who believe that "If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear"... Canadian Mayor's own security snoops on her! ANIMATED GIF

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

RMR: Rick’s Rant – Online Privacy

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 10) Conduct Respecting Staff and the HUGE hidey-hole loophole.

January 19th, 2012  

MISSISSAUGA GOOD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE   January 23 2012
This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 1) Line by line, word by word. Pages 1 through 5 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 4) “providing persons…with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government” Pages 11 through 13 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 5) WTF?! “information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act”?! Pages 14 through 15 of the Code.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 7) Improper Use of Influence and Business Relations. Pages 19 through 20 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications. Pages 21 through 22 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 9) CITIZEN ALERT! Avoid Kafkaesque Rule 12′s Respectful Workplace Policy. Pages 23 through 24 of the Code.

Again, for the record, my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations. Once again, I will cut-and-paste the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct directly into this blog entry and offer comment/criticism [bold italics square brackets] when the need arises. Those interested in accessing the full version of City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011 please click here.

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011  (Page 25 begins)

Rule No. 13

Conduct Respecting Staff:

1. No Member shall compel staff to engage in partisan political activities or be subjected to threats or discrimination for refusing to engage in such activities.

[Interesting wording, “No Member shall compel staff to engage in partisan political activities” Item 1 seems to suggest that staff are free to engage in partisan political activities provided it’s of their free will and choosing. Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

2. No Member shall use, or attempt to use, their authority for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding or influencing any staff member with the intent of interfering in staff’s duties, including the duty to disclose improper activity.

[“duty to disclose improper activity”? Another City expectation that I’ve videotaped staff failing to comply with. Oh well… Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

3. Members shall be respectful of the role of staff to advise based on political neutrality and objectivity and without undue influence from any individual Member or faction of the Council.

[How do politically partisan staff  (who are confirmed to exist at the City) “advise based on political neutrality”? Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

4. No Member shall maliciously or falsely impugn or injure the professional or ethical reputation or the prospects or practice of staff, and all Members shall show respect for the professional capacities of the staff of the City.

[Interesting how there’s no provision in the Council Code of Conduct that states, “No Member shall maliciously or falsely impugn or injure the professional or ethical reputation of members of the public…” Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

Commentary

Under the direction of the City Manager, staff serve the Council as a whole, and the combined interests of all Members as evidenced through the decisions of Council. Only Council as a whole has the authority to approve budget, policy, committee processes and other matters. Accordingly, Members shall direct requests outside of Council-approved budget, process or policy, to the Budget Committee or directly to Council.

In practical terms, there are distinct and specialized roles carried out by Council as a whole and by Councillors when performing their other roles. The key requirements of these roles include dealing with constituents and the general public, participating as standing committee members and as chairs of standing committees, and participating as Council representatives on agencies, boards, commissions and other bodies. Similarly, there are distinct and specialized roles expected of City staff in both the carrying out of their responsibilities and in dealing with the Council. Staff are expected to provide information to Members that they are entitled to. City staff are accountable to the City Manager who is accountable to City Council. Sometimes the line between staff duties and activities that are political in nature is not clear. Members of Council must respect the difference between the two in making requests of staff.

[First, regarding the statement, “Staff are expected to provide information to Members that they are entitled to” —I’m reminded immediately of several Corporate reports that were fudged, with information completely withheld.

As for the statement, “City staff are accountable to the City Manager who is accountable to City Council”, here’s what Mayor Hazel McCallion wrote in a December 20, 2006 email:

“It is true that City staff are not directly accountable to the citizens, since City staff are not elected. However, City Council is accountable to Mississauga residents for the actions of City staff.”  

I believed what the Mayor wrote me right up until I read the Code and its “City staff are accountable to the City Manager who is accountable to City Council”. Certainly, the Mayor chose to make me believe that City Council was accountable for the actions of City staff.

It’s only five years afterwards do I now realize, thanks to the Code, that the Mayor/Councillors are not free to hold staff accountable. The City Manager does that. (Or doesn’t.)

This window-dressing accountability trail was a major revelation inside the Code. It explains why City staff so often fail to comply to Corporate polices, procedures, guidelines, by-laws and even provincial legislation. Elected officials can’t investigate Staff directly! Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

Members of Council should expect a high quality of advice from staff based on political neutrality and objectivity irrespective of party politics, the loyalty of persons in power, or their personal opinions.

[Seriously. Does anyone believe that?! Time and time again, it’s been proven that the only consistently “high quality of advice from staff” comes from Mary Ellen Bench, the City Solicitor and that’s it! Back to Page 25 of the Code.]

The City’s Respectful Workplace policy applies to Members of Council. Staff and Members of Council are all entitled to be treated with respect and dignity in the workplace

[“Staff and Members of Council are all entitled to be treated with respect” —no matter how often they lie, deny and/or stonewall to those they profess to serve. Back to Page 25 of the Code.] 

25

END OF PAGE 25 OF THE CODE. PAGE 26 BEGINS

 

5. It is inappropriate for a Member to attempt to influence staff to circumvent normal processes in a matter, or overlook deficiencies in a file or application. It is also inappropriate for Members to involve themselves in matters of administration or departmental management which fall within the jurisdiction of the City Manager. Any such attempts should be reported to the Integrity Commissioner.

[Item 5’s second sentence, “It is also inappropriate for Members to involve themselves in matters of administration or departmental management which fall within the jurisdiction of the City Manager.” explains why neither the Mayor or any of her Councillors bothered to read a single document that I offered them through Freedom of Information. There was never any point because the Mayor and Councillors do not monitor/discipline staff! 

When you add the next sentence, “Any such attempts should be reported to the Integrity Commissioner.” then Rule No. 13’s Item 5 imposes an impenetrable barrier between City staff and Elected Officials so inclined to hold them accountable.

In Rule 12 Item 2 of the Code, we saw how Mayor/Councillors are protected from an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner:

2. Upon receipt of a complaint that relates to the City’s Respectful Workplace policy and involves a Member, the Integrity Commissioner shall forward the information subject to the complaint to Human Resources who will refer it for an independent investigation.

Meaning City Staff in Human Resources will conduct an”independent investigation” of the Mayor/Councillors and, according to the Code, “will provide guidance to an independent investigator” and of course, select that “independent investigator”. Thus City of Mississauga Elected Officials neatly avoid the Integrity Commissioner conducting an investigation.

While Rule 12 points out that, “Upon receipt of the findings of the independent investigator, the Integrity Commissioner shall make a determination on the application of this Code of Conduct and the merits of the investigation”, seriously, how is that possible without conducting an investigation of the “independent investigator”? (City of Mississauga hires retired staff as “consultants”. Or as Mayor McCallion observed at the January 23, 2012 Good Governance committee meeting, “defeated politicians” morph into “consultants” .)

It’s all perfectly circular: the Code’s Rule 12 ensures that the City’s Human Resources staff protect Mayor and Councillors from an investigation by the Integrity Commissioner and Rule 13 protects all City staff from any Mayor or Councillor who might want to hold an employee accountable. 

I wonder how many other Ontario municipal Council codes of conduct are this slick with illusion and window dressing….

Like the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct has huge hidey-holes in just the right places to create the illusion that the HMS MYTHissauga should spring fewer leaks “going forward”.

Nope.]

26

END OF PAGE 26 OF THE CODE.

HAZEL MCCALLION QUOTE ON STAFF NON-COMPLIANCE TO POLICIES (AUDIT COMMITTEE 090511) "There seems to be a complete disregard for policy." “There seems to be a complete disregard for policy”
—Hazel McCallion, May 11, 2009 Audit Committee

 

Signed, MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

“To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.”

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 8) Conduct at Meetings/When Representing the City and Media Communications

January 14th, 2012  

This blog is a continuation of the following blog entries:

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 1) Line by line, word by word. Pages 1 through 5 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 2) “upholding both the letter of the law and the spirit of the laws and policies” Page 6 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 3) Beware “community events”, “volunteer services”, “arm’s length”… Pages 7 through 10 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 4) “providing persons…with an understanding and appreciation of the City of Mississauga or the workings of its municipal government” Pages 11 through 13 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 5) WTF?! “information deemed to be ‘personal information’ under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act”?! Pages 14 through 15 of the Code.

City of Mississauga’s Elected Officials’ Records policy now online as a companion piece to the City’s Council Code of Conduct.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 6) Use of City Staff, Property, Services etc –and Election Campaigns Pages 16 through 18 of the Code.

Examining The City of Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct. (Part 7) Improper Use of Influence and Business Relations.   Pages 19 through 20 of the Code.

Again, for the record, my goal is to go through The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct, line by line, word by word as preparation for future Council deputations.

Once again, I will cut-and-paste the City of Mississauga Code of Conduct directly into this blog entry and offer comment/criticism [bold italics square brackets] when the need arises.

Those interested in accessing the full version of City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct April 2011 please click here.

 

The City of Mississauga Council Code of Conduct

Council Code of Conduct April, 2011 (Page 21 begins)

Rule No. 9

Conduct of Council at Committee Meetings and When Representing the City:

1. Members shall conduct themselves at Council and committee meetings with decorum in
accordance with the provisions of the Council Procedure By-law.

[To read the City of Mississauga’s  COUNCIL PROCEDURE BY-LAW 421-03 at the City’s website, please click here. Back to Page 21 of the Code.]

Commentary

A Member recognizes the importance of cooperation and strives to create an atmosphere
during Council and committee meetings that is conducive to solving the issues before Council,
listening to various points of view and using respectful language and behaviour in relation to
all of those in attendance.

2. Members shall endeavour to conduct and convey Council business and all their duties in an
open and transparent manner other than for those decisions which by virtue of legislation
are authorized to be dealt with in a confidential manner in closed session, and in so doing,
allow the public to view the process and rationale which was used to reach decisions and
the reasons for taking certain actions.

[There’s that reference to “open and transparent manner” again.  I’m forever reminded of the most outrageous comment ever to refer to “open”:  Councillor Pat Saito, Chair (Mississauga Council meeting, December 13, 2006). In her Christmas address that year, Saito warbled,  “And thank you always to Cable 10 for their ongoing volunteer support in making sure that we have a very open and accountable Council. We heard throughout the campaign that this Council was not open, was not accountable, and all those people running were going to make it open and accountable. And I don’t know of any Council that’s as open and accountable as we are.” 

Imagine Saito believing that ROGERS Cable 10 manager and McCallion puppet, Jake Dheer made sure that Mississauga had “a very open and accountable Council“. Pat Saito knows that Mississauga Council is no more accountable than any other municipal council in Ontario. Accountable just once at the voting booth every four years! And that’s it! Back to Page 21 of the Code.]

Commentary

Various statutes, the Council Procedure By-law and decisions by courts and quasi-judicial
tribunals including the Information and Privacy Commission, establish when City Council can
discuss issues in closed session. Transparency requires that Council apply these rules
narrowly so as to best ensure that decisions are held in public session as often as possible.
Unless prohibited by law, Members should clearly identify to the public how a decision was
reached and the rationale for so doing.

[As I keep saying, it’s what Mississauga doesn’t tell you that you need to know. While it’s true that “[v]arious statutes…establish when City Council can discuss issues in closed session”, the Code fails to inform citizens about Bill 130 Amendments to the Municipal Act. Back in December, 2006, true to form, Mississauga Council blocked citizens’ access to closed meeting investigations conducted by the Ontario Ombudsman. Rather, Councillor Pat “I don’t know of any Council that’s as open and accountable as we are” Saito and her Council-colleagues avoided authentic oversight and hired Local Authority Services, a subsidiary corporation of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to “investigate” closed meeting complaints.

The City of Mississauga hiring its own investigator worked its magic. To this day, no citizen has ever complained about inappropriate in-camera sessions. Back to Page 21 of the Code.]

3. Members shall make every effort to participate diligently in the activities of the
committees, agencies, boards, commissions and advisory committees to which they are
appointed by the City or by virtue of being an elected official.

[PUT A STAR BESIDE THIS ONE! Notice the statement, “Members shall make every effort to participate diligently”? What reasonable person would not agree to “make every effort to participate diligently”? Next question. Think about this: how would a reasonable person define “diligently”? Well, it’s not what you think… Back to Page 21 of the Code.]

Commentary

Individual Members are appointed to committees, agencies, boards and commissions based on
their various backgrounds and their ability to contribute to matters before them, bringing their
expertise and experience.

4. Given that Council and committee meetings are scheduled far in advance to accommodate
the many activities of elected office of a Member, to participate diligently means that a
Member shall not be absent from Council or committee meetings, or from those of
agencies, boards and commissions to which they are appointed by virtue of their status as a
Member, without reasonable justification (for example, illness of the Member, family
circumstance, Regional business) for more than three consecutive scheduled meetings or
on a regular basis.

[That’s right. Item 3 stated, “Members shall make every effort to participate diligently in the activities of the committees” and then we find out that the Council Code defines diligently as nothing more than “a Member shall not be absent from Council or committee meetings etc etc etc  for more than three consecutive scheduled meetings or on a regular basis.”

And here’s the despicable part. The statement that Council Members “are held to a higher standard of behaviour and conduct” appears three times in this Code. And what is the Code’s “higher standard” definition for “participate diligently”? “shall not be absent.. for more than three consecutive scheduled meetings or on a regular basis.”

That’s what I mean by useless paper policies. Just like we discovered about the worthless Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. Citizens are told that “Members shall make every effort to participate diligently” and then are left to assume that’s the same “diligent” in the dictionary — “diligent: characterized by steady, earnest, and energetic effort : painstaking <a diligent worker>”  Nope!

All “diligent” means in this Code is, Members are expected to warm up a black leather chair “on a regular basis”! Back to Page 21 of the Code.]

21

END OF PAGE 21 OF THE CODE. PAGE 22 BEGINS

 

Rule No. 10

Media Communications:

1. Members of Council will accurately communicate the decisions of Mississauga City
Council, even if they disagree with the majority decision of Council, and by so doing
affirm the respect for and integrity in the decision-making processes of Council.

[There’s something absolutely perverse in creating the expectation that “Members of Council will accurately communicate” in a municipality that is as dependent as Mississauga is on misinforming and manipulating the public! Item 1’s “will accurately communicate” is just so fraudulent! Back to Page 22 of the Code.]

2. Members of Council will keep confidential information confidential, until such time as the
matter can properly be made public.

Recognize Item 2 as the Corporate gag order.  “[U]ntil such time as the matter can properly be made public” really means “until such time as the matter has been spun, kneaded and cooked to perfection by our Communications Department. Back to Page 22 of the Code.]

Commentary

A Member may state that he/she did not support a decision, or voted against the decision. A
Member should refrain from making disparaging comments about other Members of Council
or about Council’s processes and decisions.

[“should refrain from making disparaging comments about other Members of Council or about Council’s processes and decisions”… after all, it’s not in the interests of the City for the public to learn the Truth! Back to Page 22 of the Code.]

When communicating with the media, a Member should at all times refrain from speculating
or reflecting upon the motives of other Members in respect of their actions as a Member of
Council.

[Good Grief! Hazel McCallion has broken the “When communicating with the media, a Member should at all times refrain from speculating or reflecting upon the motives of other Members” rule about a dozen times since the Code went into effect in December 2010—with Councillors Mahoney and Saito tied as a distant second. Back to Page 22 of the Code.]

While openness in government is critical, governments also must respect confidentiality when
a matter must remain, at least for a period of time, confidential. Breaches of confidentiality by
Members erodes public confidence.

[“Breaches of confidentiality by Members erodes public confidence.” And lying that there aren’t breaches in confidentially erodes public confidence even more.]

22

END OF PAGE 22 OF THE CODE.

 

Signed,

MISSISSAUGAWATCH

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

1. The City of Mississauga Code of Conduct April 2011

2. Canada in the Making Common Law and Civil Law

Canada has inherited two systems of law: civil law from the French and common law from the English. This page will describe and give the history of each system as it relates to Canada

Related essays on this site:
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
The Sources of Law in Canada
The Written and Unwritten Constitution
Representative Government
Responsible Government
Canada’s Constitutional History
British Common Law

3. Video of MISSISSAUGAWATCH’s first (meandering and unsuccessful) attempt to merge the Mississauga’s Council Code of Conduct with the Mississauga Judicial Inquiry’s “Ethical Infrastructure” report.

As I watched it today, I winced at how unfocussed this video is —just all over the map. But it introduces the vital concept of “sanitized” reports. Sanitized reports/documents/communication is the Key to Mississauga’s success. It was the City of Mississauga’s sanitization efforts that prompted me to warn people today with:

Be it a Corporate Policy, Corporate Report, By-Law, Guideline, those drafting it meticulously weigh every single word. No word makes it on to a City document without Staff’s carefullest of scrutiny. Yes, “carefullest”.

The City of Mississauga’s wordsmiths are especially fond of vague words, like “transparent” and “accountable”. Fact is, words can be so vague as to become meaningless, become atrocities —like “transparent” and “accountable”. Like “appropriate”. Like “subject to confidentiality and disclosure rules”. Like “Trust, Quality, Excellence”.

BEWARE of TRAPS in Mississauga Code of Conduct if filing complaint with integrity commissioner (7:34 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

“To regain her power, expect McCallion to essentially build Team Hazel, for next year’s election. Team Hazel
would consist of four sitting councillors and seven candidates hand-selected by the Hurricane, who back the mayor.”

—Ted Woloshyn, Toronto Sun

Harper Government’s plan to scrap Long Gun Registry UNANIMOUSLY opposed by Mississauga Council. Retain data urged.

December 16th, 2011  

Let’s get to it.

Today’s video (special thanks ROGERS Cable 10 Mississauga), complete with video transcript.

Harper Government’s plan to scrap Long Gun Registry UNANIMOUSLY opposed by Mississauga Council (1:56 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

 [VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

Motilall Sarjoo, President, Brampton-Mississauga & District Labour Council,  Mississauga Council December 16, 2011

Thanks.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council December 16, 2011

I have a motion I’d like to read while you’re here to deal with it.

Moved by Councillor Crombie and seconded by Councillor Dale. Councillor Dale is on our Police Services Board. So he knows the support of Peel Regional Police.

Whereas on October 25, 2011 the Minister of Public Safety —woweee, that’s quite a title! “Public Safety”. Introduced Bill Cat[laughs] an act —he might have a conflict, an act to amend the Criminal Code and FireArms Act ending the Long Gun Registry Act and requiring the destruction of the existing information.

And whereas Peel Regional Police, among many other agencies and organizations as well as individual citizens, believe that the Long Gun Registry is an important tool in preserving the safety of citizens —and officers, in their day-to-day duties,

Now therefore, be it resolved that Council of the Corporation of the City of Mississauga requests the Federal Government to reconsider the proposed legislation, or at a minimum, permit the provinces to retain the information currently in the Registration database.

A letter sent to the Prime Minister, transmitting this resolution, with copies to the MPs, and requesting their support, any response from them as to any action they are prepared to take —on this issue.

You’ve heard the motion.

And I’m going to ask for a recorded vote because the Mayor wants to vote on this.

City Clerk, Crystal Greer, Mississauga Council December 16, 2011

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

The motion carries unanimously.

Mayor Hazel McCallion, Mississauga Council December 16, 2011

Thank you.

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Here is a cut-and-paste from the Council Agenda December 14, 2011 Part 2 at mississauga,ca. You can read Deputy Chief Paul Tetzlaff’s original email to Mayor Hazel McCallion at:  www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/2011CouncilAgenda_14DecPart2.pdf

Item I-2

 

From: Tetzlaff, Paul
Sent: 11/24/2011 11 :36 AM
To: Carol Horvat
Subject: FW: Long Gun Registry Bill C-19

Good morning Carol,

Chief Metcalf has requested that I respond to your inquiry regarding the federal government’s
proposal to end the long-gun registry.

Peel Regional Police believe that the long-gun registry is an important tool in preserving the
safety of our citizens and our own officers in their day to day duties. On a daily basis, we
access the registration database to be forewarned of situations where a firearm may be
encountered, and to identify the rightful owners of firearms that come into our possession. We
are concerned that not only does the legislation end the registration of long-guns on a go forward
basis, it requires the destruction of the existing information.

In the interest of community and officer safety, PRP cannot support the government’s position
on this issue. If the government is intent on enacting the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, as
it appears they are, at a minimum the provinces should be permitted to retain the information
currently in the registration database.

I have attached a ‘Long Gun Registry Background’ document for your further information.
As an aside, I am meeting with Motilall Sarjoo and members of the Labour Council on Monday
next at 10 AM.

If I may be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me directly.

Regards … Paul
Paul Tetzlaff
Deputy Chief of Police

Item I-2a

 

Background

On 25 October 2011, the Minister of Public Safety introduced Bill C-19, an Act to amend
the Criminal Code and Firearms Act in the House of Commons. The short title of the bill
is called Ending the Long-gun Registry Act.

The government’s stated purpose of the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act is to ensure
Canadian firearm laws target real criminals and protect the safety of the public. The
proposed legislation will remove the requirement to register firearms that are neither
prohibited nor restricted. In other words, the main objective of the Act is to remove the
requirement for long-gun owners to register their hunting rifles and shotguns. The new
legislation will also require the destruction of existing records, held in the Canadian
Firearms Registry and under the control of chief firearms officers that relate to the
registration of such firearms. Additionally, the purpose of the new legislation is to amend
several sections of the Firearms Act, primarily to reflect the change that registration
certificates will no longer be required for non-restricted firearms.

Anticipated Effect on Police Officers and Police Services

In general, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code will mean that a failure to
hold a registration certificate for a non-restricted firearm will not give rise to any of the
offences related to unauthorized possession of a firearm. Additionally, since the failure to
hold a registration certificate for a non-restricted firearm will no longer constitute an
offence for unauthorized possession, police will not be able to seize a non-restricted
firearm. Police will want to be alert to any issues concerning officer safety as a result of
this limit on the ability to seize certain firearms when an individual cannot produce a
registration certificate.

It should also be noted that firearms owners will still require a valid firearms licence to
purchase or possess firearms and to purchase ammunition. Firearms owners will also still
be required to undergo background checks, pass a firearms safety training course and
comply with firearms safe storage and transportation requirements for all firearms. While
the long-gun registry will be gone and only prohibited and restricted firearms will be
covered under the registry system, it is clear from the above that certain safety measures,
such as background checks and training courses, will remain in place.

The proposed legislation will order the destruction of all records in the Canadian
Firearms Registry related to non-prohibited and non-restricted firearms. This will greatly
impact police forces as they will no longer have access to such infornation. The repeal of
the requirement for long-gun owners to register will affect police ability to accurately
query CPIC to determine whether a gun might be encountered in a situation. Police forces
rely on the firearms registry search on a day-to-day basis for a variety of reasons,
including officer safety. With the elimination of registration certificates and the
destruction of the firearms records for nonrestricted firearms, many gun-owners will not
be captured in the search and an officer’s ability to rely on such searches for safety
purposes will be significantly diminished.

 

 

Item I-2b

 

Additionally, the new legislation may have negative consequences on police
investigations. The registry assists police officers in their investigations because it allows
them to trace the owners of firearms used to commit criminal offences and identify
owners of stolen firearms. Under the current legislation, when police officers recover a
non-prohibited or non-restricted gun at the scene of a crime, they can trace it to its
rightful owner. This will no longer be the case once the long-gun registry is abolished
under the proposed legislation. The gun registry is an essential tool used by police when
taking preventive action and in enforcing prohibition orders. The registry is used to
ensure that all firearms are removed from an individual’s possession when the situation
warrants it. Abolishing the requirement of registration for long-guns will diminish the
gun registry usefulness to police as a crime prevention tool.

Finally, the licensing process screens gun owners for risk factors and registration holds
them accountable for their guns. These two things taken together reduce the risk that
dangerous people will have access to firearms. As a result of the removal of long-gun
registration, it may very well be that police forces could be faced with an increase in gun
related issues.

What follows is the entire Bill C-19 – Long Gun Registry deputation complete with debate, the motion and voting —21:38 minutes worth. Thanks to MississaugaNewsREEL (and of course ROGERS Cable 10 Mississauga)

Retain Long Gun Registry Bill C-19 existing records, Mississauga Council debate (21:38)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES from Mississauga Council Agenda
(cut-and-pastes)

 

Item I-1



From: Motilall Sarjoo
Sent: 11/17/2011 9:39 PM
To: Hazel McCallion; SusanFennell
Subject: Long Gun Registry Bill C-19
Dear Mayor S. Fennell and H. McCallion

As you may be aware, the Long gun Registry Bill C-19, will be tabled in Parliament very
soon for it’s third and final reading. The Brampton-Missisauga and District Labour
Council represents over twenty six thousand members within the Region of Peel.

As President of this organization, I am seeking your support in form of a letter to the
Prime Minister requesting that he understands our quest to stop gun related violences
within our community by keeping the Gun Registry intact.

Please see attached fact sheet and letter to Premiere Dalton McGuinty from Ontario
Federation of Labour President Sid Ryan for further information.

Thank you for your continued support.

Motilall Sarjoo (SARJ)
President
Brampton-Mississauga & District Labour Council

Item I-1a

 

The Conservative Government has tabled Bill C-19, an Act to amend the Criminal
Code and the Firearms Act. The Bill would eliminate the mandatory registration of
non-restricted firearms (rifles and shotguns) and destroy all of the data it has
collected so far.

The gun registry is part of a package of provisions established in response to public
pressure following the tragic loss of 14 young women’s lives on December 6, 1989.
By introducing stronger gun control laws, Canada has reduced the amount of
firearm-related violence and death. Now the Conservatives want to take us back 15
years and put the narrow interests of the US-backed gun lobby ahead of the lives
and safety of Canadians.

Let’s get real.

The Gun Registry is an important tool for workplace and community safety.

Police have estimated that they use the registry over 17,000 times a day, and say it
helps them prevent, investigate and solve crimes. Social workers, paramedics,
firefighters and other first responders use the information in the database to help
them keep safe on the job. They need to know when there is a gun in the home or
whether there is a risk of gun violence before they enter a situation, so they can
quickly devise a plan to ensure the safety of workers, clients and patients.

There are currently seven million registered “non-restricted guns”. This category
includes rifles and shotguns, such as the powerful semiautomatic Ruger Mini 14
used in the Montreal Massacre, and sniper rifles, including the .50 calibre sniper
rifle. Rifles and shotguns are the most used weapons in domestic violence, suicides
and to kill police officers. They also figure prominently in incidents of workplace
violence, like the 1999 tragedy at the OC Transpo bus yard in Ottawa.

Gun violence is not only a big city issue. Domestic violence, suicide, and murders of
police officers with firearms occur more often, on a per capita basis, in rural
communities. Women experiencing domestic violence in rural areas report threats
and intimidation using firearms.

A 2010 Ipsos Reid poll showed that two thirds of Canadians support the gun
registry. Even in rural areas, supporters equal opponents. Although they are less
vocal, the vast majority of people living with gun owners, and the majority of rural
women, support the registry.

According to the RCMP, abolishing the long-gun registry would save less than
$4 million per year. The costs involved with destroying the data have not been
identified by the government. The money to set up the registry has already been
spent – what a waste of taxpayers’ investment to simply throw it away.

Item I 1-b

 

The gun registry helps reduce violence.

Statistics Canada reports that rates of homicide involving rifles or shotguns in 2010
were about one-fIfth of those seen 30 years ago.

Firearm-related suicides have decreased by 43 per cent since the introduction of
stricter gun laws in 1991 and by 23 per cent since the introduction of the Firearms
Act in 1995.

Workers in shelters and child welfare agencies believe that the long-gun registry
helps keep vulnerable women and children safer. Since its enactment, the rate of
women murdered with ftrearms by their intimate partner has decreased by 69 per
cent.

Listen to the experts

The Conservative government is fast-tracking the passage of this bill in order
to avoid a full discussion of its implications on the safety of workplaces and
communities. Here’s what they don’t want to hear:

“The registry is a valuable tool that assists law enforcement with investigation,
prevention, tracing, accountability and provided at the national level is cost effective
and consistent across the country.”
-Canadian Police Association

“We treat patients on a regular basis who are suicidal and who are victims of
domestic assault. We know that a long-gun in the home puts both types of patients
at a signiftcantly higher risk of being killed. Since many of these patients come to
the hospital accompanied by police, we work with the police, who use the registry
regularly to determine if the patient has a gun registered in the home. This
knowledge, together with information as to whether the police then removed the
ftrearm, helps us to assess the patient’s safety plan and to ensure that these
impulsive potential methods of injury or death are removed.”
-Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians

“Violence against women is a $4 billion problem in this country. Every year,
100,000 women and children leave their homes fleeing violence and abuse. Longguns
and rifles are used to intimidate women and the threat of a rifle is often a
significant reason that women don’t risk leaving to seek help. YWCA Canada
supports the long-gun registry as a public safety tool as there is clear evidence that
it helps make women and children’s lives safer. Our shelters tell us it is both useful
and needed. Our rural shelters tell us police consult it every time they go to a
domestic violence incident. These are deliberate and speciftc searches for the
presence of firearms in the home. In 2009, approximately 7,000 registration
certiftcates were revoked for public safety concerns. Dismantling the registry is not
in the interests of women living at risk of domestic violence”
-Paulette Senior, CEO, YWCA Canada

Item I 1-c

 

The best way to protect the data is to save the gun registry.

Some provinces have said that they would keep the registry going in their
jurisdiction if the federal government eliminates it. Some are calling for an
amendment to the legislation to save the data. But the cheapest and most effective
way to save the data is to keep the national registry.

Protect workplace and community safety

The Canadian Labour Congress supports the long-gun registry as an effective tool
for workplace and community safety. Eliminating it will put workers and Canadians
at risk.

Write your Members of Parliament and tell them to listen to the evidence, consider
the impact of this legislation, and oppose Bill C-19.
SSjfll/cope225

Item I 1-d

 

November 10,2011
Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier
Legislative Building
Queen’s Park
Toronto ON
M7A 1Ai

RE: Federal Government’s Decision to Cancel the Long-Gun Registry and Destroy the
Registry’s Current Records

Dear Mr. McGuinty:

The Ontario Federation of Labour is opposed to the federal government’s recent decision to
cancel the long-gun registry and, in addition, destroy the registry’s current records. I am writing
you today to call on you and your government to stand with the government of Quebec,
women’s and labollr organizations, physicians and police associations in publicly opposing Bill
C-19 and dernandirlg the Ontario data collected by the gun registry be turned over to
Ontarians.

Ontarians know the gun registry has helped save lives. Statistics Canada reports that rates of
homicide involving rifles or shotguns in 2010 were one-fifth of those seen 30 years ago.
Workers in shelters and child welfare agencies know that the long-gun registry helps keep
vulnerable women and children safer. Since Its enactment, the rate of women murdered with
firearms by their intimate partners has dropped by 69 per cent We also know that firearmrelated
suicides have decreased by 43 per cent since the introduction of stricter gun laws in
1991 and by 23 per cent since the introduction of the Firearms Act in 1995.

The gun registry is an important tool for workplace sidely. Police estimated that across
Canada they use the registry over 17,000 times a day Police agencies are very clear that the
registry helps them to prevent, investigate and solve crimes. Social workers, paramedics,
firefighters and other first responders use the information in the database to help keep them
safe on the job. They need to know when ihere is a gun in the home or whether there is a risk
of gun violence before they enter a situation, so they can quickly devise a plan to ensure the
safely of workers, clients and patients.

Opponents have criticized the registry for its “judgement” onaw-abiding Canadian hunters,
alongside its apparent ineffectiveness at preventing actual gun-related crimes. Yet while this
popular rhetoric has debated the rights and day-to-day realities of hunters almost incessantly,
there has been much less discussion as to how the gun registry relates to the rights of women.

Item I 1-e

 

We know firearms play an important role in explaining the disproportionate number of domestic
violence-related homicides in rural and remote areas. A 2010 report by the VictimNVitness
Assistance Program of East Region, Ontario notes that women in the rural community of GreyBruce
‘reported the use of or threat with a weapon at more than twice the national rate as
reported in the Stats Canada Family Violence Survey”‘. Accordingly, the High Risk Review
Assessment Tool for Domestic/Partner Violence of South Hastings, Prince Edward County,
Ontario lists “Partner has a gun or has easy access to one” as the fourth out of eleven high risk
indicators used to assess the risk of lethality for women living With or leaving a relationship
where there has been past domestic violence’. In fact, almost every region in Ontario, rural or
urban, includes screening for access to firearms in their assessment of women’s safety in
domestic violence investigations. With the registry scrapped, these firearms will become
invisible.

The facts related to women, firearms and domestic violence have been regularly diminished
throughout the political deliberation of the long-gun registry. Now, with the federal decision
nigh, they appear totally absent. Women’s disproportionate vulnerability to domestic violence
and sexual assault, in particular, means that women’ experience of these crimes in context with
the threat of firearms violence is different than men’s experience of the threat of firearm
violence.

I urge your government to consider the needs of women in your assessment and response to
this important issue. In particular, we ask that you:

• In alliance with Quebec’s provincial response, ask the federal government to allow
Ontario to keep the data from the soon-to-be-destroyed federal long-gun registry
• Actively challenge the federal government’s intention to fast-track the bill that will bring
the registry to an end through the House of Commons. We believe that this action is
intended to limit debate on the subject of the registry which, in itself, IS a problematic
process
• Actively challenge the federal government’s intention to limit debate on the subject of
the registry. This topic requires debate, as public opinion across provinces and
demographics is clearly not unanimous
• Consider how to create enforceable best practices that strengthen the registry’s
compliance measures instead of simply labeling the registry as ineffectual
• Consult with survivors of firearm violence, including those who survived the Montreal
Massacre and survivors of domestic violence. Incorporate their expertise in future
reviews of firearm-related policy and law as was done following the December 6, 1989
incident
• Consult with service providers and advocates that support women experiencing
violence and incorporate their expertise in future reviews of firearm-related policy and
law,

I Kasdorff, Deborah and Barbara Erb, “Serving Victims of Violence in Rural Communities: Chcdienges and Best Practices”,
Victim/Witness Assistance Program, East Region, January 2010,13
High Risk Review Assessment (Domestic/Partner Violence), HART Centre and South Hastings, Prince Edward County, and
DART Bancroft, p. 1

Item I-1f

 

Though the set-up and maintenance of the registry has a cost, this is small when compared to
the costs of murders of women and children, inquests related to these occurrences and
prosecutions of violent men who use firearms. This Federation acknowledges the financial cost
of the registry as well. We strongly feel that addressing violence against women is indeed a
financial investment, however one worth taking.

Sincerely,
Patrick (Sid) Ryan
President

c.c. Honourable Laurel Broten, Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues
OFL Executive Board
OFL Women’s Committee
Ken Georgetti, CLC President
Andrea Horwath, MPP, Leader, New Democratic Party of Ontario
Tim Hudak, MPP, Leader Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario

sf/cope343

Peel Police 2011 Police Package Dodge Charger at Mississauga City Hall Celebration Square

Mayor Hazel McCallion media scrum transcript: “It is absolutely essential that we go to an Election”

May 12th, 2011  

Today we present primary source material —Appoint or Elect? Complete video of Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion  interviewed by Media during a break in yesterday’s Council meeting.

And, as is our custom, complete with video transcript.

Mayor Hazel McCallion media scrum: “It is absolutely essential that we go to an Election” (6:56 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—of Ward 5 the opportunity to choose their Councillor for the next four years. It’s only five months. So if it was a year before the next election, it would be different.

Yes, we have the authority under the new Act to appoint. But in such a short period of time that the Councillor’s been in the office it is absolutely essential that we go to an election.

And so today I hope that Council will give direction to the Staff to start preparing for an election. We don’t have an election staff at the City. We only, according to the Clerk, we only hire people when there is an election and train them for the election. So of course the staff has all been dispersed.

And so the Clerk now has to build a whole new staff to deal with an election.

She has estimated to date —and that’s an estimation, that it would have cost a half a million dollars for us to go. But I don’t think that we can take into account unfortunately, the cost because I think the people of Ward 5 deserve the right to elect a new Councillor.

So I would think that Council today will move in that direction. I’d be surprised —I’ve talked to a couple of Councillors, I haven’t had an opportunity to talk to many but their position is an election. So I would think that direction will be given today, to proceed with an election. Such a short term period, it is absolutely, in my opinion, essential that we go to an election.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

So if there was an election, would you support anyone specific? There has been some word that Bonnie Crombie would be your candidate—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—That is absolutely a rumour, you know I went to Bonnie Crombie’s party that she was to have as a winner. And I just jokingly mentioned, but you know the Press picked it up and made a big story out of it.

I jokingly said, just to sort of boost her morale or try to give her —well you know the Ward 5 obviously, position will be open. I did not recommend her, or even invited her. I just made a comment.

But of course, the Press twisted it, as usual, to make it into an unfortunate situation, that I am supporting Bonnie Crombie. It will be up to the people of Ward 5. And I’m sure that there will be a number of people will come forward to offer themselves. Yes, I’ve heard of quite a few.

I know that the person who ran against— one person that ran against her last time will be offering because she’s already told me that she will be offering herself for the office. But I’m sure it will be open to the —it will be open to the citizens of Ward 5 to elect their councils [sic]

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

So you—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—I think it’s unfortunate that we are faced with another election —and especially with the costs. But I don’t think we can let the cost determine the right of the people of Ward 5 to make a decision—

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—[inaudible] clear, you wouldn’t back any specific candidate, if there were to be a by-election.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

I don’t back any specific candidate at any time. The only candidate that I supported was unfortunate, during the last election, in which some very vicious information was sent out against Ron Starr and his family that was not factual. And I believe, that I, as Mayor had to take a stand on it.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

But smear campaigns happen often in politics.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Pardon?

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

There’s a lot of smear campaigns during elections. Why take action on that one specifically?

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Of all the elections that’s the only one that I ever took a stand on. And I felt it so essential when false information is spread by, against a candidate and their family that is incorrect.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

But—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

I think the Mayor has that responsibility to take a stand. And I did.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Question about the cost and I’m not sure if you’re able to answer it. But I was reading in the papers today there was a —this election would potentially cost $500,000—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—That’s an estimate—

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—an estimate. Right.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—that the clerk gave. You know it’s unfair—

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Right.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—to tie the Clerk down to that. We will know what it will cost when she comes back. Which, there will be a period —60 days, that we have. She will come back with a factual report. She was asked for an estimate. She gave an estimate. Okay?

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

But not necess— it won’t necessarily be 500, it could be significantly less—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—You just heard what I said. Please. She, she was asked for an estimate. She gave an estimate. Is that the answer to your question?

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Yes.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Ya, thank you.

Just wait and, you know, it’s discouraging the way in which things get twisted.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Oh no, I’m just um —because people are going to be reading in the papers today and seeing that.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

—Yeah.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

And so they’re seeing—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

It’s already been seen in the papers. It’s already publicized —of her estimate.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Of course, of course. I just wanted you to basically address that. And you know—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Yeah, it’s an estimate and I hope it will be reported as an estimate.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Right. Thank you very much.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

In fairness to the Clerk —who was asked for an estimate. She gave an estimate. Like my staff —like the staff of the City usually replies [sic] —with the facts.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

In 60 days you said?

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Pardon?

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

60 days we’ll know for sure?

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Pardon?

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

In 60 days we’ll know for sure, you say?

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

I don’t know —when the Clerk will be able to assemble the staff and what it will cost to run an election. With the advertising, we must let the people know. And there’s renting the accommodation, hiring the people to manage  —to staff the polls, etc.

That’s all. She will estimate it. She will come back with a more factual figure, when she has an opportunity to review.

We haven’t had a by-election in Mississauga. I can’t recall us ever having a by-election in Mississauga, so it’s something new for us.

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Half a million is a lot higher than Toronto’s estimate, $175,000.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Yeah. I believe they have a permanent election staff in the City —of the City of Toronto. I’m not sure about it, but I understand that they do. We don’t in this City. Once the election is over we disperse the staff —to save the taxpayers’ money. Instead of having people on staff waiting for another election.

Okay?

Any other questions?

Media Question (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Thank you very much.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion interviewed by Media (Mississauga Council Chambers, May 11, 2011)

Yeah. Thank you.

Okay?

Mayor McCallion leaves.
Mark Knopfler
(“Don’t Crash the Ambulance”)

Don’t crash the ambulance, whatever you do…

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Eve Adams (newly-elected Conservative MP) interview with Media on her last day as Councillor (4:55 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Mississauga to hold by-election to replace Adams

Toronto Star – ‎22 hours ago‎
Mayor Hazel McCallion has quieted a growing storm in Mississauga. The powerful mayor pushed a vote Wednesday in favour of a by-election, instead of appointing a new councillor once a current member vacates her seat for one in Ottawa.

Residents laud departing Mississauga councillor Eve Adams

National Post (blog) – Tim Fraser – ‎May 11, 2011‎
Mayor Hazel McCallion said it was “absolutely essential” that the citizens decide who fills the seat, which will be declared vacant once Ms. Adams is sworn in as an MP in the federal riding of Mississauga-Brampton South. The Mayor’s comments came as

Mayor wants by-election

Mississauga – ‎May 11, 2011‎
Mayor Hazel McCallion told reporters she would rather have a by-election than a Council appointment to fill the vacant seat in Ward 5. File photo Mayor Hazel McCallion wants a by-election to replace the councillor in Ward 5, rather than having City

Council votes for Ward 5 by-election

Mississauga – ‎21 hours ago‎
With the help of other councillors, Mayor Hazel McCallion will take over duties in Ward 5 until a replacement councillor can be elected. File photos Ward 5 residents will vote for their next representative after City Council passed a motion today

McCallion offers faint praise for new Tory MP

Global Toronto – Megan O’Toole – ‎May 11, 2011‎
paid tribute Wednesday to Hazel McCallion, the long-time Mayor could barely muster a word of public praise for her Ottawa-bound colleague, instead lamenting the failure of several prominent Liberal MPs to maintain their seats in Monday’s election.

Skeptics question by-election cost

Mississauga – ‎May 11, 2011‎
Because of the clear division on council between those who are devoted supporters of Mayor Hazel McCallion and those who often criticize her leadership, the by-election could be important in tipping the balance of power on council.

Mississauga estimate for byelection cost almost triple that of Toronto

Global Toronto – Megan O’Toole – ‎May 11, 2011‎
Ward 5 has a significantly higher population than Toronto’s Ward 9 — 75000 people compared to 45000 — the cost differential appears excessive, said political scientist Tom Urbaniak, who has written a book on the tenure of Mayor Hazel McCallion.

Hazel McCallion on the Federal election 2011, “if a dog had run, they would have won.”

May 6th, 2011  

Today’s blog is meant to supplement National Post’s Megan O’Toole’s “Quote of the day: Hazel McCallion”

Hazel McCallion on the Federal election 2011, “if a dog had run, they would have won.” (1:33 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT]

Mayor Hazel McCallion (Mississauga General Committee meeting, May 4, 2011)

So I hope that I, as Mayor, I’ve done what you-folks would have wanted me to do to congratulate all the new one —newly elected Conservative candidates in Mississauga.

At the same time, I want to express to those who lost that have been very dedicated members of the City of Mississauga. And I think of Peter Fonseca and Bonnie Crombie and Paul Szabo that have been very much a part of the City of Mississauga —made a major contribution to this city in so many ways. And I think we’ve lost some good community people which I think is unfortunate.

But when a thing crosses Canada like it did, I think there are some good people —and Bains, a very distinguished Sikh, a member of the Sikh community and has made, was considered maybe a leader of the Liberal Party down the road as maybe [sic] the first Sikh.

I think it’s unfortunate but at the same time that’s the way Federal and Provincial politics go.

I recall when Trudeaumania hit this country, I remember an article in the paper (I wish I had kept it), that they said that if a dog had run, they would have won.

So, when that hits. a lot of good people go down, which is unfortunate.

[DIP TO BLACK]
[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper gives video greetings at Hazel McCallion's 90th Birthday $350.00-a-ticket Party.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper gives video greetings at Hazel McCallion’s 90th Birthday $350.00-a-ticket Party (February 12, 2011).

MISSISSAUGA CITY HALL (AMO, OMERS, MYTHissauga Inc) ---morally beyond redemption

…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!

–email from youth (age 19)

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER TRIES TO GAG TORONTO SUN FROM ASKING MAYOR THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY

September 9th, 2010  

No time today for anything except to present this video of Mayor Hazel McCallion’s pinstriped handler stopping Toronto Sun’s Joe Worthington as Mr. Worthington tried to ask a question about the Judicial Inquiry. To his credit Worthington held his ground.

The Mayor’s response? “No comment.”

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER TRIES TO GAG TORONTO SUN FROM ASKING MAYOR ABOUT THE JUDICIAL INQUIRY” (4:38 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT BEGINS]

PATRICK MENDES (“Friends of Hazel” Oppose the Judicial Inquiry Rally, December 2, 2009):

Judicial inquiries are very expensive and they’ve already got a legal opinion on this. I repeat —we’ve got to send them a message that what they’re doing is wrong!

They are wasting our money.

PATRICK MENDES (“Friends of Hazel” Oppose the Judicial Inquiry Rally, December 2, 2009 raising the Ontario Ombudsman cap to the camera):

That’s why we need the Ontario Ombudsman investigating Municipalities. Right there.

PATRICK MENDES (“Friends of Hazel” Oppose the Judicial Inquiry Rally, December 2, 2009):

They are driving our Mayor and our city through the [inaudible]. And for what? For their own political ambitions.

[CROSS-FADE]

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT, July 27, 2010. Mr. William McDowell “Q” and Peter McCallion “A”):

 13                 Q:   Now, let me just spend a -- a moment
 14  or two (2) on the question of what it was that you were
 15  going to get from a successful transaction.
 16                 So if the -- if the Agreement of Purchase
 17  and Sale had actually closed and this project was going
 18  to be built, let's just look at some of these things.
 19                 First of all, you had in mind that you
 20  would be the agent who would sell the condominium units.
 21                 A:   Correct.  
 22                 Q:   And you'd earn a commission on those.
 23                 A:   Yes.  
 24                 Q:   Standard commission is what -- 3
 25  percent for a unit like that?

1918

  1                 A:   No.  On a condominium, maybe one and
  2  a half (1 1/2).  
  3                 Q:   One and a half (1 1/2).  And so there
  4  were going to be something like two thousand (2,000)
  5  units over time?
  6                 A:   I think there was twenty-five hundred
  7  (2,500).  
  8                 Q:   Twenty-five hundred (2,500), so it
  9  maybe a variance.  So if it's two thousand (2,000) at 1
 10  1/2 percent, then the upside or gross commission for you
 11  is $3 million, is that right?
 12                 A:   It'd probably be more than that.  
 13                 Q:   More than that.  So if you go to
 14  twenty-five hundred (2,500) it would be three million,
 15  seven fifty (3,750,000)?
 16                 A:   I think it's more like ten (10) or 12
 17  million.  
 18                 Q:   More like ten (10) or twelve (12) --
 19                 A:   Yes.  
 20                 Q:   -- on 1 1/2 percent?  Your math is
 21  probably better than mine, but --
 22                 A:   Well, it was a $1 1/2 billion
 23  project.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Yessir.

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Name’s Joe Warmington, Toronto Sun.

Mayor McCallion, on the Judicial Inquiry —I know you don’t want to talk much about it. But it is Out There and there’s a report that will come after the election.

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

[inaudible]

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Well, this is what we understand. And you hav—

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

The Mayor has indicated she’s—

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Excuse me. I’m talking now.

HAZEL MCCALLION’S HANDLER (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

—not going to respond to those questions right now.

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

I’m going to finish my question. This is a question —it a Media time.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Good for you.

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Is it okay Madam Mayor?

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Yeah, I—

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

So, so, I guess the question is —I’m rattled, I wasn’t expecting —this Hall is a place of Freedom and Free Speech so—

MISSISSAUGAWATCH whispering into camera (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

Silly person…

JOE WARMINGTON, Toronto Sun (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

So, so, I guess the question is —if for some reason that were to show some wrong-doing on your part with your son and this development, what kind of position would that put you in as Mayor? You know, it’s a complicated question, but you understand—

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mayor’s “I am running again” Streetsville News Conference, September 9, 2010):

It is a complicated —my question [sic] is no response.

[CROSS-FADE]

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY TRANSCRIPT, July 27, 2010. Mr. William McDowell “Q” and Peter McCallion “A”):

  2                 At a unit cost of two hundred thousand
  3  (200,000), which is low, at 1 1/2 percent, that would
  4  generate 3 million?
  5                 A:   Yes.
  6                 Q:   And then we can -- we can play with
  7  the numbers.  You know, if the unit costs are higher,
  8  it's 1 1/2 percent of that.
  9                 But -- but your upside is actually in the
 10  millions of dollars?
 11                 A:   Yes.
 12                 Q:   And you may need employees, you may
 13  have to split this and so on?
 14                 A:   Correct.
 15                 Q:   But if you are the Peter McCallion
 16  Real Estate Inc., in gross terms, as you say, you may
 17  generate $10 or $12 million?
 18                 A:   Gross.
 19                 Q:   Gross.
 20                 A:   Yes.
 21                 Q:   Right.  But that's what was in it for
 22  you, in --
 23                 A:   That's what was in it for me.

[HIGH DEFINITION CAMERA ADMIRES THE MAYOR’S HANDLER’S EXPENSIVE SHOES AND PINSTRIPE SUIT]

[VIDEO TRANSCRIPT ENDS]

MISSISSAUGA CITY HALL ---morally beyond redemption

“…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!”      —email from youth (age 19)

“STONEWALLED” SUB-CONTRACTORS FALL VICTIM TO CITY OF MISSISSAUGA FACILITIES AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT’S “DUE DILIGENCE” OF CONTRACTS

February 27th, 2010  

This video has been prepared for the sub-contractors who appeared before the Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Mississauga Council meeting. Unpaid for their work, stonewalled and given the runaround, they too fell victim to City of Mississauga’s Staff’s chronic non-compliance to Corporate policies.

Truth be told, in the case of these sub-contractors, they fell victim to yet another policy believed to be “in place”, just that Mississauga’s Internal Audit did not find any trace of it!

And who was responsible for this contract? Why, none other than City of Mississauga Facilities and Property Management! The same fine folks who honed City of Mississauga Corporate Security into the unaccountable, no oversight, unethical knobs who also profess to be a “dedicated team of security professionals”.

Have to say I felt so sorry for the sub-contractors. In the words of the deputant, “blue collar” workers comprised of “single parents with kids on disability that are being —that are losing a lot of money”.

Sure they’ve been stonewalled, screwed-over and eventually forced to file Freedom of Information to peer at the truth. But in some ways they’re lucky —it’s still just money.

This same City of Mississauga Facilities and Property Management and their Corporate Security Guards arrest people/youth/minors.

By far the most offensive thing in the video I’ve prepared is Councillor Pat Saito looking the deputant in the eyes and saying, “I was assured by Staff at that time that when they did due diligence” and “Mayor McCallion and I did discuss that with Staff yesterday and we have been assured by Staff that they…”

Considering the number of times that I’ve advised Councillors that Staff’s word cannot be trusted, I’m just so offended she’d fling that “I was assured by Staff” turd at these people.

Saito’s “I was assured by Staff”comment alone is Perfect Testimony as to why the City of Mississauga can’t be trusted to hire its own Integrity Commissioner. There’s NONE THERE NOW!

This video is dedicated to the sub-contractors and their families who fell victim to the City of Mississauga Facilities and Property Management’s chronic non-compliance to policy and procedure.

So. As always, the video —followed by the transcript.

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION/MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL DECEIVE SUB-CONTRACTORS AND PUBLIC –WITHHOLD VITAL INFORMATION (10:22 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

Okay, it is Thursday, February the 25th, 2010 and I’m here, underground, near 130 Adelaide Street and I’m to meet with the Judicial Inquiry investigators at 2 o’clock.

You know, I’ve been mentioning the non-compliance of City of Mississauga Staff to numerous policies. And you know, as recently as February 3rd I detailed quite a number of them in a deputation.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga General Committee Deputation, February 3, 2010):
* sequence edited for brevity and audio begins after Policies 1 through 6.

Now these are non-compliance.

  1. Video Surveillance Policy (The Corporation’s first SNOOP policy)
  2. Violence and Vandalism Policy (2000 to 2006)
  3. Violence, Vandalism and Bullying Policy (the existing current one)
  4. Corporate Security Code of Conduct
  5. Corporate Security Public Complaints Policy (if you can believe that)
  6. Conflict of Interest Policy
  7. Vendor (and this comes from Audit) Performance Policy (Assumed abandoned, Internal Audit could no trace of it.)
  8. Charging Interest to non-government organization Policy
  9. Infoplace Cash Collection Policy (cost the City over, what? —$700,000 plus)

And then By-laws —the Records Retention By-law. That’s confirmed through Freedom of Information, and even Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And the City Manager, Janice Baker responded with that she would simply not accept what I had said.

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga General Committee Deputation, February 3, 2010):

The accusations that she’s made about the behaviour of Staff at the City are extremely serious and, you know, I am actually quite taken aback by them.

[dip to white]

But to suggest that there is a callous disregard at —by the Staff at the City of Mississauga for both the responsibilities that we have for the care, custody and control of records, written and electronic, is something that I simply cannot accept. I’m sorry.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

So, what happened at yesterday’s Council meeting was quite remarkable.

It was the 2009 Corporate Awards for Excellence that had been —were being handed out. And you would hear “Leading Canada in management”.

[cross zoom]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

Mississauga is continually looked upon as a municipal leader.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

Our excellent Staff, our excellent commitment to the taxpayer.

[cross zoom]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

—to address the needs of all sectors and members of our community.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

They are Trust, Quality and Excellence.

[cross zoom]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

They have exemplified our values of Trust, Quality and Excellence.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And Excellence and Excellence and more Excellence.

[cross zoom]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting , February 24, 2010):

Just outstanding. Solves all problems. Brings Peace and Harmony on all issues that he faces.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And you know, it’s a killer when I know what Freedom of Information and the Audit Committee has revealed.

[dip to white]

And then, more to the point, there was a group of about six sub-contractors who went before Council* and detailed their frustration with being paid, or in this case, not paid, for work they’d done by [sic] a contractor that was hired by the City of Mississauga.

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

Very early in the project, we expressed our concerns to the City Staff that the sub-trades weren’t being paid.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

His frustration that there were people really counting on the money and feeling hardship at this point.

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

—to maybe do something, [inaudible] single parents with kids on disability that are being —that are losing a lot of money

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

Things wouldn’t happen —then there was, he used the word “stonewalled” on occasion.

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

Through the Freedom of Information Act —because I was being stonewalled by so many people—

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And then what was really interesting was, he asked, “Did the City do due diligence before hiring the contractor?”

[cross zoom]

BRIAN MCMAHON, HALTON BMAC MECHANICAL INC (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

"Through the Freedom of Information Act —because I was being stonewalled by so many people —through the Freedom of Information Act, I found out the information I do have."

Through the Freedom of Information Act —because I was being stonewalled by so many people —through the Freedom of Information Act, I found out the information I do have. I have access to the contract and to his —to the contract, to the statutory declarations that he was signing.

I also have, I also have his references and his resume, which at the least leaves much to be desired.

[dip to white]

Now there’s projects that he had that he put down as a reference, these are projects that he’s been, basically, kicked off for non-performance —this contractor, he’s done projects where there’s been liens to put on it and he’s been asked to leave.

And these are the —I want to know about due diligence of hiring this contractor and awarding him this job.

The sub-contractor says, "—I want to know about due diligence of hiring this contractor and awarding him this job."

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

And as soon as I heard the “due diligence” I said (laughs) I knew about an Audit Committee just recently, where again, there was issue with contracts. And the Audit Committee had investigated just how contracts were being handled in the City and Hazel McCallion brought up some issues where there had been problems with contractors in the past.

[cross zoom]

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

We sit down with management as we go through the Audit and say exactly what our concerns are so that they have time to address them. And as you can see, by the end of June of this year, five out of seven of the recommendations will be completed.

And also that formal Vendor Evaluation Criteria will be developed by mid-2010.

[cross zoom]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

But on that point—

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

[inaudible]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

On that point—

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Yeah.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was a procedure set up years ago on Vendor [requisitions? inaudible]. Did you find any trace of it?

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

It’s just an informal vendor performance review right now [inaudible] it’s not being —there’s no formal process in there. The first thing—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was —there was a policy established. Every vendor, and especially on major contracts, that when we had bad experiences —and we have had some bad experiences—

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Yes.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was a policy established years ago that the vendor would be categorized. And in fact some would be cut off for future contracts.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

That’s not—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Did you find no trace of it?

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

No, it’s not in there.

COUNCILLOR PAT MULLIN (Chair, Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

No, the answer’s no. So I guess [inaudible]

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Well it was set up, I can tell you.

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I remember the discussion.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Do you?

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I remember the discussions.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Some of you who’ve been around long will remember? It was set up. So obviously it got lost in the shuffle somewhere. Cuz we ran, we ran into some bad examples. And that’s when we set the policy. That’s years ago. That’s not —ten years ago, would I be right? At least. So where did that —what happened to it?

Hazel McCallion, "And that’s when we set up the policy. That’s years ago. That’s not —ten years ago, would I be right? At least. So where did that —what happened to it?"

DIRECTOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, SALLY ENG (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There is some mention of a purchasing By-law where we would be able to —or the purchasing agent has the authority to,  prevents [sic] the bidder from bidding in future contracts. But we have not been able to find any detailed processes relating to what you’re talking about.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Okay.

COUNCILLOR PAT MULLIN (Chair, Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

[inaudble] that we should look into, I guess for the future. Because I remember the discussion.

[inaudible —several speakers at once]

CITY MANAGER, JANICE BAKER (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

That’s what one of the recommendations is.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I’m getting a little frustrated as Mayor as we set up policies and then they’re not followed. And that’s what bothers me. I was in the business —in the private sector and we had millions of dollars in contracts. And it’s been something I’ve been promoting  —is control of the contracts. And that policy was set up because we ran into one vendor who were [sic] behind two millions dollars, I remember.

Anyway.

So now we’re going to set up one up. Fine.

Someone:

Yeah.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

If we set one up, it better be followed. That is the key. No use setting it up if it’s not going to be followed. You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard for policy.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Just to conclude. Working with Facilities and Property Management, we’ve had a good rapport with them and I just want to thank Ken—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

The guy that did the renovations at the . I hope he never sees another contract.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Yeah.

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Am I right?

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

And the one at the

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

And the one at the

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

That was a bad one.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

And I’ll be honest with you that’s—

MAYOR HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

Now that was a bad one.

COUNCILLOR CARMEN CORBASSON (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

I think that’s when it was raised.

SENIOR INTERNAL AUDITOR, AL STEINBACH (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

[inaudible] of this audit, Madam Mayor they, ah,  that contractor again, there was no formal evaluation for those contracts. And that’s why we recommended that that be formalized and documented.

HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Audit Committee, May 11, 2009):

There was even an evaluation form used many years ago because of our bad experience with contractors and we’d see their name pop up again being awarded a contract.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010) :

So, Staff and Council approved a policy that outlined how to go about evaluating a contractor to make sure that the City would be doing this due diligence. And what was interesting is, that was never mentioned to the contractor [sic] sub-contractor who was up there!

[cross zoom]

COUNCILLOR PAT SAITO (Mississauga Council Corporate Awards of Excellence Meeting February 24, 2010):

I was assured by Staff at that time that when they did due diligence —and you questioned the due diligence on page 3, which is “I 3c” of the report you filed. You questioned the due diligence of the City.

[dip to white]

MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR PAT SAITO'S ";And Mayor McCallion and I did discuss that with Staff yesterday and we have been assured by Staff that they went to three of the projects" is an insult of the highest order to both those gentlemen and me!

And Mayor McCallion and I did discuss that with Staff yesterday and we have been assured by Staff that they went to three of the projects —former projects, that this contractor had undertaken —that they’d used as references, and they were similar-sized projects.

And the information that we’ve received from our Facilities Staff, who oversaw the project, is that they received good reviews from two of them. They weren’t able, I guess to get a hold of the third one. But two of them did give good reviews and we have that review.

It doesn’t have a lot of detail in it.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (underground somewhere under 130 Adelaide, February 25, 2010):

So instead McCallion and Councillor Saito said, yes, Staff did do due diligence and check [sic] things out.

And again, once I found out that it was Facilities and Properties [sic] Management, again, because I sat in on the Audit Committee, I know that there have been Audits done of that Department that describe their record-keeping as from adequate to non-existent.

February 24, 2010's Mississauga sub-contractor deputants and MISSISSAUGAWATCH have a LOT in common! Both Victims of City of Mississauga Facilities and Properties Management!

And because I research City of Mississauga Corporate Security, also part of Facilities and Properties [sic] Management, there’s a lot of non-existent as well in terms of record-keeping.

So —what’s interesting is, in front of the cameras, there’s this kind of a non-acknowledgment of what happened in the Audit Committee.

[cross fade: logo]

TRANSCRIPT ENDS

Signed,

The (If you like how Mississauga Facilities and Property Management bungles Contracts, you should see the cluster****bungleknobfest that passes for Security!)

P.S. Have I an appropriate sign-off pic? Yep!

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEEE JANUARY 24 2000 MINUTES

COMMENT left at the Mississauga News

The Mississauga Muse

Feb 27, 2010 9:07 AM

Really happy this morning…because I finally answered my biggest question

“Does Hazel McCallion know?” Meaning does Hazel McCallion know how Staff operate? Wednesday’s Council meeting CONFIRMS not just that McCallion KNOWS, but that she, like her Staff are Perps. By not telling those sub-contractors on Wednesday, that at the May 11, 2009 Audit Committee she found out that Internal Audit could find no trace of a formal Contractor Evaluation Policy that was passed by Council “10 years ago” she made her Respectful Workplace utterance about “honesty with the citizens both on the Council and on the part of Staff” a lie. First time I ever stepped foot inside Council Chambers (May 5, 2006). Got The Answer to “Does Hazel McCallion know? Wednesday, February 24, 2010. Zero doubt that Mississauga News “knows” too.

MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY SUBMISSION: MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEE LACKS CONTINUITY “And I want to say that it’s also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee.”

February 21st, 2010  

Short and simple —another video for submission to the Judicial Inquiry.

FACT: I, The Mississauga Muse have been present at more Audit Committee meetings (beginning Fall 2006) than any other City of Mississauga elected official including (Ex-officio) Hazel McCallion.

This video speaks to the ineffectiveness and superficiality of the City of Mississauga’s Audit Committee. Followed by the transcript.

Video: MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY SUBMISSION: MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEE LACKS CONTINUITY” (1:55 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

The reason why I felt my question was important is that I was at Monday’s Audit Committee and the three Councillors who were there in 2006, because I sat in on the last two, were wiped clean. Councillor Iannicca wasn’t on it. I believe Councillors Corbasson and Mullin weren’t on it.

And when I back over the minutes —five years worth of minutes of the Audit Committee, there was a sort of a clean slate of individuals year after year after year. Including Monday brand new people at the councillor-level.

And I want to say that it’s also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee for the Corporation of the City of Mississauga.

That’s all I want to say. So thank you.

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

Thank you. I would like to address that.

Continuity is one thing, yes. The point is the process we use for appointments of Councillors to the Audit Committee is to make sure that all members of Council have the privilege of sitting on the Audit Committee and learning from the process.

That’s the reason for it.

[cross zoom]

MISSISSAUGA COUNCILLOR, PAT SAITO, CHAIR AUDIT COMMITTEE (Audit Committee November 26, 2007):

“It’s been a few years I guess. Is it every few years we’re on the Audit Committee? Pretty well. Pretty well, See then you start to tend to forget what was in the reports that you’re actually working on.”

[clock wipe]

MISSISSAUGAWATCH (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

And when I back over the minutes —five years worth of minutes of the Audit Committee, there was a sort of a clean slate of individuals year after year after year. Including Monday brand new people at the councillor-level.

And I want to say that it’s also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee for the Corporation of the City of Mississauga.

That’s all I want to say. So thank you.

[logo: fade]

MISSISSAUGA MAYOR, HAZEL MCCALLION (Mississauga Council Public Question Period, May 28, 2007):

Thank you. I would like to address that.

(ANIMATED GIF)  CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEE LACKS CONTINUITY "And I want to say that it's also important to have continuity on the Audit Committee"

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA AUDIT COMMITTEEE JANUARY 24 2000 MINUTES

Signed,

The (Check out elected officials who were starting to tend to forget what was in the reports that they were actually working on during the 2000 Audit Committee. And the Staff….) Mississauga Muse

2009 MISSISSAUGA VIDEOS: MISSISSAUGAWATCH Shatters the MYTH behind the City of MYTHississauga

January 1st, 2010  

JANUARY 2009 video INSIGHT INTO THE BRANDING (AND FLUFFING) OF MYTHISSAUGA

Last Blog you saw the pics: The first being, Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion hugging and congratulating Michael Nobrega fellow Director of the Enersource Board after their successful Enersource public meeting and Cable 10 broadcast. Nobrega is president and chief executive of Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) —10% partner with 100% veto power (yes. really!).

Here’s the video uploaded to YouTube on January 25, 2009 of Mississauga Inc and McCallion-Nobrega in action.

Video: GEORGE ORWELL MEETS MISSISSAUGA ENERSOURCE (4:27 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

FEBRUARY 2009 (Uploaded February 10, 2009)

Video of youth/Police interaction on the TTC. Bitter February and the youth was wearing a thin T-shirt —complete with holes.

Video: HOMELESS YOUTH and TORONTO POLICE/SPECIAL CONSTABLES at TTC SUBWAY (Queen St station) 090205 (2:28 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

MARCH 2009 (Uploaded March 12, 2009) FROM THE THIS IS FRIKKIN’ SO-TYPICAL DEPARTMENT

MISSISSAUGAWATCH asks Dr. Alvin Curling if the authors of the Roots of Youth Violence Report had filed any Freedom of Information as part of their research. Nope.

Video: “ROOTS OF YOUTH VIOLENCE” co-author, DR. ALVIN CURLING interviewed by MISSISSAUGAWATCH (4:40 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

APRIL 2009 (Uploaded April 17, 2009)

HAZEL MCCALLION SAVES MISSISSAUGA’S SHERIDAN LIBRARY (4:16 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

MAY 2009 (Uploaded May 17, 2009) PUT A *STAR* BESIDE THIS ONE!

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION: on City Staff’s “complete disregard” for Policies (10:06 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

JUNE 2009 (Uploaded June 5, 2009) MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL SETS A NEW RUBBER-STAMP RECORD!

Video: ROOTS OF YOUTH VIOLENCE: MISSISSAUGA COUNCIL FAILS YOUTH: IN 12 SECONDS! (1:00 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

JULY 2009 (Uploaded July 4, 2009)

Video: SKATEBOARDING MAUI, PAIA STONEWAVE SKATE PARK (1:48 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

AUGUST 2009 (Uploaded August 5, 2009) NOW HERE’S A PROMISE THAT NEVER DREW ITS FIRST BREATH!

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION MAKES PROMISE ABOUT PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD (0:54 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

SEPTEMBER 2009 (Uploaded September 10, 2009)

Video: Poor and Invisible in Toronto. Through a (Tim Hortons coffee shop) Window 6:22)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

OCTOBER 2009 (Uploaded October 2, 2009) NOT ONLY WON’T THIS HAPPEN BUT EXPECT RIGOROUS COVER UP

Video: ‘MAKE MISSISSAUGA YOUTH BANS PUBLIC INFORMATION” says COUNCILLOR PAT SAITO (3:07 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

NOVEMBER 2009 (Uploaded November 1, 2009) WHEREIN WE WITNESSED WHO REALLY RUNS MYTHISSAUGA

Video: “Mega-Builder” Harold Shipp $$$threatens$$$ Seven Mississauga Councillors with $$$DEFEAT$$$ (1:04 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

DECEMBER 2009 (Uploaded December 15, 2009)

Video: MISSISSAUGA JUDICIAL INQUIRY: Citizen-Blogger MISSISSAUGAWATCH requests limited standing (8:09 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube

Follow MISSISSAUGAWATCH on Twitter.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH at www.mississaugawatch.ca

MISSISSAUGAWATCH at MISSISSAUGAWATCH Facebook

MISSISSAUGAWATCH at MISSISSAUGAWATCH YouTube

MISSISSAUGAWATCH photos (and documents secured through Freedom of Information) at Flickr The Mississauga Muse

RELATED LINKS

The Ontario Ombudsman Twitter

OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO website

The Ontario Ombudsman Facebook

The Ontario Ombudsman YouTube

The Ontario Ombudsman Flickr

MISSISSAUGA PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD: MISSISSAUGAWATCH says HAZEL MCCALLION IS RIGHT!

August 5th, 2009  

Forget what the newspapers say. Forget what anyone says. Here’s the only thing that matters.

What Hazel McCallion says!  …And I’m willing to believe her!

MAYOR MCCALLION’S TAKE-HOME BOTTOMLINE MESSAGE ON PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD

Regarding changes to Public Question Period…

TRANSCRIPT from Rogers Cable 10 TV, Mississauga Council Meeting August 5, 2009:

“We’ve dealt with this as a Mayor all these years–I look at it as an improvement in the administration of the business of the City. It really is.

I think today we need to look at efficiency and improvement of the administration of the business. This is one item that I think is going to do that. You know what? In my opinion citizens that are really sincere and dedicated, are going to benefit from this system in a major way. They’re going to see it’s dealing with their questions more professionally in more depth and with more facts and data to answer the question. And I believe we have to do that, and this is the way, in my opinion, it can be done much better than it has in the past.”

UPDATE AUGUST 5, 2009, 22:59  Hawaiian Standard Time. Special thanks to Rogers Cable 10 for providing the webcast of today’s City of Mississauga Council meeting. What follows is the video match for the transcipt above. For the public record.

Video: HAZEL MCCALLION MAKES PROMISE ABOUT PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD (August 5, 2009)  54 sec.

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

Signed,

The “sincere and dedicated” Mississauga Muse

MISSISSAUGA MUSE, MISSISSAUGAWATCH "Conducting Administrative, Oversight & Ombudsman Investigations" GARETH JONES

Bob Dechert and Hazel McCallion field question, “ACCOUNTABILITY? WHERE?” at Safe City Mississauga town hall meeting

June 14th, 2009  

[UPDATE: June 15, 2009. I’ve just been advised of an error in yesterday’s Blog. I’d used “Progressive Conservative” instead of “Conservative” when referring to Mississauga-Erindale MP Bob Dechert. This means I’ll have to rework the video which made reference to “P.C.” and post the corrected version. So please be patient as I make this fix. Thanks also to the reader who pointed out that I spelled “ostensibly” as “bstensibly”. Apologies especially  to Mr. Dechert for referring to his party as “Progressive”. Now only yesterday’s Blog.]

On  June 11, 2009, the former Mississauga Crime Prevention Assocation, aka Safe City Mississauga, hosted a town hall meeting at Ruth Thompson Middle School to assure the assembled that “The federal government has been working tirelessly in the fight against violent crime”.

Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Rob Nicholson was there as special guest and believe me, there was a lot of toughness going on.

According to the Mississauga News article “Tories tough on crime, residents told”, about 60 people turned out to hear Nicholson outline “his government’s commitment to cracking down on crime.”

I was one of those 60 people and I blew my chance to ask the Justice Minister my question which was basically, “Where do you get off getting tough on youth when you don’t get tough on provincial and municipal governments ostensively there to serve them?” But alas… it was not meant to be.

However, I did get to ask a similar question that both Mississauga-Erindale MP Bob Dechert (Conservative) and Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion responded to but predictably didn’t answer as in answer-answer.

Here is the video of that exchange, followed by the  transcript.

Bob Dechert and Hazel McCallion field question, “ACCOUNTABILITY? WHERE?” (3:35 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

TRANSCRIPT.

Brad Butt (Chair: Safe City Mississauga):

Okay, we’ll go to our final question. Ursula, you got a question over here to end us up?

The Mississauga Muse (Witness: MISSISSAUGAWATCH):

Yeah, just regarding Youth programs, I’m just wondering when funding and money is given to various Youth programs (and it really doesn’t matter whether it’s Peel or anywhere else, I’m talking about any municipality specifically in Ontario). I’m interested, what kinds of Accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that there’s effectiveness in the program.

I know that Peel Regional Police had a summit back in 1994 –94 I think it was. And their first recommendation was to ensure that there was Accountability in place for various programs, for cost-effectiveness and everywhere else.

It still isn’t happening!

And I’m just wondering if there’s going to be any kind of effort on the part of the Federal government to kind of make the Provincial government more accountable, who then might turn the screws on the municipal government? Thank you.

Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale MP (Conservative):

Thanks for the question, Ursula. I think the question as to —how do we monitor the programs, the Federal programs at the Federal level for things like at-risk Youth programs to make sure that they’re effective.

The Federal government doesn’t hold the Provincial government accountable or audit their functions but I know that they

The Mississauga Muse (Witness: MISSISSAUGAWATCH):

I know  i—

Bob Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale MP (Conservative):

But we certainly do and Julius can tell you that the programs that his centre operates, there is a separate function of the Department of Safety and Security and other departments that fund the programs at his centre and on an annual basis. They measure effectiveness of the program that his centre and all these centres are delivering to ensure that they are reaching their goals.

Their goals set [sic] for them when they apply for funding and then there is an audit department of that ministry that at the end of the year audits to see if they’ve met their goals. And if they don’t meet their goals they don’t get continued funding for the next year. And they’re told, you know, what they need to do to improve to meet their goals and objectives.

I’m pretty sure that the same thing happens at the Provincial level and I’m sure (turns to Hazel McCallion) Mayor, the same thing happens at the municipal level as well.

(To Mayor McCallion) I don’t know if you want to say something about that provided it’s short.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

At the local level, our Staff [inaudible] applications for grants very thoroughly. It has to meet certain criteria.  And especially they have to have audited statements of their finances. And if they don’t meet, as you say, Bob, they don’t meet the criteria that we set down, then the next year they don’t get the grant. Simple as that.

It’s a very detailed analysis that’s done on every application. It’s done by the Staff and you know, they don’t monitor the program all year round but when they come back to the application the next year, then they got to show proof how they spent the money. Was it spent the way —the purpose for which it was granted? And we ask for audited statements.

TRANSCRIPT ENDS.

Signed,

The Mississauga Muse

MISSISSAUGAWATCH and a www.connect2endviolence.ca billboard (Britannia Rd, Mississauga)

“A lot of things in here were dealt with years ago and it’s a complete disregard for policy.” Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion confirms MISSISSAUGAWATCH Freedom of Information findings regarding City staff

May 20th, 2009  

Hey Missy Dudes and Dudettes,

Today’s just a continuation from my last Blog.

Again, have to admit that it was uplifting to (finally) hear Mayor Hazel McCallion despair to the degree that she did about her City staff’s failure to follow City policies.

Ahhhhhhhhhh to hear McCallion observe that, “There seems to be a complete disregard for policy —following policy…” (Sweet.)

And then, after Commissioner of Corporate Services’ Brenda Breault’s lame, “There have been significant improvements,” McCallion having none of it and countering with, “A lot of things in here were dealt with years ago and it’s a complete disregard for policy… following policy, in my opinion”, all I can say is, “Welcome to my World!”

So. Read it now.  The May 11, 2009 Audit Committee meeting “HAZEL MCCALLION: on City Staff’s “complete disregard” for Policies” YouTube transcript (below).

HAZEL MCCALLION: on City Staff’s “complete disregard” for Policies   (10:06 min)

(Click here to go directly to the clip on YouTube)

May 11, 2009 Audit Committee transcript.

Capital Projects Contract Auditor:

During the course of the audit, we worked with management so that there’s no surprises at the end of the audit. We don’t just simply give a final report and say “Surprise, these are observations we’ve made and concerns that we have”.

We sit down with management as we go through the audit and say exactly what our concerns are so that they have time to address them.  And as you can see by the end of June of this year approximately seven recommendations will be completed. And also that formal evaluation criteria will be completed by mid-2010.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

On that point.. on that point, there was a procedure set up years ago for vendor [inaudible]. Did you find any trace of it?

Capital Projects Contract Auditor:

It’s just an informal vendor performance review right now. It’s not, there’s no formal process in there—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

There was a policy established. Every vendor, especially on major contracts, like when we had bad experience —and we have had some bad experience, there was a policy established years ago that the vendor would be categorized. And in fact some would be cut off from future contracts.

Capital Projects Contract Auditor:

That’s not in there.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

Did you find a trace of it?

Capital Projects Contract Auditor:

No, it’s not in there.

Mississauga Councillor Pat Mullin:

The answer’s no.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

It was set up. I  can tell you.

Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson:

I remember the discussion.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

(turns to Councillor Corbasson) Do you remember?

Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson:

I remember the discussion.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

Some of you who’ve been around long will remember. It was set up. So obviously it got lost in the shuffle somewhere. Cuz we ran into some bad examples. And that’s when we set up the policy. That’s years ago. That’s not —ten years ago, would I be right? At least. So what happened to it?

Sally Eng, Director, Internal Audit:

There is some mention of a purchasing By-law where we would be able to —or the purchasing agent has the authority to,  prevent the bidder from bidding in future contracts. But we have not been able to find any detailed processes relating to what you’re talking about.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

OK.

Mississauga Councillor Pat Mullin:

[inaudible] that we should look into, I guess for the future. Because I remember the discussion.

[inaudible  —several speakers at once]:

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

I’m getting a little frustrated as Mayor as we set up policies and then they’re not followed. And that’s what bothers me. I was in the business —in the private sector and we had millions of dollars in contracts. And it’s been something I’ve been promoting  —is control of contracts. And that policy was set up because we ran into one vendor who were [sic] behind two millions dollars, I remember.

Anyway.

So now we’re going to set up one up. Fine.

Someone:

Yeah.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

If we set one up, it better be followed. That is the key. No use setting it up if it’s not going to be followed. You know, I don’t know why there’s such a disregard for policy.

Capital Projects Contract Auditor:

Just to conclude. Working with Facilities and Property Management, we’ve had a good rapport with them and I just want to thank Ken—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

The guy that did the renovations at the . I hope he never sees another contract. Am I right?

Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson:

And the one at the [inaudible]

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

And the one at the [inaudible]

Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson:

That was a bad one.

Capital Projects Contract Auditor:

And I’ll be honest with you that’s—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

Now that was a bad one.

Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson:

I think that’s when it was raised.

Capital Projects Contract Auditor:

[inaudible] of this audit, Madam Mayor they, ah,  that contractor again, there was no formal evaluation for those contracts. And that’s why we recommended that that be formalized and documented.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

There was even an evaluation form used many years ago because of our bad experience with contractors and we’d see their name pop up again being awarded a contract.

Mississauga Councillor Pat Mullin:

Any other questions on this?  Councillor Corbasson.

Mississauga Councillor Carmen Corbasson:

Again, I’ll raise the issue that I raised under the external audit. I don’t expect an answer today but I think that this is probably the appropriate forum to bring a report back to. I’m surprised that it wouldn’t be caught through audits in the past —notwithstanding how do we get to twelve years of not charging utilities. And of course now we’re going to try and play catch up. And I’d like some answers how we got  to where we are today and what we put in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

I know there’s more besides the two in my ward. Plus staff did confirm that. I didn’t go into the details but there are others that have fallen through the cracks so to speak. So I’d like a report to come back to audit.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

Well, I’m not happy with the report, I can tell you. I’m not happy with the contents of the report. There seems to be a complete disregard for policy —following policy.

[reading] “There is no  [inaudible]  to evaluate vendor performance.” There was. Not followed. In my opinion.

And then it goes on. I mean there’s so many things in this report -that indicates-

[reading] “The contract could receive double credit for the deposit and is eventually refunded by the region.” I mean [inaudible] This is not a good report on the management of the finances of contracts, I’m sorry. It is a very poor report. Very poor performance.

And we’ve dealt with contracts over the years. It’s been one of the —one of the things that the Audit Committee  —cuz we’re issuing contracts for millions of dollars. And here we have one guy approving  —[inaudible]  is that?  Where’s the one where there’s one person has been given authority —or has assumed authority.

Sales taxes. We don’t know where we’re going on sales taxes. You know I read this report  —very discouraging, I have to tell you as Mayor, of the control of contracts.

It’s hard to determine whether [inaudible] came out at the top or came out way at here: [reading]  “In general there’s segregation of duties in the processing of approval of payments.” We dealt with that years ago.  That there should be a process of approval of payments  —not one individual given, well [inaudible] [reading] “Project Manager is the only one involved in clarifying, processing and approving payments for cash allowance and [inaudble]”

That’s one that you looked at.  How many more that you didn’t look at has [sic] the same arrangement, I don’t know.

I’m very disappointed, I have to tell you. This is not a good report. And boy there needs to be some tough action taken to implement financial control, I have to tell you. It’s just not a good report.

Commissioner of Corporate Services, Brenda Breault

Just a clarification on [inaudible] Madam Mayor, that is being highlighted in here that the staff have to take action on. But some of the things that have been identified have been corrected [inaudible]. There have been some significant improvements since the whole audit process has begun.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

When?

Commissioner of Corporate Services, Brenda Breault

2007, they started—

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

Yeah!—

Commissioner of Corporate Services, Brenda Breault

Now these projects began before some of the corrections and improvements have been made in our project management processes. I have staff now from our financial services group who are going in and taking a look at the projects as well in the interim —[inaudible] interim audit to ensure that they have a project manual in place now. And that things are being followed and that the proper documentation and authorization and all the rest is occurring.

These projects, two of the three, started before we got all these pieces in place before we got all these improvements that they’ve been working on over the last couple of years in place.

The most recent project, which was the Vic Johnston, was completed after we’ve made all these improvements —and certainly it was much better managed. You can speak to Internal Audit on that —that we have made significant improvement in how we are handling our processes.

That’s not to say that there’s not still work to be done, there is. I mean taxes tend to be a complicated area where many of our operating departments are not clear on when, you know PST vs GST and what’s refundable. And we’re working on that as well as the whole legislation is going to change on that when we go to a harmonized tax.

So that will impact how we apply tax as well. But we are still working on that and I wouldn’t want to give you the impression that things have not gotten significantly better since some of the shortfalls you’ve seen in these projects which will impact audit in this report. Because it’s not the case. There have been significant improvements.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion:

Brenda. That is now.

A lot of these items that are in here were dealt with years ago. The Policy. The corrections. The advice, etc at Audit Committees. So if any improvements have been made, it’s only recently. And that to me doesn’t answer my question.

A lot of things in here were dealt with years ago and it’s a complete disregard for policy.  Following policy, in my opinion.

Why would anybody on a major contract be the one signing officer to approve all payments and all credits and everything? Not acceptable. And that has been in place for years and years.

You know there’s audit reports  —I have a stack of them like this [gestures] and I’m going to go through, when I have time, to point out that many of the things in here were dealt with years ago. Dealt with years ago. And are not being followed.

Long long pause….

TRANSCRIPT ENDS

Signed,

The (Now imagine a “complete disregard” for policies pertaining to treatment of citizens and youth) Mississauga Muse

HAZEL MCCALLION (maybe) finally getting it about her Employees' "TRUST, QUALITY, EXCELLENCE"


Bear